People of the Philippines vs. Gentem Kintuan

Quasi-recidivism is properly appreciated where the accused commits a new felony while serving sentence for a prior final conviction, and, being a special aggravating circumstance, it cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance; recidivism, by contrast, requires that the prior conviction be for a crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code as the new offense. Positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses establishes the commission of the crime, and the accused's denial cannot prevail over such identification.

Buagas Mastura was a Section Commander of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) in Salimbao, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, where he resided with his two wives and seven children. Gentem Kintuan was a resident of Barangay Ibutigen, Sultan Kudarat, known to Buagas before the incident. The case unfolded against a backdrop of raids and counter-raids between rival political groups, with Buagas being an appointee and first cousin of Mayor Tacao Mastura, the arch political rival of Ex-Governor Sangacala Baraguir, Kintuan's leader.

At past midnight on February 2, 1982, the house of Datu Buagas Mastura, a Section Commander of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), in Salimbao, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, was fired upon by approximately twenty persons using assorted high-powered weapons. Buagas was then sleeping in the house with his two wives and seven children. He exchanged fire with the attackers using his carbine until he ran out of ammunition, after which the attackers left in three groups, one toward Piniring, another toward Limbo, and the third toward Polangi River. As a consequence of the raid, one of Buagas' wives, Norma Mastura, was mortally wounded and died at the Cotabato City Regional Hospital, while four of his children — Naribai, Uko, Sadat, and Aladin, all surnamed Mastura — were seriously injured but survived due to timely medical attention.

Buagas testified that he recognized accused-appellant Gentem Kintuan, Monga Gani, Barra Pao, and Mama Bedo as among the attackers because he already knew them before the incident, and because of the moonlight and the light coming from a mercury lamp on the highway, aside from the fact that some of the attackers came as near as four to seven meters from his house. His testimony was corroborated by Kamlon Mamadra, another CHDF member and a neighbor residing about thirty meters away, who declared that he was awakened by gunshots, gathered his family in one corner of the house for safety, got his garand rifle, and proceeded toward the direction of the firing. He crawled and crossed the barangay road; the attackers, numbering about twenty, saw him and fired at him. He dove into the barangay road canal and fired back. After consuming four magazines, he heard Monga Gani call Kintuan to withdraw. He knew both men because they were residents of the same locality and had been detained at the provincial jail where he had once been a provincial guard, and he actually saw them from a distance of only about five meters. The attackers thereafter retreated in three directions, one group going toward Piniring, another toward Limbo, and the third toward Polangi River.

Another prosecution witness, Pendatum Usman, the Executive Officer of the 2nd ICHDF Battalion of Sultan Kudarat and a resident of Limbo, Sultan Kudarat, stated that he was still awake reviewing his thesis when he heard continuous and intense firing in the direction of Salimbao. He called his brother and brother-in-law who lived nearby, also members of the ICHDF, and instructed them to "make a block" at the mosque because that was the trail going to and coming from Salimbao. Two minutes after they had deployed at the side of the mosque, they saw men coming, and he shouted, "HALT," identifying themselves as ICHDF members. Instead of stopping, the men fired at them and they fired back. The encounter lasted for two minutes. Four of the men in the group were hit. He then heard Monga Gani call on Gentem Kintuan, "Sabanggi ako, nasugatan" (help me, I am wounded). The group thereupon retreated to Barangay Bulalo bringing their wounded but leaving a dead companion who was later identified as Commander Joy Desumangcop. Usman had known Monga Gani and Kintuan when Usman was still a member of the MNLF because they used to camp at Barangay Ibutigen where Monga Gani and Kintuan resided. The empty shells recovered from the scene of the crime by the police showed that the attackers used various high-powered weapons such as armalite M-16, automatic rifle, J-1 FAL grenade launcher, and carbine.

In defense, Kintuan denied any participation in the assault and declared that on the night of the incident he was at his house at Ibutigen, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, and that he did not see any of the persons attributed to have been with him that night. He claimed that in a confrontation with Buagas, the latter wanted him to admit that he was one of the attackers so he could be utilized as a state witness, and threatened that he would be killed should he not cooperate. When he told Buagas that he knew nothing about the incident, he was referred to Mayor Tacao Mastura, a cousin of Buagas, who told him to confess that it was Datu Udtong Baraguir and Ex-Governor Sangacala Baraguir who ordered them to attack Buagas' house. As he refused to do their bidding, he was mauled by the Mayor's men and sustained injuries. He further claimed that Mayor Mastura disliked him because when both of them, together with others, returned to the folds of the law, the Mayor wanted to get his firearm, but he refused to give it.

