Pacu-an vs. People

Positive open-court identification prevails over denial and alibi and is not destroyed by minor inconsistency with a prior ex parte sworn statement where the witnesses corroborate each other on the material act of stabbing and the discrepancy is explained and concerns only immaterial detail.

Christopher Pacu-an and Peter Romer Abao were friends residing in Tibag, Barangay San Lorenzo, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija. Zaldy Milad, his wife Alicia Milad, and their son Alvin Milad lived as Pacu-an's neighbors, with the Milad house situated about ten meters from Pacu-an's house and Zaldy's body later found about two meters from it. Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion temporal, and the Revised Penal Code rules on mitigating circumstances and the application of divisible penalties frame the dispute.

On July 29, 2003 at around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. in Tibag, Barangay San Lorenzo, Gapan City, a drinking spree for a birthday celebration was underway at petitioner's house. According to the prosecution, Alicia Milad was at Delos Reyes Street calling her son home when she heard a commotion at her house. She returned and, from about five meters away in an area illuminated by light from a front door and a neighbor's house, saw petitioner stabbing a man who fell to the ground and whom she recognized by his shirt and then his face as her husband Zaldy, with blood coming from his chest. She shouted for the group including Rommel to stop, but Zaldy's head was hit; she then turned his body over, cried for help, and Zaldy was brought to Good Samaritan Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Alvin Milad, who was in front of Rey Cabatuando's house across petitioner's house, testified that he saw petitioner holding a knife and running toward the small alley and saw his father lying on the ground covered in blood while being held by Alicia. Alicia asked him to call his aunt Rebecca Milad, and Zaldy was brought to the hospital by Macoy Ordoñez and Michael Ordoñez in Michael's owner-type jeep. Alvin stated the place was illuminated by light from Rey's house and from petitioner's open front door, and described what petitioner was wearing. Dr. Robert P. Marcelo, who conducted the autopsy, found two lacerations on the occipito-parietal areas of the head, a penetrating 1.8-centimeter stab wound on the left chest at about nipple level, a superficial 1.8-centimeter stab wound at the left axillary area, and a 2-centimeter laceration on the left wrist, opining that a sharp bladed pointed weapon such as a kitchen knife, possibly a fan knife with minimum length of about four inches, caused the wounds and that the chest wound injuring the aorta and right auricle caused death.

For the defense, Rommel testified that Zaldy's son Aldy quarreled with Zaldy over bringing out a tricycle, that petitioner told Zaldy Kuya Zaldy tama na po but Zaldy cursed him, and that Alicia later apologized at petitioner's house. Thereafter, according to Rommel, the drunk Zaldy came to petitioner's house cursing, grazed the group with a knife, and stabbed petitioner's brother Jeff on the left side, after which Rommel and petitioner carried Jeff to the street and brought him to the hospital in Gapan City. Petitioner testified similarly that he tried to stop the quarrel, returned home after being cursed, and that Zaldy wielded a knife at him and companions Loloy and Jojo, stabbing Jeff; he claimed Loloy and Jojo killed Zaldy but he was charged because he had quarreled with Zaldy, and that he surrendered at the Gapan Police Station after his aunt told him Alicia had filed a case. Jeff testified that Zaldy arrived angry with a knife from his waist while being held by Rey, that people ran, and that Zaldy stabbed him inflicting a four-inch wound before petitioner and Rommel brought him out to find a vehicle.

The trial court acquitted Rommel on reasonable doubt as to hitting Zaldy with a stone, but credited Alicia's categorical testimony that petitioner stabbed Zaldy and Alvin's testimony that petitioner fled with a knife. The Court of Appeals sustained the credibility findings, gave greater weight to open-court testimony over the Sinumpaang Salaysay, and rejected denial and alibi against positive identification.

• Weak and Unreliable Identification: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in upholding conviction despite weak, inconsistent and unreliable identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Material Inconsistency on Identity: Petitioner maintained that Alicia's inconsistency was not a mere inconsistency to be lightly overlooked because it concerned the identity of Zaldy's assailant, which like the elements of homicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, pointing to her Sinumpaang Salaysay stating that a witness informed her petitioner stabbed Zaldy versus her open-court claim that she herself saw petitioner stab Zaldy.

• Credibility and Positive Identification: Whether petitioner was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrator despite the alleged inconsistency between Alicia's Sinumpaang Salaysay and her open-court testimony.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and sufficient provocation and what indeterminate penalty and civil liability should be imposed for homicide.

• Credibility and Positive Identification: Yes. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt was established, the minor discrepancy not diminishing the probative value of positive open-court identification corroborated on material points.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: Yes to both mitigating circumstances. With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower than reclusion temporal, or prision mayor, applies, with an indeterminate sentence from prision correccional to prision mayor and P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages plus 6% interest.

• Credibility and Positive Identification: Alicia explained on cross-examination that her Sinumpaang Salaysay phrase ayon po sa nakasaksi referred to what Rey Cabatuando told her that same night, while affirming I, sir. I witness it and I saw Christopher stabbing somebody. Because slight inconsistencies and variances hardly weaken probative value given natural frailties of memory, and immaterial details do not discredit testimony on the very act of the accused, the discrepancy was deemed minor where testimonies corroborated one another on material points. Added weight was given to open-court declarations over ex parte affidavits, which are usually incomplete and inaccurate and do not purport to contain a complete compendium of details, with honest inconsistencies even erasing suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Trial court findings on credibility, affirmed by the appellate court, were accorded the highest respect absent overlooked material fact, and positive identification corroborated by Alvin's account of petitioner holding a knife and running toward the alley prevailed over denial and alibi, which are easily fabricated and essentially unreliable.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: Voluntary surrender was sustained as found below. Sufficient provocation under Article 13, paragraph 4 was also appreciated, defined as any unjust or improper conduct adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong proportionate in gravity, which must immediately precede the act. Zaldy's violent behavior of cursing petitioner, entering petitioner's house, and wielding a knife at petitioner and companions immediately before the stabbing constituted such provocation. Applying Article 64, paragraph 5, two mitigating circumstances without aggravating circumstance require imposition of the penalty next lower than that prescribed for homicide, hence prision mayor, and under the Indeterminate Sentence Law the term ranges from prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor as maximum, fixed at 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, with the appellate court's damages sustained.

• Credibility of witnesses; effect of minor inconsistencies — Slight inconsistencies and variances in a witness's declarations hardly weaken probative value given the natural frailties of the human mind, and immaterial details do not discredit testimony on the material act of the accused; as long as testimonies corroborate on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy credibility. Applied to uphold Alicia's identification despite the difference between her Sinumpaang Salaysay and open-court testimony, which was explained and corroborated by Alvin on the stabbing and flight with a knife.
• Weight of affidavits vs. open-court testimony — Sworn statements taken ex parte are generally inferior to testimony given in open court because affidavits are usually incomplete and inaccurate and do not purport to contain a complete compendium of details; discrepancies may even erase suspicion of rehearsal and strengthen credibility. Applied to prefer Alicia's direct testimony that she saw petitioner stabbing Zaldy over her prior written attribution to what another witness told her.
• Positive identification vs. denial and alibi — Positive identification prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, which can be easily fabricated and are essentially unreliable. Applied to reject petitioner's claim that Loloy and Jojo killed Zaldy and his alibi of bringing Jeff to the hospital.
• Respect for trial court findings on credibility — Findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to the highest respect and great weight, and when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are generally binding, disturbed only where a material fact of weight was overlooked that would alter the result. Applied to sustain the concurrent findings crediting Alicia and Alvin.
• Sufficient provocation as mitigating circumstance — Under Article 13, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, sufficient provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong proportionate in gravity, which must immediately precede the act. Applied where Zaldy cursed petitioner, entered his house, and wielded a knife at petitioner and companions immediately before being stabbed.
• Application of penalty with two mitigating circumstances — Under Article 64, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law shall be imposed in the period deemed applicable. Applied to lower homicide's reclusion temporal to prision mayor and, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, impose prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor as maximum.

• "Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value." — States the canonical rule for discounting minor inconsistencies, relied upon to preserve Alicia's credibility despite variance between her affidavit and testimony.
• "It is well settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants." — Defines the material-point test for credibility, applied to hold that the attribution language in the Sinumpaang Salaysay did not undermine identification of petitioner as the stabber.
• "A sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Sworn statements taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court." — Articulates the hierarchy favoring open-court declarations, applied to give full weight to Alicia's in-court positive identification.
• "any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in gravity." — Provides the operative definition of sufficient provocation, applied to Zaldy's cursing, intrusion, and knife-wielding immediately before the killing.

• Madali vs. People, 612 Phil. 582 (2009) — Followed as authority that slight inconsistencies hardly weaken probative value and immaterial details do not discredit testimony on the accused's act.
• Avelino vs. People, 714 Phil. 322 (2013) — Reiterated Madali vs. People that testimonies corroborating on material points retain credibility despite minor inconsistencies; applied to Alicia and Alvin.
• People vs. Manigo, 725 Phil. 324 (2014) — Followed for the rule that courts give more weight to open-court declarations than sworn statements because ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete and inaccurate.
• People vs. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 263 (2017) — Followed that ex parte sworn statements are inferior and that honest discrepancies strengthen rather than destroy credibility by negating rehearsal.
• People vs. Eling, 576 Phil. 665 (2008) — Followed on deference to trial court credibility findings, binding when affirmed by the Court of Appeals absent overlooked material fact.
• People vs. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 207 (2013) — Cited to support that positive identification prevails over denial and alibi.
• Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 216642, September 8, 2020, citing Miranda vs. People, G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 — Cited for the definition and requisites of sufficient provocation as mitigating.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes reclusion temporal, from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, for homicide; applied as the starting penalty before mitigation for Zaldy's killing by stabbing.
• Article 13, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code — Provides the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat by the offended party immediately preceding the act; applied to Zaldy's cursing, intrusion, and knife-wielding.
• Article 64, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Requires imposition of the penalty next lower than prescribed where two or more mitigating circumstances exist without aggravating circumstances; applied to reduce the penalty to prision mayor and fix the indeterminate sentence.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to set the prison term with prision correccional as minimum and prision mayor as maximum.

Leonen, J. (Chairperson), Inting, J., and J. Lopez, J., concur. Hernando, J., on official leave. No separate concurring reasoning is set out in the text.