People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis

The conviction for murder was affirmed because the trial court's credibility findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were not shown to rest on overlooked significant matters; conspiracy was inferable from concerted acts, and voluntary surrender was not established absent spontaneity and acknowledgment of guilt.

Hipolito Rementilla was a barangay councilman in Barangay Paagahan, Mabitac, Laguna. Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis were among several persons charged with his murder, along with Barangay Chair Benito Moncada and others. The prosecution proceeded under the Revised Penal Code's murder provision, while Republic Act No. 9346 proscribed the imposition of capital punishment. A separate civil action for civil indemnity was filed by the victim's daughter and docketed as Civil Case No. 99-92647.

Hipolito Rementilla was a barangay councilman in Barangay Paagahan, Mabitac, Laguna. On the night of December 20, 1998, the barangay held a Christmas party. In the early morning of December 21, 1998, Hipolito was shot. An Information charged Noel Lita, Romulo Malinis, Barangay Chair Benito Moncada, Sebastian Requitud, Joselito Piliin, Benigno Obrador, Inosencio Pondano, Felicisimo Amada, and Julian Consul with murder, alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, intent to kill, use of unlicensed firearms, nighttime, and superior strength. All the accused except Barangay Chair Moncada, who was at large, pleaded not guilty.

For the prosecution, Ma. Socorro Banyon testified that in the afternoon of December 20, 1998, she saw Amada, Barangay Chair Moncada, and Requitud standing on the road leading to Hipolito's house, pointing to the house while talking. Nonilon Rementilla testified that around 11:50 p.m. that same day, he saw his uncle Hipolito walking home from the barangay Christmas party; he offered to accompany him, but Hipolito refused, so Nonilon followed out of concern for his safety. Nonilon saw Consul come from the rear right side of Hipolito and shoot him twice. Amada then emerged from Hipolito's left rear side and shot him once more, and later shot him five more times while Hipolito lay supine on the pavement. Nonilon also saw Lita and Malinis nearby, holding guns and seemingly acting as lookouts. When Nonilon realized he had been spotted, he ran toward the highway. The assailants fled, and Nonilon returned to his uncle, who uttered, "Si Fely, si Puti at sina . . .", which Nonilon understood to mean Amada and Lita, whose nickname was Puti. Hipolito's wife Zenaida and others arrived, brought him to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Benedicto Sayaman testified that on December 20, 1998, he attended a meeting at Barangay Chair Moncada's house where all the accused gathered to discuss the killing of Hipolito and several others. The meeting began around 10:00 p.m. with Moncada announcing the "work" he intended to be accomplished. According to the plan, Hipolito would be killed while on his way home from the barangay Christmas party; Consul would shoot him first, Amada would ensure the plan was accomplished, and the other accused would serve as lookouts. Moncada provided the group with weapons. All except Sayaman agreed, but Sayaman kept his disagreement to himself out of fear. When the group dispersed, Sayaman went home and stayed there; past midnight, he heard several gunshots. Dr. Winston Tan, who conducted the postmortem examination, testified that Hipolito sustained eight gunshot wounds: three on the front and five on the back. Police Inspector Lorenzo Sabug testified on the ballistic examination of a .45 caliber bullet and eight .45 caliber fired cartridges recovered from the crime scene, concluding that all were fired from a colt .45 caliber firearm.

The defense interposed denials and alibis. Malinis testified that on the night of the incident he was at home sleeping when police officers came looking for his brother Lita and one "Onyok." When he located Lita and Onyok the following day, he accompanied them to the municipal hall, but upon orders of the Mayor of Mabitac, Malinis was also charged with killing Hipolito. He said CIS Investigator Arvin Evangelista told him to point to Barangay Chair Moncada as the mastermind; when he refused because he had no knowledge of the crime, he was detained. Malinis admitted that his house was a mere walking distance from Hipolito's house. Lita testified that on the night of the incident he was watching the Christmas party at the barangay plaza with Bino Garcia, Onyok Aklan, and Willy Bocod; later they had a drinking session at Bocod's house about half a kilometer from the plaza until past 3:00 a.m., after which he, Garcia, and Aklan went to his nipa hut and slept. The following morning, Lita learned of Hipolito's death from Malinis. Both Malinis and Lita suspected they were implicated for refusing to testify against Barangay Chair Moncada.

The other accused gave similar denials. Requitud, barangay captain of Barangay Inapayan, said he was helping prepare for their Christmas party and then went home, passing a neighbor's house; his testimony was corroborated by Florentino Dela Cruz, who saw him fixing Christmas lights at the Barangay Paagahan hall, and Luciano Albitos, who said Requitud passed by his house to help slaughter a pig. Requitud speculated that he was implicated for refusing to testify against Moncada when Mayor Sarayot, Hipolito's nephew, asked him to testify about a week after Hipolito's burial. Amada testified that he left the Christmas party around 11:00 p.m. and went home to watch a movie with his family until around 1:00 a.m. Pondano testified that after holding a vigil for his recently departed wife, he slept from 8:00 p.m. of December 20, 1998 until the next morning; Hipolito was his "kumpare," and his testimony was corroborated by his daughter. Piliin testified that on the night of the incident he was at his home in Barangay San Miguel, about eight kilometers from Barangay Paagahan, though he owned a motorcycle that could travel that distance; he admitted that earlier that night, around 7:00 p.m., he had visited Mayor Sarayot's house in Barangay Paagahan to purchase cow meat. Consul initially denied any participation but subsequently recanted. He testified that he met with Barangay Chair Moncada during the Christmas party, where it was agreed that he and one Luisito San Juan would follow Hipolito home and whoever approached him first would shoot first. Consul said he fired successive shots at Hipolito from his super .38 gun before running away; he heard several more gunshots afterward but was not sure who fired them. He testified that he never saw any of his co-accused before, during, or after the incident, aside from Requitud, whom he allegedly saw while incarcerated at the provincial jail.

The trial court credited Nonilon's testimony as a straightforward and categorical eyewitness account, finding no familial bias despite his relationship with the victim because of his generally cordial relationship with the accused. It found his identification believable given his familiarity with the accused, his reasonable distance from the events, and sufficient lighting from a nearby tamarind tree. Consul's subsequent admission to shooting Hipolito bolstered Nonilon's version. Dr. Tan's findings of gunshot wounds at the back of the right chest, back portion of the right arm, and back portion and middle third of the left thigh were consistent with Nonilon's recollection of where Consul and Amada fired. The trial court noted the inconsistency that Nonilon testified Hipolito was shot five times while lying face-up, suggesting five frontal wounds, while Dr. Tan found five entry wounds in the back and only three in the front; it dismissed the discrepancy by theorizing that Hipolito may have squirmed in pain and turned his back until he ended up supine. The Court of Appeals affirmed these factual findings.

• Burden of Proof: Accused-appellants Lita and Malinis argued that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: They questioned the existence of conspiracy, claiming it should have been proven by facts and not by mere inferences and presumptions.
• Consul's Admission: They cited Consul's admission of shooting Hipolito and emphasized his categorical statement that neither of them was present during the shooting or the meeting with Barangay Chair Moncada.
• Eyewitness Credibility: Even assuming their presence at the shooting, they questioned the veracity of Nonilon's account of their roles as lookouts and assailed his credibility, claiming he acted contrary to human experience when he did nothing to stop the attack.
• Medical Inconsistencies: They cited inconsistencies between Nonilon's and Dr. Tan's testimonies as to where and how many times Hipolito was shot, and claimed the trial court's theory that Hipolito squirmed on the ground while being shot contradicted Nonilon's testimony that he last saw his uncle lying supine.
• Equipoise Doctrine: They alleged that they should be acquitted under the equipoise doctrine.
• Voluntary Surrender: Assuming the convictions were valid, they argued that the trial court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, pointing out that they had voluntarily appeared at the municipal hall the day after the incident.
• Alibi and Denial: They argued that not all denials and alibis are fabricated, and that the rule on positive testimony trumping negative testimony should not be deemed ironclad, since a lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness.

• Elements of Murder: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that all the elements of murder were duly established by Nonilon's eyewitness testimony, as corroborated by Consul's admission.
• Credibility: It argued that Nonilon's testimony was credible, invoking the rule that the factual findings of the trial court should be given full faith and credit unless there is a showing of misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion, and that the trial court is in the best position to assign values to declarations on the witness stand.
• Trial Court's Weighing of Evidence: It maintained that the trial court carefully weighed the evidence and even disregarded Sayaman's testimony for being contrary to human experience.
• Medical Evidence: It argued that the trial court did not misapprehend Nonilon's testimony vis-a-vis Dr. Tan's testimony, and that it pieced together the testimonial evidence with the physical evidence of the postmortem examination to arrive at a logical conclusion.
• Conspiracy: It argued that no direct proof is needed to establish conspiracy since it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the commission of the crime; that both Lita and Malinis were seen at the crime scene, holding weapons and acting as lookouts while Hipolito was being shot, established their unity in criminal design.
• Voluntary Surrender: It argued that Lita and Malinis failed to establish the elements of voluntary surrender, and that even if voluntary surrender could mitigate the penalty, the existence of evident premeditation and treachery would cancel it out.
• Alibi: It alleged that Lita and Malinis may not rely on their alibis when these were not corroborated by any other witness, and that as long as there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

• Reversible Error: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis for murder.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly gave credence to Nonilon Rementilla's eyewitness testimony despite his relationship to the victim and alleged inconsistencies.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among Lita and Malinis was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Alibi and Denial: Whether the defenses of alibi and denial warranted acquittal.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

• Reversible Error: No. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction; the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding absent overlooked significant matters.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. Nonilon's testimony was straightforward and categorical, corroborated by Zenaida, Banyon, Dr. Tan, and Consul's admissions; minor inconsistencies do not impair credibility.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from acts before, during, or after the crime; armed presence as lookouts and concerted shooting established unity.
• Alibi and Denial: No. The alibis were uncorroborated and both accused admitted being within the vicinity; they failed to satisfy the requirements for a valid alibi.
• Voluntary Surrender: No. The essence is spontaneity and acknowledgment of guilt; they pleaded not guilty and maintained innocence, so voluntary surrender was not established.
• Penalty: Yes. Murder is penalized by reclusion perpetua under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Republic Act No. 9346 proscribes capital punishment.

• Reversible Error: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It applied the rule that the trial court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked, and that a reversal becomes even less appropriate when the findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court had the opportunity to personally observe the witnesses, so its assignment of probative value to testimonial evidence was not disturbed. Nonilon's testimony was found straightforward and categorical, corroborated by Zenaida, Banyon, Dr. Tan, and Consul's admissions. Accused-appellants failed to institute any valid defenses or point to any significant matters overlooked by the lower courts, so the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed their conviction.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Nonilon's account was credible despite his relationship with the victim. The trial court found no reason for him to falsely testify against the accused, and his familiarity with them, his reasonable distance from the events, and sufficient lighting from a nearby tamarind tree rendered his identification believable. Consul's subsequent admission to shooting Hipolito bolstered Nonilon's version. Although Nonilon's testimony had inconsistencies with Dr. Tan's medical findings, these did not disprove that Hipolito was shot eight times. Minor inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies may indicate a lack of coaching and thus spontaneity and truthfulness. An inconsistency that has nothing to do with the elements of a crime is not a ground to reverse a conviction. Thus, the actual locations of Hipolito's wounds did not detract from Nonilon's eyewitness account that accused-appellants were present and aiding the commission of the crime.

• Conspiracy: No direct proof is needed to establish conspiracy since it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the commission of the crime. From Nonilon's narration, Consul fired two shots for the initial execution of the scheme; Amada followed with another shot and five more slugs toward the victim. These were concerted steps aimed at accomplishing the intended purpose of ending Hipolito's life. The presence of Piliin, Lita, and Malinis very near the crime scene was far from passive; each was carrying a gun and acting as a lookout, ready to assist the assailants should anybody stand in the way. The Court of Appeals also held that the overt acts of Lita and Malinis, as witnessed by Nonilon and corroborated by Zenaida, Sayaman, and Consul, along with Hipolito's dying declaration identifying Amada and Lita, exhibited a unity of purpose and execution. Conspiracy was therefore established.

• Alibi and Denial: Accused-appellants' alibis and denials, while not automatically unmeritorious, were not even corroborated despite their claims that they were with companions at the time of the killing. They also failed to satisfy the requirements for a valid alibi, as both admitted that they were reasonably within the vicinity where Hipolito was killed. As argued by the Office of the Solicitor General, as long as there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. Both Lita and Malinis failed to exclude the slightest chance of their presence at the crime scene. Their defenses therefore lacked merit.

• Voluntary Surrender: The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. Here, after Malinis had been informed that Lita was a suspect in Hipolito's killing, both appeared at the municipal hall and were later detained. Upon arraignment, they both pleaded not guilty and continued to maintain their innocence. It cannot be said that they surrendered themselves as an acknowledgment of guilt. Without this element, the surrender cannot be deemed spontaneous and thus falls short of establishing voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. A mere allegation, without proof on how they satisfied the elements, was insufficient.

• Penalty: Accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, in view of Republic Act No. 9346 proscribing the imposition of capital punishment. Accused-appellants' civil indemnity was subject to determination in the separate civil action filed by the victim's daughter and docketed as Civil Case No. 99-92647.

• Credibility findings on appeal — The trial court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked; a reversal of these findings becomes even less appropriate when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court applied this rule in affirming the Regional Trial Court's and Court of Appeals' crediting of Nonilon's eyewitness testimony.

• Minor inconsistencies — Slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect credibility; they are indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble. An inconsistency that has nothing to do with the elements of a crime is not a ground to reverse a conviction. The Court applied this to the discrepancy between Nonilon's testimony and Dr. Tan's medical findings on the location and number of wounds, holding that it did not disprove the shooting or accused-appellants' presence and participation.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, and may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the commission of the crime. The Court found conspiracy from the concerted actions of Consul and Amada in shooting Hipolito and the armed presence of Lita and Malinis nearby as lookouts, showing unity of purpose and execution.

• Alibi — Alibi is often viewed with caution because it is inherently weak and unreliable and easy to fabricate; it must be corroborated and must exclude the possibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene. The Court rejected the alibis of Lita and Malinis because they were uncorroborated and both admitted being reasonably within the vicinity of the killing.

• Voluntary surrender — The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. The Court held that accused-appellants' appearance at the municipal hall did not qualify because they pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence, negating acknowledgment of guilt.

• Murder penalty under Republic Act No. 9346 — Murder is penalized by reclusion perpetua, and Republic Act No. 9346 proscribes the imposition of capital punishment. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all accessory penalties provided by law.

• "The trial court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked. A reversal of these findings becomes even more inappropriate when affirmed by the Court of Appeals." — This states the standard of review applied by the Supreme Court in affirming the lower courts' credibility findings against accused-appellants.

• "It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Nelmida, defines the rule on minor inconsistencies and was applied to the discrepancy between Nonilon's testimony and Dr. Tan's postmortem findings.

• "The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Garcia, states the controlling doctrine on voluntary surrender and was used to reject accused-appellants' claim that their appearance at the municipal hall was mitigating.

• "Accused-appellants are, therefore, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, in view of Republic Act No. 9346 proscribing the imposition of capital punishment." — This states the Court's conclusion on guilt and the penalty, reflecting the affirmance of the conviction and the statutory proscription on capital punishment.

• People vs. Dimapilit, 816 Phil. 523, 540-541 (2017) — Cited for the rule that the trial court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked, and that a reversal becomes even less appropriate when the findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
• People vs. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529 (2012) — Cited for the rule that slight variations in a witness's testimony as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect credibility and may indicate truth and lack of coaching; an inconsistency unrelated to the elements of a crime is not a ground to reverse a conviction.
• People vs. Garcia, 577 Phil. 483 (2008) — Cited for the definition of voluntary surrender as requiring spontaneity and the intent to give oneself up and submit unconditionally to the authorities because of acknowledgment of guilt or to save the authorities the trouble and expense of search and capture.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines and penalizes murder. The Court affirmed accused-appellants' conviction under this provision and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Proscribes the imposition of capital punishment. The Court cited this law in imposing reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty.

Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.