After trial, the lower court found Kintuan guilty as charged, applying recidivism as an aggravating circumstance and passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance, and sentenced him to Life imprisonment, with the corresponding awards of indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and costs. On appeal, Kintuan assigned two errors: that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which he claimed were riddled with inconsistencies and incredibilities in violation of the rules of evidence, and that the trial court erred in ignoring his testimony, which was supported by a medical certificate attesting to the injuries inflicted by the police under Mayor Tacao Mastura. The trial court's factual findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and on the positive identification of Kintuan as one of the attackers are the matters central to the Supreme Court's analysis.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which he claimed were riddled with inconsistencies and incredibilities in violation of the rules of evidence.
• Disregard of Defense Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the trial court erred in ignoring his testimony, which was supported by a medical certificate duly showing or attesting to the injuries inflicted by the police under Mayor Tacao Mastura.

• Explanation of Buagas' Cessation of Fire: The Solicitor General pointed out that when Buagas stopped firing because he had run out of ammunition, the attackers must have thought that he was already dead and accordingly left.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged inconsistencies and incredibilities therein.
• Disregard of Defense Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in ignoring the testimony of the accused, which was supported by a medical certificate attesting to the injuries allegedly inflicted by the police under Mayor Tacao Mastura.
• Recidivism: Whether recidivism was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Quasi-Recidivism: Whether quasi-recidivism may be appreciated in this case.
• Passion and Obfuscation: Whether passion and obfuscation was properly appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on credibility are accorded the highest degree of respect by appellate courts, and no compelling reason exists to disturb them, the defense having failed to make any specific showing of variance among the testimonies.
• Disregard of Defense Evidence: No. The claim of mauling was not persuasive, as no extrajudicial confession was executed and the medical certificate and x-ray plate were not properly presented and were rejected by the trial court.
• Recidivism: No. Recidivism was improperly appreciated because the prior convictions were for crimes under Title 10 (Crimes Against Property) of the Revised Penal Code, while the present offense falls under Title 8 (Crimes Against Persons).
• Quasi-Recidivism: Yes. Quasi-recidivism is properly appreciated because Kintuan committed the new felony while serving sentence for Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape, a special aggravating circumstance that cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.
• Passion and Obfuscation: No. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated because the offense was committed in a spirit of lawlessness and was planned and meditated before its execution.
• Penalty: Reclusion perpetua. Although the penalty would have been death in its maximum period, the abolition of capital punishment by the 1987 Constitution reduced the penalty for Murder to reclusion perpetua.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The rule consistently adhered to in criminal prosecutions is that in the matter of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of respect by appellate courts because the former is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. No compelling reasons exist in this case to disturb the trial court's findings. The defense argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were incredible and inconsistent with one another, but no specific showing was made as to which testimonies were at variance. Consequently, such testimonies, in the absence of improper motives, are worthy of full faith and credit. Even upon examination, the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution disclosed no such inconsistencies; on the contrary, the testimonies corroborated one another and completed the whole scenario. Buagas and Kamlon Mamadra positively identified Kintuan as one of those who raided the former's house. They could identify him because he was only several meters away from them, respectively, added to the fact that it was a moonlight night and there was illumination from a nearby mercury lamp post. Both witnesses gave a similar estimate of the number of attackers, approximately twenty. One of the raiders, Monga Gani, was also separately identified by them. Witness Pendatum Usman further corroborated the above narrations by testifying that he, with other CHDF members, had an encounter with the retreating group of men who had attacked Buagas' house, among whom were Kintuan and Monga Gani. Usman also positively identified Kintuan and Monga Gani as among the group. Positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses proves the commission of the crime, and denial of the same by the accused cannot prevail over such identification. The Court found nothing incredible nor contrary to human experience in Buagas' testimony that he saw Kintuan at a distance of about three to four meters and that the latter and his group simply retreated when Buagas stopped firing. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, this can be explained by the fact that when Buagas stopped firing because he had run out of ammunition, the attackers must have thought that he was already dead and accordingly left.

