People vs. Clariño

Treachery is present when the victim is attacked while asleep, because the sudden and unexpected assault deprived him of any real chance to defend himself; a credible eyewitness identification sustains conviction despite denial, alibi, and delayed reporting.

Accused-appellants Lazaro Clariño, Constantino Clariño, Reynaldo Clariño, and Danilo Clariño are members of one family, with Lazaro as the father of the other three. They were tried for murder together with four co-accused who remained at large.

At around 5 o’clock in the afternoon of September 9, 1995, Rodolfo Consulta went to Sitio Sto. Cristo, Barangay Cale, Tiwi, Albay, to catch bats because the full moon made it a good time to do so. While looking for a suitable tree, he saw Jose Brosas, whom he had known for some time, stripping abaca in a makeshift hut owned by Domingo Cotara. The hut had no walls, measured about two by three meters and was three meters high, stood beside an abaca plantation, and had an elevation about one meter high inside where one could strip abaca or lie down to rest. A tabog tree about four meters tall stood in front of the hut, and Consulta found it suitable for catching bats. At around 6 o’clock that evening, Consulta climbed the tabog tree to wait for bats; from there he could see Brosas stripping abaca inside the hut, and later he saw Brosas retire on the elevation and cover himself with a blanket.

At around 11 o’clock that evening, Consulta saw eight men inside the hut: Lazaro Clariño, Constantino Clariño, Reynaldo Clariño, Danilo Clariño, Aguinaldo Clariño, Mariano Cope, Quirico Clariño, Jr., and Avelino Cobeta. Illumination came from the full moon and from flashlights carried by four of the men. The eight were armed with bolos and, in the case of some, pointed bamboos. Except for Avelino Cobeta, who lived in a different barangay, Consulta and all the Clariños were residents of the same barangay in Tiwi, Albay. According to Consulta, Constantino Clariño struck Brosas with his bolo while Brosas was asleep; Constantino was followed by the others, who pounced on Brosas and each inflicted stab or hack wounds. No struggle took place as the victim simply fell to the ground, and the assailants then left. After seeing them gone, Consulta climbed down from the tabog tree and ran toward his house. The following morning, September 10, 1995, he reported the matter to Barangay Tanod Amando Cope but did not identify the culprits because of fear; on December 16, 1996, or 15 months after the incident, he told the police everything he knew about the crime.

In the afternoon of September 10, 1995, Domingo Cotara reported to the police that Jose Brosas was missing; he had allowed the victim to use his hut the day before. Domingo Cotara, Amando Cope, and two companions went to Sitio Sto. Cristo to look for Brosas but could not find him. They found a blanket under the makeshift bed in the hut where Brosas had slept the night before; it was bloodstained and riddled with holes and rents caused by a sharp instrument. They did not touch the blanket and continued searching the vicinity, but found no trace of the victim. The next day, at around 7 o’clock in the morning, the victim’s sister, Zenaida Balgemino, together with her husband and Amando Cope, went to Sitio Sto. Cristo to verify reports that Brosas had gone, but they too failed to find him there; they took the blanket earlier found by Cope and his companions and gave it to the Tiwi police. In the afternoon of September 11, 1995, the decomposing body of Brosas was found buried in the mud around 150 meters away from the hut where he worked.

Dr. Leonides B. Cruel examined the body and reported eight wounds: a hacked wound on the frontal temporo-parietal area running across, four inches long, gaping, breaking the skull, and exposing brain tissues; a stab wound at the right base of the neck, lateral and posterior to the right mandibular angle, two inches wide and two inches deep; a hacked wound on the left arm, anterior, four inches long, severing muscle tissues and blood vessels; a hacked wound on the right forearm, anterior, two inches long and two inches deep, cutting muscles and blood vessels; a hacked wound on the left leg, anterior, just below the left knee, cutting muscle, bones, and blood vessels and almost cutting the whole extremity; another hacked wound just below the fifth, about two inches below, cutting muscles, bones, and blood vessels; a hacked wound on the left hand, completely cutting the fingers to their bases and sparing the thumb; and a hacked wound on the right leg, anterior, just below the right knee, almost completely cutting the whole extremity. The cause of death was hemorrhage, external and internal, secondary to stab and hack wounds. Because the body was in a state of decomposition, Dr. Cruel estimated that Brosas had died two days before the examination. Without excluding the possibility that wounds nos. 2 and 5 could have been inflicted while both assailant and victim were standing, Dr. Cruel opined that Brosas was attacked while lying down, as indicated by the slant of his wounds. He concluded that the wounds were caused by a sharp instrument, probably a bolo, but that unless the bolo had a pointed end, the wounds could not have been caused by a single assailant using only one instrument; a single assailant could have inflicted them only by using at least two different weapons, such as a pointed sharp instrument and a sharp instrument with a blunt end. Wounds nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 were fatal; wound no. 1 could have caused an automatic blackout if it was the first inflicted, and the multiplicity of wounds caused severe blood loss that led to death.

The prosecution also presented the record of Domingo Cotara’s report on the disappearance of Jose Brosas, Dr. Cruel’s postmortem examination report, Consulta’s sworn statement, the blanket found inside the makeshift hut, and Zenaida Balgemino’s sworn statement. For the defense, Amando Cope, Ernesto Diaz, and accused-appellants testified. Accused-appellants denied involvement. Lazaro Clariño testified that on the night of September 9, 1995, his wife and the other accused-appellants, who are their children, attended novena prayers at the house of his sister Elena Bornalo for his brother-in-law Lino Bornalo, who died on September 2, 1995 and was buried on September 6, 1995; the nightly novena prayers continued after the burial, and his family was in charge of taking care of those who joined the novena that night. Constantino, Reynaldo, and Danilo testified that they were in their aunt Elena Bornalo’s house helping prepare food for those attending the novena and stayed there until the morning of September 10, 1995. Ernesto Diaz corroborated them, saying he attended the novena prayers that evening and stayed in Elena Bornalo’s house from 7 o’clock in the evening until 1 o’clock in the morning of the next day; he saw accused-appellants attending to the visitors and later watching a card game, was certain none of them left while he was there, and even asked one of them to accompany him when he was about to leave at around 1 o’clock in the morning of September 10, 1995. Amando Cope, a barangay tanod and first cousin of accused Mariano Cope, denied that Consulta informed him in the morning of September 10, 1995 about the killing of Jose Brosas.

