People vs. Mamaruncas

Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on collateral matters do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positively identifying the assailants.

On February 1, 1996, Baudelio Batoon was working in his auto repair shop in Tubod, Baraas, Iligan City when Baginda Palao, accompanied by appellants Renandang Mamaruncas and Pendatum Ampuan, arrived. Palao, wearing desert camouflage fatigues while his two companions wore Philippine Army tropical green fatigues, showed Batoon an arrest warrant. When Batoon asked to finish tuning an engine first, Palao slapped his stomach and pointed a .45 caliber pistol at him. Batoon attempted to grab the gun, leading to a grapple. Mamaruncas shot Batoon from behind on the right thigh, Ampuan followed by shooting Batoon on the left armpit, and Palao delivered a final shot to Batoon's back. Police officers nearby heard the gunshots, intervened, and engaged the gunmen in a shootout. Palao escaped, but Mamaruncas and Ampuan were captured after sustaining gunshot wounds. Batoon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

• The Incident: Around noontime on February 1, 1996, Baudelio Batoon, Richard Batoon, Juanito Gepayo, and a certain "Nito" were working inside Baudelio's auto repair shop along the highway in Tubod, Baraas, Iligan City. Baginda Palao, accompanied by appellants Renandang Mamaruncas and Pendatum Ampuan, entered the shop. Palao showed Baudelio an arrest warrant. When Baudelio asked to finish his work first, Palao slapped his stomach and pointed a .45 caliber pistol at him. Baudelio tried to grab the gun, resulting in a grapple. Mamaruncas shot Baudelio from behind on the right thigh, Ampuan shot him on the left armpit, and Palao delivered a final shot to the back. Gepayo and Richard Batoon witnessed the entire incident from three to four meters away.
• Police Intervention: Police Inspector Graciano Mijares and his companions, who were driving along the highway, heard gunshots and proceeded to the shop. They saw three men in camouflage gear pointing guns at a person lying on the ground. After the officers announced themselves and ordered the gunmen to drop their firearms, the gunmen fired at the officers, prompting an exchange of gunfire. Palao escaped, while Mamaruncas and Ampuan were apprehended after being hit by return fire.
• Medical Findings: Dr. Leonardo Labanen's necropsy established that the three gunshot wounds on Baudelio's body were inflicted at close range due to the presence of gunpowder burns.
• Defense Version: Mamaruncas claimed he was merely asked by Palao to watch a car and was surrendering to the police when shot. Ampuan claimed he stayed in the car, only saw Palao shoot the victim, and was hit by a stray bullet during the crossfire. Both denied participation in the shooting.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Appellants argued that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and therefore not credible. Specifically, they pointed out that Gepayo inconsistently stated whether he knew Ampuan prior to the incident; that Gepayo's failure to help his employer and his immediate return to work was contrary to human nature; that Gepayo failed to identify Mamaruncas in court; and that Gepayo identified Abdul Wahid Sultan and Pendatum Ampuan as the same person in his affidavit but testified to the contrary.
• Defective Information: Appellants averred that the Information was substantially defective because it accused Abdul Wahid Sultan and Pendatum Ampuan as one and the same person, rendering Ampuan unable to comprehend the charges read during arraignment.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that inconsistencies on minor and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of a prosecution eyewitness, and that the witnesses were consistent on the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.
• Defect Cured: The OSG contended that any defect in the Information was cured when it was amended during trial without objection from the defense.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and their behavior during and after the incident discredit their positive identification of the appellants.
• Defective Information: Whether an alleged defect in the Information regarding the identity of the accused can be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of the victim.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among the accused was established.
• Damages: Whether the awards of damages, including actual damages and loss of earning capacity, were proper.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Minor inconsistencies on collateral matters do not impair the credibility of witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positively identifying the assailants. The inconsistency regarding Gepayo's prior acquaintance with Ampuan is inconsequential and even signifies a lack of coaching. Gepayo's failure to assist his employer is within the bounds of expected human behavior given the armed threat. The discrepancy between Gepayo's affidavit and testimony does not discredit him, as affidavits are often incomplete and inferior to in-court testimony; furthermore, the police supplied the names in the affidavit. Gepayo's failure to identify Mamaruncas in court was adequately supplemented by the positive and unrebutted identification by Richard Batoon.
• Defective Information: The alleged defect in the Information was deemed waived. Objections to matters of form or substance in the Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Failure to challenge the defect through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash before entering a plea constitutes a waiver. Moreover, the Information was amended during trial to rectify the error without any objection from the defense.
• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was swift and unexpected, affording the unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself, particularly since he was shot from behind while grappling with another assailant, and was ultimately shot while lying wounded on the ground.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was duly proven by the concerted actions of the accused. All three entered the shop together, and their consecutive acts of shooting the victim from behind and delivering the final shot demonstrated a unanimity of design, intent, and execution, indicating a common purpose.
• Damages: The award of civil indemnity was increased to ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00, conforming to prevailing jurisprudence. The award of actual damages (₱66,904.00) was deleted because the claim was supported merely by a list of expenses prepared by the widow, not by official receipts; however, temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 were awarded in lieu thereof. The award for loss of earning capacity was correctly deleted by the CA because the victim was neither self-employed nor a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage, and no documentary evidence was presented to substantiate the claim.

• Credibility of Witnesses; Minor Inconsistencies — Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant. Such inconsistencies even tend to show that the witnesses were not coached.
• Affidavit vs. In-Court Testimony — Discrepancies between a sworn statement executed outside court and testimony given in open court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. Ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and do not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event; thus, in-court testimony generally prevails.
• Waiver of Objections to Information — Objections as to matters of form or substance in the Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Failure to object to a defect before arraignment—via a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash—amounts to a waiver of the defect.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of a previous agreement is not necessary; it may be inferred from the acts of the accused, such as their mode and manner of perpetrating the offense, which indicate a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest.
• Actual Damages — To be entitled to an award of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable. A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course.
• Temperate Damages — Temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
• Loss of Earning Capacity — Indemnity for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, except where the victim was either self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

• "Although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."
• "Discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant."
• "Objections as to matters of form or substance in the [I]nformation cannot be made for the first time on appeal."
• "A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 — Followed as the procedural basis for transferring the case from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or death.
• People v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 185726 — Followed regarding the rule that minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not impair credibility when there is consistency in the principal occurrence and identification of the assailant.
• People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 185841 — Followed for the principle that different people react differently to startling events, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when witnessing a crime.
• Gemma Ong v. People, G.R. No. 169440 — Followed for the rule that discrepancies between affidavits and court testimony do not outrightly justify acquittal, as affidavits are often incomplete.
• Panuncio v. People, G.R. No. 165678 — Followed for the rule that objections to matters of form or substance in the Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
• People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173 and People v. Guillera, G.R. No. 175829 — Followed for the requirement that actual damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, and a mere list of expenses cannot replace official receipts.
• People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 — Followed as prevailing jurisprudence dictating the amounts for civil indemnity (₱75,000.00) and temperate damages (₱25,000.00) in murder cases.
• People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573 — Followed as prevailing jurisprudence dictating the increased amount of exemplary damages (₱30,000.00) in murder cases.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines Murder as the unlawful killing of a person, not constituting parricide or infanticide, provided that treachery, among other circumstances, attended the killing. Applied to qualify the killing of Baudelio Batoon as murder.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for murder. Applied to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being only one qualifying circumstance (treachery) and no generic aggravating circumstances.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and provides that persons convicted of offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole. Applied to render appellants ineligible for parole.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Provides that temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Applied to award ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, which were unsupported by receipts.

Renato C. Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.