• Disregard of Defense Evidence: Kintuan declared that Buagas' declaration should be received with caution because of his interest in the case, being an appointee and first cousin of Mayor Tacao Mastura, the arch political rival of Ex-Governor Sangacala Baraguir, Kintuan's leader. Buagas' interest, if not concern, over the case is to be expected, for after all, he and his family had been the target of the raid; it was his wife who had been killed, and his four children seriously wounded. It does not follow, however, that he is a biased witness. His relationship to the victims neither disqualifies him from testifying, nor does it render his testimony utterly devoid of belief, in the absence of improper motive actuating him to testify falsely against the accused. No such improper motive was established in this case. Kintuan's claim that he was mauled by the Mayor's men due to his refusal to admit the commission of the crime and to testify that the attack against Buagas was upon the order of Ex-Governor Sangacala Baraguir did not persuade the Court. For one thing, Kintuan had not executed any extrajudicial confession. For another, the medical certificate and the x-ray plate, which could have attested to the injuries allegedly sustained by him, were not presented in evidence, the justification being that they were allegedly in the possession of a certain Datu Kabo and Datu Monib who had both since died. Ultimately, Kintuan submitted a plain xerox copy of a medical certificate in their formal offer of evidence, but the same was objected to by the prosecution for lack of proper identification and was consequently rejected by the trial court.

• Recidivism: The attack on Buagas' family was attended with treachery, the shooting being sudden and unexpected and in the dead of night when they were already fast asleep. Likewise, the aggravating circumstances of superiority and nocturnity are present, but they cannot be considered because they are deemed absorbed in treachery. The crime was also aggravated by dwelling because Buagas and his family were assaulted in their house. Although not alleged in the Information, the trial court also appreciated the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, Kintuan having admitted during the trial that he had been previously convicted of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Multiple Attempted Homicide on May 14, 1980 in Criminal Case No. 25 of the Court of First Instance of Maguindanao, Branch III, Cotabato City, and of Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape in Criminal Case No. 27 of the same court. This is a reversible error. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. Both crimes for which Kintuan was previously convicted fall under Title 10 of the Code listing Crimes Against Property. The present crime of which he now stands charged is embraced in Title 8 covering Crimes Against Persons. Recidivism, therefore, cannot be considered in this case.

• Quasi-Recidivism: Since it has been proven by the evidence that when Kintuan was charged in 1982 of the present offense, he was already serving sentence for Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape, but that he escaped from jail in 1980, quasi-recidivism may be appreciated. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, in which case he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony, and this special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.

• Passion and Obfuscation: Reversible error was further committed by the trial court in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation on the ground that raids and counter-raids were being committed by one rival political group against the other and the incident involved could have been one of them. Such mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated since Kintuan committed the offense in a spirit of lawlessness. Furthermore, the very nature of the crime committed and the number of offenders indicate that it had been planned and meditated before its execution.

• Penalty: Considering that Kintuan is a quasi-recidivist, the penalty for this complex crime would have been imposable in its maximum period, or death, regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. However, with the abolition of capital punishment by the 1987 Constitution (Section 19, Article III), the penalty for Murder would now be reclusion temporal, maximum, to reclusion perpetua, which should be imposed in its maximum period, or reclusion perpetua.

• Credibility of Witnesses — In criminal prosecutions, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect by appellate courts because the former is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The Court applied this doctrine in declining to disturb the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses, noting that the defense failed to make any specific showing of variance among the testimonies and that no improper motive was established.

• Positive Identification vs. Denial — Positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses proves the commission of the crime, and denial of the same by the accused cannot prevail over such identification. The Court applied this doctrine because Buagas and Mamadra positively identified Kintuan as one of the attackers, and Usman corroborated the identification, while Kintuan merely denied participation.

• Treachery; Absorption of Superiority and Nocturnity — Treachery attends the commission of a crime when the attack is sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The aggravating circumstances of superiority and nocturnity, when present, are deemed absorbed in treachery and cannot be separately appreciated. The Court found treachery present because the shooting was sudden and unexpected and occurred in the dead of night when the victims were already fast asleep, and held that superiority and nocturnity were absorbed therein.

• Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling aggravates a crime when the offense is committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter not having given provocation. The Court found this circumstance present because Buagas and his family were assaulted in their house.

• Recidivism — A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. The Court held that recidivism was improperly appreciated because the prior convictions for Robbery in Band with Homicide and Multiple Attempted Homicide, and Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape, both fall under Title 10 (Crimes Against Property), while the present offense falls under Title 8 (Crimes Against Persons).