Lazaro and Constantino Clariño claimed that Consulta was merely being used by Rodolfo Condat to impute the killing of Brosas to them. Lazaro testified that on at least two occasions in the past, members of the Condat family maliciously accused his sons of crimes: security guards in a drilling site in Catanduanes, all surnamed Condats, accused one of his sons of stealing from the storehouse, and on another occasion a nephew of Rodolfo Condat was suspected of killing a student, but Rodolfo Condat pointed to one of Lazaro’s sons and even had him investigated by the NBI. Constantino testified that on the night of August 3, 1995, Domingo Condat, Marcelo Condat, Salvador Condat, and the victim Jose Brosas went to their house demanding to see him; when Constantino refused, his father Lazaro came out instead, and Brosas and the Condats took Lazaro to a secluded place in well site no. 10, Tiwi, bound him, and detained him there until midnight. Lazaro filed a criminal complaint for illegal detention against the Condats and Brosas. Despite this, Lazaro and Constantino said they did not hold any grudge against Brosas because he allowed Lazaro to go home that same night. The parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of PNP evidence custodian SPO1 Alfredo Sona, to whom Balgemino gave the blanket found inside the makeshift hut where Brosas had been last seen alive.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Accused-appellants argued that Rodolfo Consulta’s testimony was incredible because he chose a tabog tree near the hut despite other tabog trees closer to his house, and because the hut had a roof and no light inside, so he could not have seen the killing.
• Instigation and Ill Motive: Accused-appellants argued that Consulta was instigated by Rodolfo Condat to implicate them because of a long-standing grudge held by the Condats against them.
• Sufficiency of Identification: Accused-appellants argued that Consulta’s testimony did not establish that they were the assailants and did not prove that the person attacked was Jose Brosas, since the body was found 150 meters away from the hut.
• Physical Impossibility: Accused-appellants argued that the hut, about 2 by 3 meters, could not accommodate eight assailants, and that the attack could not have lasted an hour as Consulta claimed.
• Admission of Blanket: Accused-appellants argued that the blanket should not have been admitted because no laboratory examination showed that the stains on it were bloodstains.
• Denial and Alibi: Accused-appellants denied involvement and claimed alibi, supported by Ernesto Diaz, that they were at Elena Bornalo’s house for novena prayers on the night of September 9, 1995.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC decision was issued with grave abuse of judicial discretion amounting to excess and lack of jurisdiction.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether Rodolfo Consulta’s testimony was credible and sufficient to identify accused-appellants as the killers despite the alleged improbabilities, the 15-month delay in reporting, and the lighting and distance conditions.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether accused-appellants’ denial and alibi should be credited over the prosecution’s positive identification.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, and nighttime were properly appreciated in convicting accused-appellants of murder.
• Admission of Blanket: Whether the blanket was admissible despite the absence of laboratory examination showing that the stains were blood.
• Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs of Jose Brosas were proper.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. The SC upheld Consulta’s positive identification, finding the full moon and flashlights sufficient illumination and the 15-month delay explained by fear.
• Denial and Alibi: No. Alibi is inherently weak and accused-appellants failed to show physical impossibility; positive identification prevails over denial.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Treachery was present because the victim was asleep; abuse of superior strength was absorbed, while evident premeditation and nighttime were not established.
• Admission of Blanket: No error. The blanket was not necessary to sustain conviction because the eyewitness positively identified accused-appellants.
• Damages: Yes. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was affirmed, and moral damages of P50,000.00 were added.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The SC upheld Consulta’s credibility. It noted that the moon was full on the night in question; according to PAGASA, the moon on September 9, 1995 was 100% illuminated, going in a southeast direction at an altitude of 70 degrees, so it shone at its fullest in a slanting or diagonal direction in Tiwi, Albay. Consulta was only one meter above the hut and was not positioned directly above it, so there was little doubt that he saw what transpired inside. Although Consulta said there was no light inside the hut, this did not mean it was so dark that he could not see the killing: the full moon gave illumination, and some of the malefactors carried flashlights that showed some of their faces, and they were all known to him. The SC cited People vs. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684 (1999), for the rule that illumination from the moon, and even from the stars, is fair and sufficient to identify perpetrators, even if the witness was 6½ to 15 meters away hiding in the bushes, as in Arceño vs. People, 256 SCRA 569 (1996), and even at about 40 to 45 meters, as in People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000. As between a negative assertion and a positive one, the latter is given more weight under the rules on evidence; the burden was on the defense to show that Consulta could not have witnessed the incident, and accused-appellants failed to discharge it. The SC also found nothing improbable in the body being found 150 meters away: there was an interval of more or less 16 hours between the time Consulta left the crime scene and the time a search for the body began, so it was probable that the body was taken from the hut and dumped 150 meters away to prevent discovery, and aside from the disappearance of Brosas, no other killing in Sitio Sto. Cristo, Barangay Cale was reported within that week. Nor was it physically impossible for eight individuals to get inside the hut, which had no walls or partitions and could easily allow eight to nine persons inside. Consulta’s error in estimating that the attack lasted an hour did not take away the fact that he saw the assault; inconsistencies on negligible details do not destroy the veracity of a testimony, as held in People vs. Mahinay, 304 SCRA 767 (1999). The 15-month delay in reporting did not destroy Consulta’s credibility; fear of reprisal, death threats, and natural reluctance to be involved in a criminal case have been accepted as adequate explanations, as in People vs. Hilot, G.R. No. 129532, Oct. 5, 2000. The SC was not convinced by Amando Cope’s denial that Consulta informed him of the killing, since Cope is a first cousin of accused Mariano Cope and no credible evidence showed Consulta concocted his testimony. There was no proof of Consulta’s motive to falsely testify, so the logical conclusion was that he was not so motivated and his testimony was worthy of full faith and credit. His testimony, giving details that cannot easily be fabricated, deserved credence and acquired greater weight because it coincided with the physical evidence. Although motive is not essential when there is direct testimony, the SC noted that accused-appellants’ attempt to impute ill motive on Consulta revealed their own resentment toward the victim, and their evidence of the prior illegal detention complaint against Brosas and the Condats showed motive that aided in establishing guilt.
• Denial and Alibi: The SC rejected the defense of denial and alibi. Accused-appellants relied on Ernesto Diaz’s testimony that he saw them at Elena Bornalo’s house from 7 o’clock in the evening until 1 o’clock in the morning of the next day, but the place where they claimed to be was only six kilometers from the scene of the crime and could be negotiated in two hours by foot. Accused-appellants did not show that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene at the time of the commission. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when, as in this case, the identity of the accused is sufficiently established by the prosecution. The SC cited People vs. Hilot, G.R. No. 129532, Oct. 5, 2000, for this rule.
• Qualifying Circumstances: The RTC correctly appreciated treachery because the victim was asleep at the time of the assault. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor of an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. Abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated because it is absorbed in treachery, as held in People vs. Naag, 322 SCRA 716, 739 (2000). There was no basis for evident premeditation because there was no proof of planning and preparation to kill Brosas or of when such plan was conceived. Nor was nighttime proper, because it was not shown that the malefactors especially sought nighttime to ensure the commission of the crime; the place of the crime was illuminated by bright moonlight.
• Admission of Blanket: Accused-appellants questioned the admission of the blanket because no laboratory examination showed that the stains were bloodstains. The SC held that it was not really necessary for the prosecution to present the blanket to prove culpability, since accused-appellants were positively identified as the killers by an eyewitness who knew them well, and it was not denied that there was a full moon and the hut was well lit. The SC had more than once ruled that the presentation and identification of the weapon used are not indispensable to prove guilt. It would be absurd to impose a stricter rule for the admissibility of the blanket.
• Damages: The trial court’s award of civil indemnity to the heirs of Brosas in the amount of P50,000.00 was consistent with current case law. In addition, the heirs should be awarded moral damages of P50,000.00, which needs no proof, the conviction of the accused for the crime being sufficient to justify the award, as in People vs. Cortez, G.R. No. 131924, Dec. 26, 2000.

• Treachery — The essence is a sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and ensuring the crime’s commission without risk to the aggressor. The SC applied it because Brosas was asleep when attacked, making the assault unexpected and defenseless.
• Abuse of Superior Strength Absorbed in Treachery — When treachery is present, abuse of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated because it is absorbed by treachery. The SC discarded the latter despite the number of assailants.
• Alibi — Alibi is inherently weak and is rejected when the accused fails to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. The SC rejected it because the claimed location was only six kilometers away and reachable in two hours by foot, while positive identification was strong.
• Delay in Reporting a Crime — Fear of reprisal, death threats, and natural reluctance to be involved in a criminal case are adequate explanations for delay in reporting. The SC held Consulta’s 15-month delay did not destroy his credibility.
• Positive Identification over Denial — A positive assertion is given more weight than a negative one; the burden is on the defense to show that a witness could not have witnessed the incident. The SC upheld Consulta’s identification over accused-appellants’ denial.
• Illumination by Moon and Flashlight — Moonlight, even starlight, and flashlights can provide sufficient illumination for identification of known persons. The SC found the full moon and four flashlights sufficient for Consulta to identify the assailants.
• Presentation of Weapon Not Indispensable — The presentation and identification of the weapon used are not indispensable to prove guilt when the accused are positively identified. The SC applied this to the blanket and weapon issue.
• Moral Damages in Murder — Moral damages may be awarded without proof beyond the conviction itself, because the conviction sufficiently justifies the award. The SC added P50,000.00 moral damages.
• Motive Not Essential but May Aid — Proof of motive is not essential when there is direct testimony, but motive may aid in establishing guilt. The SC noted that accused-appellants’ evidence revealed resentment toward the victim and showed motive.

• “The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor of an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.” — The SC used this definition to hold that treachery qualified the killing because Brosas was attacked while asleep.
• “Fear of reprisal, death threats, and even a natural reluctance to be involved in a criminal case have been accepted as adequate explanations for the delay in reporting crimes.” — The SC used this rule to reject the attack on Consulta’s credibility based on his 15-month delay in reporting the killing.
• “In this case, accused-appellants have not shown that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In any event, alibi is an inherently weak defense, and it should be rejected when, as in this case, the identity of the accused is sufficiently established by the prosecution.” — The SC used this to reject the defense of alibi despite Ernesto Diaz’s corroboration.
• “In addition, they should also be awarded moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 which needs no proof, the conviction of the accused for the crime being sufficient to justify the award of the same.” — The SC used this to modify the RTC judgment by adding moral damages to the civil indemnity.

• People vs. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684 (1999) — Cited for the rule that illumination from the moon and stars is sufficient to identify perpetrators of crimes.
• Arceño vs. People, 256 SCRA 569 (1996) — Cited to support identification even where the witness was 6½ to 15 meters away and hiding in the bushes.
• People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000 — Cited for identification of known persons at a distance of about 40 to 45 meters.
• People vs. Danao, 253 SCRA 146 (1996) — Cited for the rule that a positive assertion is given more weight than a negative assertion.
• People vs. Mahinay, 304 SCRA 767 (1999) — Cited for the rule that inconsistencies on negligible details do not destroy the veracity of a testimony.
• People vs. Hilot, G.R. No. 129532, Oct. 5, 2000 — Cited for accepting fear of reprisal and death threats as explanation for delay in reporting, and for rejecting alibi when identity is established.
• People vs. Naag, 322 SCRA 716, 739 (2000) — Cited for the rule that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and for rejecting evident premeditation and nighttime.
• People vs. Cortez, G.R. No. 131924, Dec. 26, 2000 — Cited for awarding moral damages without proof, conviction being sufficient.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The RTC convicted accused-appellants of murder under this provision, and the SC affirmed the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The SC also upheld the qualifying circumstance of treachery while discarding abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, and nighttime.