People vs. Baysa

The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder. The Court also held that the death penalty could no longer be imposed following the abolition of the death penalty under Section 19(2), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, and that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed instead.

The appellants Domingo Baysa and Rogelio Baysa, together with Elpidio Baysa (who was already dead at the time of trial), were residents of Sitio Lubrosman, a small area within Barangay San Rafael, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. The victims, Casimiro Ordanza and Martiniano Acosta, also lived in the same barangay, with Acosta residing outside Sitio Lubrosman. The two murders occurred on the same evening and in the same barangay where Elpidio Baysa, the son of appellant Domingo, was also killed. The case was governed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the informations alleging the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and abuse of superior strength.

On the evening of June 25, 1978, two murders occurred in Barangay San Rafael, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. The appellants Domingo Baysa and Rogelio Baysa, together with Elpidio Baysa (the son of Domingo, who was also killed on the same evening), Antonio Yabut, and victim Casimiro Ordanza were residents of Sitio Lubrosman. The other victim, Martiniano Acosta, lived in Barangay San Rafael but outside Sitio Lubrosman.

Eulalia Acosta Vda. de David testified regarding the death of her brother, Martiniano Acosta. At 7:00 o'clock in the evening of June 25, 1978, after supper, Martiniano Acosta went underneath the kitchen of their house to make a pigeon cage with the aid of a lighted kerosene lamp. She heard the dogs barking and, peeping through a hole in the wall, saw three men approaching — Elpidio, Rogelio, and Domingo Baysa, all armed with guns. She heard several gunshots and her brother exclaiming "Ay na, Diyos ko!" meaning "Oh, my God!" She then saw him sprawled on the ground. Fernando Bibat's testimony corroborated Eulalia's account. He related that he and Felix Bruno went to Barangay San Rafael to get the working carabao of Martiniano Acosta and took supper with the Acostas. While Martiniano was working on a pigeon cage, Bibat heard the dogs barking and saw the three Baysas walking towards the house. As they drew nearer, he noticed Rogelio carrying a long firearm and heard a gun report. He watched Rogelio fire another shot and walk with Elpidio towards the body of Martiniano Acosta. Domingo asked whether Martiniano was already dead, and Rogelio answered "Natayin," meaning "He is dead."

Antonio Yabut testified regarding the death of Casimiro Ordanza. At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, while lying down in his house, he heard a gunshot followed by consecutive ones. Casimiro Ordanza came rushing to his house, calling for help, and said he saw two persons who fired at him and that he shot one of them in return. Casimiro then went to look for Rogelio and Elpidio in their respective houses to find out the "true man" who, according to him, was from Sitio Lubrosman. After several attempts to locate the two, Casimiro removed his clothes except his short pants so that he would not be recognized. Antonio Yabut himself tried to look for the two Baysas but along the way saw a dead person, whom he identified as Elpidio Baysa, being cradled by his wife near a canal. About ten meters away stood appellants Domingo and Rogelio Baysa, Martiniano Lobusta, Marcos Valdez, and Artemio Baysa. He noticed Rogelio holding a carbine. He saw Casimiro Ordanza running and heard him calling Rogelio: "Gel, Gel!" As Casimiro came nearer, Antonio heard Domingo say: "Gel, Gel! Patayin mo na!" meaning "Gel, Gel! Kill him!" to which Rogelio retorted: "Huwag, kami na lang," meaning "Not anymore. We will do it by ourselves." Casimiro and Rogelio left the crowd and walked side by side. As they passed near Antonio, Rogelio ordered Casimiro to walk ahead and aimed the carbine at him. When they were sixty meters away, one gunburst was heard, after which Rogelio returned to the crowd and shouted "Nalpasin. Natayin," meaning "It is finished. He is dead."

Antonio Yabut also revealed that there was a prearranged plan to kill a certain "Barbasan," whom he later learned to be Martiniano Acosta. He was invited by Rogelio, Artemio, and Domingo Baysa to participate in that plan. He was told that the reason for the plot was Martiniano Acosta's being instrumental in the recovery of a carabao stolen by the Baysas from a certain Canaway. At 7:00 o'clock in the morning of June 25, 1978, Rogelio fetched Antonio and asked him to accompany him to the house of Elpidio Baysa, who informed Antonio of the plan's execution on that same date.

Dr. Ysmael Bardoles conducted post-mortem examinations on the cadavers of both victims. The examination on Casimiro Ordanza revealed a gunshot wound through and through, with the entrance measuring around one centimeter in diameter at the occipital region of the head, and the exit measuring around 4½ inches in diameter, with the brain expelled out. The examination on Martiniano Acosta revealed seven gunshot wounds with different sizes of point of entry, indicating that at least three kinds of firearms were used by the killers. The trial court noted that the discovery of an empty shell of a 30 caliber rifle near the body of Casimiro Ordanza supported the conclusion that Rogelio Baysa shot him with a 30 caliber rifle.

• Appreciation of Facts and Evidence: The appellants argued that the trial court erred in its appreciation of the facts and evidence presented by the prosecution.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The appellants contended that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
• Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Case No. (725) 30-T: The appellants contended that the trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, with their guilt established by way of inference from the sole testimony of Antonio Yabut, who could not have seen the actual shooting of Casimiro Ordanza on a dark night.
• Inconsistencies in Affidavits: The appellants claimed that the affidavits of Eulalia Acosta Vda. de David showed a discrepancy in that she initially failed to mention the presence of witness Fernando Bibat at the scene of the crime.
• Delay in Reporting: The appellants asserted that the failure of Eulalia to report the names of the accused-appellants to the authorities soon after the incident created doubt as to the identification made by the prosecution.
• Inconsistencies During Ocular Inspection: The appellants contended that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of Eulalia and Fernando Bibat given during the ocular inspection conducted on November 14, 1983, involving the number and identity of persons who held and fired the gun, as well as the number of lamps that lighted the place where Martiniano Acosta was shot.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The Solicitor General argued that the circumstances presented, even though not descriptive of the actual firing at the victim, were sufficient to prove the identity of the perpetrators and the manner of committing the crime. No one was seen near the victim who could have inflicted the wound other than Rogelio Baysa, who was then carrying a carbine.
• Explanation for Delay in Reporting: The Solicitor General argued that Eulalia's initial hesitation to identify the killers was due to fear of retaliation, and that she subsequently divulged their identities to Sgt. Guialogo. Her initial reluctance should not affect the probative value of her testimony.
• Inconsistencies Explained by Passage of Time: The Solicitor General argued that since the statements of the witnesses during the ocular inspection were taken five years after the crime was committed, the witnesses cannot be expected to accurately relate and uniformly describe all the details of the crime.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: Whether the appellants' guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
• Penalty Imposition: Whether the death penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T should be modified in light of Section 19(2), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses were upheld, the Court having found no showing of any ignoring or misappreciation of facts and evidence that would substantially alter the results of the case. The well-established rule is that where the issue pertains to the credibility of a witness, the Court will not interfere with the findings of the trial court, which had the peculiar opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: Yes, the appellants' guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder. The positive identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses, corroborated by post-mortem examination findings, established their guilt to a moral certainty.
• Penalty Imposition: The death penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T, consistent with Section 19(2), Article IV of the present Constitution, which abolished the death penalty.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court applied the well-established rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses will not be interfered with on appeal, considering that the trial court had the peculiar opportunity to observe the gestures, features, demeanor, and manner of testifying of the witnesses, unless the Court has plainly overlooked undisputed facts of substance and value that, if properly considered, would affect the result of the case. The records did not reveal any showing of ignoring or misappreciation of facts and evidence presented by the parties that would substantially alter the results of the case. The Court cited Medios vs. Court of Appeals, People vs. Carido, People vs. Paragoso, and People vs. Turla in support of this principle.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: In Criminal Case No. (725) 30-T, the Court rejected the appellants' contention that the trial court relied on circumstantial evidence from the sole testimony of Antonio Yabut. Neither the time of the night during which the crime was committed, nor the distance of 60 meters travelled by Rogelio before consummating the killing to avoid being identified, would prevent the witness from rendering a truthful account of the incident. The circumstances, as presented, were sufficient to prove the identity of the perpetrators and the manner of committing the crime. The postmortem examination findings, which revealed a gunshot wound with point of entry at the back of the head of Casimiro Ordanza, corroborated Antonio Yabut's testimony that Rogelio shot Casimiro from behind. The Court also rejected the appellants' contention that it was contrary to human nature for a father to order his son to commit a crime within the hearing distance of another person, noting that Domingo Baysa's overwhelming motive was revenge against Casimiro Ordanza for killing his son Elpidio on that same night. The Court likewise rejected the claim that it was unusual for Casimiro to walk with someone whom he knew had the intention to kill him, noting that the records did not show any proof of knowledge or forewarning on the part of Casimiro of any intent to kill him.

In Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T, the Court found that the alleged discrepancy in Eulalia's affidavits was explained by her nervousness at the time, and her supplementary statement was corroborated by Sgt. Vicente Guialogo, who conducted an investigation in their house on the night of the killings. The Court noted that the witness's initial reluctance to identify the appellants was due to fear of retaliation, which was satisfactorily explained and should not affect her credibility. The Court cited People vs. Punzalan for the proposition that the initial reluctance of witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into a criminal investigation is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility. Regarding the inconsistencies during the ocular inspection conducted five years after the crime, the Court held that witnesses cannot be expected to accurately relate and uniformly describe all the details of a crime after such a long passage of time, and any apparent disparity between the testimonies may be explained by differences in observation or memory, which does not necessarily suggest any intention towards untruthfulness.

• Penalty Imposition: The Court modified the death penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T to reclusion perpetua, consistent with Section 19(2), Article IV of the present Constitution, which abolished the death penalty. The Court also modified the awards for damages, ordering the appellants to pay indemnity in the amount of ₱30,000.00 in each case in lieu of the indemnity and moral and exemplary damages imposed by the trial court, while affirming the awards for actual damages.

• Credibility of Witnesses — Where the issue pertains to the credibility of a witness, the appellate court will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the matter, considering that it had the peculiar opportunity to observe the gestures, features, demeanor, and manner of testifying of the said witnesses, unless the Court has plainly overlooked undisputed facts of substance and value that, if properly considered, would affect the result of the case. The Court applied this doctrine in upholding the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility.

• Single Witness Rule — The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder. The Court applied this rule in affirming the conviction of the appellants, finding that the lone testimony of Antonio Yabut, corroborated by post-mortem examination findings, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Initial Reluctance of Witnesses — The initial reluctance of witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into a criminal investigation is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility. The Court applied this doctrine in upholding the credibility of Eulalia Acosta Vda. de David, whose initial hesitation to identify the appellants was due to fear of retaliation.

• Abolition of Death Penalty — Under Section 19(2), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was abolished, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed in its place. The Court applied this constitutional provision in modifying the death penalty imposed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T.

• "It is a well-established rule that generally, 'where the issue pertains to the credibility of a witness, this Court will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the matter, considering that it had the peculiar opportunity to observe the gestures, features, demeanor and manner of testifying of the said witnesses, unless the Court has plainly overlooked the undisputed facts of substance and value that, if properly considered, would affect the result of the case.'" — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on appellate review of trial court findings on witness credibility, which the Court applied in affirming the conviction.

• "It is a well-settled rule that 'the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.'" — This passage states the canonical formulation of the single witness rule, which the Court applied in upholding the conviction based on the testimony of Antonio Yabut.

• "The initial reluctance of witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into a criminal investigation is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Punzalan, establishes the doctrine that a witness's initial hesitation to identify perpetrators due to fear does not diminish the probative value of their testimony.

• People vs. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 — Cited by the Solicitor General and relied upon by the Court to support the conclusion that no one was seen near the victim who could have inflicted the wound other than Rogelio Baysa, who was then carrying a carbine.
• People vs. Obenque, 147 SCRA 448 (1987) — Cited to support the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is established to a moral certainty.
• People vs. de la Cruz, 148 SCRA 582 (1987) — Cited for the rule that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.
• People vs. Punzalan, 153 SCRA 1 (1987) — Cited for the doctrine that the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case does not affect credibility.
• People vs. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 (1986) — Cited to support the finding that the overwhelming motive of appellant Domingo Baysa was revenge against Casimiro Ordanza for killing his son Elpidio on that same night.
• People vs. Natipravat, 145 SCRA 483 (1986) — Cited for the presumption that a police officer performed his duties in a regular manner, supporting the credence given to the testimony of Sgt. Vicente Guialogo.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing murder, under which the appellants were charged and convicted for the killing of Casimiro Ordanza and Martiniano Acosta, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
• Section 19(2), Article IV, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional provision abolishing the death penalty, pursuant to which the Court modified the death penalty imposed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. (726) 31-T to reclusion perpetua.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.