• Quasi-Recidivism — Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, in which case he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. This special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. The Court applied this doctrine because Kintuan committed the present offense while serving sentence for Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape, having escaped from jail in 1980.

• Passion and Obfuscation — Passion and obfuscation, to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, requires that the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. The Court held that this circumstance cannot be appreciated where the accused committed the offense in a spirit of lawlessness and where the very nature of the crime and the number of offenders indicate that it had been planned and meditated before its execution.

• Abolition of Capital Punishment — Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution abolished capital punishment, thereby reducing the imposable penalty for crimes previously punishable by death. The Court applied this provision in imposing reclusion perpetua instead of death, notwithstanding that the accused was a quasi-recidivist.

• "The rule consistently adhered to in criminal prosecutions is that in the matter of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial Court are given weight and the highest degree of respect by Appellate Courts because the former is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the affirmance of the conviction, articulating the settled standard of appellate deference to the trial court's credibility findings and the exception thereto.

• "Positive Identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses prove the commission of the crime, and denial of the same by the accused cannot prevail over such Identification." — This passage defines the controlling doctrine on the relative weight of positive identification against mere denial, which the Court applied in rejecting Kintuan's defense.

• "A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage states the canonical definition of recidivism under Article 14, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court used to reverse the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstance.

• "Quasi- recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, in which case he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony and this special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance." — This passage states the definition and effect of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applied in lieu of recidivism and which justified the maximum period of the penalty.

• People vs. Sarol, L-66240, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 125 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are given the highest degree of respect by appellate courts.
• People vs. Garcia, L-44364, April 27, 1979, 89 SCRA 440 — Cited in support of the exception to the rule on credibility findings, namely, where the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value.
• People vs. Valdemoro, L-51367, January 22, 1981, 102 SCRA 170 — Cited for the rule that testimonies of prosecution witnesses, in the absence of improper motives, are worthy of full faith and credit.
• People vs. Perez, L-44188, January 21, 1981, 102 SCRA 352 — Cited for the rule that positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses proves the commission of the crime.
• People vs. Tuscano, L-66570-71, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 203 — Cited for the rule that denial by the accused cannot prevail over positive identification.
• People vs. Abejuela, L-32702, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 503; People vs. Veloso y Militante, L-33132, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 515 — Cited for the rule that relationship of a witness to the victim neither disqualifies him from testifying nor renders his testimony devoid of belief, absent improper motive.
• People vs. dela Fuente, L-63251-52, December 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 518 — Cited for the rule that treachery attends the commission of a crime where the shooting is sudden and unexpected.
• People vs. Baseloy, L-38012, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 39 — Cited for the rule that treachery is present where the attack occurs in the dead of night when the victims are already fast asleep.
• People vs. Araja, L-24780, June 29, 1981, 105 SCRA 133; People vs. Tirol, L-30538, January 31, 1981, 102 SCRA 558 — Cited for the rule that the aggravating circumstances of superiority and nocturnity are deemed absorbed in treachery.
• People vs. Romero, L-38786, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 236 — Cited for the rule that dwelling aggravates a crime when the offense is committed in the dwelling of the offended party.
• People vs. Macariola, L-40757, January 24, 1983, 120 SCRA 92 — Cited in connection with the appreciation of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Jose, L-35280, August 12, 1983, 124 SCRA 89 — Cited for the rule that quasi-recidivism requires the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
• People vs. Aro, L-38141, May 15, 1984, 129 SCRA 216 — Cited for the rule that the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.
• People vs. Pagal, L-32040, October 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570 — Cited for the rule that passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated where the crime was planned and meditated before its execution.
• People vs. Dioso, L-38346-47, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 616 — Cited for the rule that where the accused is a quasi-recidivist, the penalty is imposable in its maximum period regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

• Article 14, paragraph 9, Revised Penal Code — Defines recidivism as a circumstance where the accused, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same Title of the Code. The Court applied this provision in holding that recidivism was improperly appreciated because the prior convictions were under Title 10 (Crimes Against Property) while the present offense was under Title 8 (Crimes Against Persons).
• Article 160, Revised Penal Code — Defines quasi-recidivism as a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, in which case he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. The Court applied this provision because Kintuan committed the present offense while serving sentence for Robbery in Band with Attempted Rape.
• Section 19, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides for the abolition of capital punishment. The Court applied this provision in reducing the imposable penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, notwithstanding that Kintuan was a quasi-recidivist.

Yap (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred.