People vs. Martinada

Where a person is seriously injured or killed on the occasion of cattle rustling, the violence against the person is absorbed as a qualifying aggravating circumstance under Section 8 of P.D. No. 533, precluding a separate conviction for the injury or killing; however, such qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated unless the fact of injury or killing is alleged in the information.

Appellants Francisco Martinada and Bonifacio Mesias were charged together with Bondoy Morato (who remained at large) and two unidentified persons for cattle rustling, illegal possession of firearms, and frustrated murder, all arising from a single incident on February 13, 1982 involving the shooting of Alejandro Naboya and the theft of his carabao. The cattle rustling charge was brought under P.D. No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, which modified the penalties prescribed by Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code for theft of large cattle. The case reached the Supreme Court on mandatory review because the trial court imposed the death penalty for cattle rustling.

At about midnight of February 13, 1982, Segundina Naboya was awakened by the barking of their dog at the house she shared with her husband, Alejandro Naboya. Alejandro descended from the house after being awakened by a gunshot. At about the same time, Pascual Naboya, Alejandro's brother, who resided some fifty meters away, also heard the dog barking and stepped down from his house to verify the disturbance. Pascual heard a gunshot, which prompted him to walk toward Alejandro's house armed with a bolo. He then heard a second shot and saw Alejandro already lying on the ground, having been hit at the neck.

Segundina recognized Mesias and Martinada as the assailants, while Pascual identified Martinada, Mesias, and Maroto as the culprits. On a moonlit night and within a distance of a few meters, both witnesses positively identified the appellants. After Alejandro was shot, appellant Martinada untied the carabao, and he and his companions took the animal away. According to Dr. Bugho's testimony, Alejandro's wound was fatal and could have caused his death had it not been for timely medical intervention; the wound required seven to nine days to heal.

Segundina executed her sworn statement on February 25, 1982, explaining that the twelve-day delay in reporting the identity of the perpetrators was due to her preoccupation with attending to her husband, who was then confined in the hospital. The moment Alejandro was pronounced out of danger, she immediately went to the police. Pascual's belated reporting was independently motivated by fear. Appellants raised the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere when the offenses were committed, but their alibis were never supported by any witness, not even by family members with whom they allegedly stayed that evening.

The trial court, after joint trial, found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all three charges. For cattle rustling, it appreciated the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and by a band and imposed the death penalty under P.D. No. 533. For illegal possession of firearms, it imposed an indeterminate penalty of five years of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum. For frustrated murder, it appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years, five months, and eleven days of reclusion temporal as maximum. The trial court also referenced appellants' previous convictions, noting that Martinada had been convicted and sentenced to fifty-eight years of imprisonment for four cases of qualified theft of large cattle and illegal possession of firearm, which sentence had become final and executory. Appellants never objected to this reference nor denied they were the persons previously convicted.

• Reasonable Doubt: Appellants argued that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses Segundina, Alejandro, and Pascual Naboya by pointing to alleged inconsistencies in their declarations regarding what awakened them, the location where Alejandro was shot, and the delay in reporting the identity of the assailants.
• Constitutional Violation from Reference to Prior Convictions: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in incorporating into the record and making part of its decision the unsolicited fact of their alleged previous convictions for qualified theft of large cattle and illegal possession of firearms, thereby violating their constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation and to a fair trial before a neutral judge.
• Recidivism Not Properly Appreciated: Appellants maintained that the trial court should not have considered recidivism as an aggravating circumstance because it was not alleged in the information and certified copies of previous sentences were not presented at trial.
• Treachery and Stage of Felony: Appellants argued that the trial court erred in holding that the shooting was attended by treachery and that the crime committed was at most attempted homicide, not frustrated murder.
• P.D. No. 533 as Special Law: Appellants invoked Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code and People vs. Respecio to argue that P.D. No. 533 is a special law, thereby precluding application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the graduation of penalties based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Minor Inconsistencies: The Solicitor General countered that the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' declarations were very minor and insignificant and did not alter the fact that Alejandro was shot by the appellants and that the carabao was stolen.
• Delayed Reporting Explained: The prosecution justified the delay in reporting through Segundina's sworn statement explaining her twelve-day delay by her attendance to her hospitalized husband, and Pascual's independent delay by fear.
• Recidivism Properly Appreciated: The Solicitor General argued that recidivism could be appreciated even if not alleged in the information, provided the accused did not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
• Absorption of Frustrated Murder: The Solicitor General submitted that the shooting of Alejandro should have been considered a qualifying aggravating circumstance to cattle rustling under Section 8 of P.D. No. 533, absorbing the frustrated murder charge and avoiding double jeopardy.
• P.D. No. 533 Not a Special Law: The Solicitor General argued that P.D. No. 533 merely modified the penalties under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as shown by its repealing clause (Section 10), and was therefore not a special law within the meaning of Article 10 of the Code, permitting application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and graduation of penalties.

• Credibility and Reasonable Doubt: Whether appellants' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and their defense of alibi.
• Prior Convictions and Due Process: Whether the trial court violated appellants' constitutional rights by referencing their previous convictions in its decision.
• Recidivism: Whether recidivism was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite not being alleged in the information and despite the absence of certified copies of prior sentences.
• Absorption of Frustrated Murder: Whether the shooting of Alejandro Naboya should be prosecuted as a separate crime of frustrated murder or absorbed as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to cattle rustling under Section 8 of P.D. No. 533.
• Nature of P.D. No. 533: Whether P.D. No. 533 is a special law precluding application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the graduation of penalties.

• Credibility and Reasonable Doubt: Yes. Appellants' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, the positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevailing over the unsubstantiated defense of alibi.
• Prior Convictions and Due Process: No constitutional violation occurred. Appellants never objected to the reference to previous cases nor denied they were the same persons convicted therein.
• Recidivism: Yes. Recidivism was properly appreciated because, although not alleged in the information, appellants did not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism, and the records of prior cases are part of court records readily verifiable.
• Absorption of Frustrated Murder: The frustrated murder conviction was set aside. The shooting should have been treated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to cattle rustling under Section 8 of P.D. No. 533; however, because the information did not allege the fact of injury, the cattle rustling remained simple, and a separate conviction for frustrated murder would constitute double jeopardy.
• Nature of P.D. No. 533: P.D. No. 533 is not a special law but a modification of Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as shown by its Section 10 repealing clause. The Indeterminate Sentence Law and graduation of penalties therefore apply.

• Credibility and Reasonable Doubt: The findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded the highest respect by appellate courts, the former being in a better position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. The alleged inconsistencies—whether the barking of the dog or the gunshot awakened the witnesses, and whether Alejandro was shot inside the house or on the ground—were minor and insignificant, and did not alter the established facts that Alejandro was shot by the appellants and the carabao was stolen. Such inconsistencies on minor details strengthen rather than weaken credibility, indicating the witnesses were not previously rehearsed. The delay in reporting was satisfactorily explained: Segundina was attending to her hospitalized husband, and Pascual was motivated by fear, each acting independently without prior consultation. Appellants' defense of alibi was unsubstantiated, supported by no witness and not even by their own family members. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and to be given full faith it must be clearly established without leaving any doubt as to its plausibility.

• Prior Convictions and Due Process: The trial court's reference to appellants' previous convictions was proper. Appellants never objected to the reference, nor did they deny they were the same persons convicted in the prior cases. The records of prior cases are part of court records which could be verified and produced readily. No constitutional violation arose from the trial court's reliance on these records.

• Recidivism: While it is generally necessary to allege recidivism in the information and to attach certified copies of prior sentences, this aggravating circumstance may still be appreciated if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. The records revealed that the lower court made sufficient reference to the previous cases, and appellants never objected nor denied their identity as the persons previously convicted. Under People vs. Monteverde, recidivism was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance although not alleged in the information because it was proved by evidence.

• Absorption of Frustrated Murder: Section 8 of P.D. No. 533 provides that if a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of cattle rustling, the penalty is increased to reclusion perpetua to death. The circumstances of violence against persons and serious injury or killing are qualifying aggravating circumstances, as they give the crime its proper and exclusive name and place the author in a situation deserving the especially prescribed penalty. The trial court therefore could not convict separately for frustrated murder, as the offense was absorbed in cattle rustling; doing so would constitute double jeopardy. However, because the information in the cattle rustling case did not allege the fact of Alejandro's injury, the qualifying circumstance of violence could not be appreciated, and appellants could be held guilty only of simple cattle rustling with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

• Nature of P.D. No. 533: P.D. No. 533 is not a special law within the meaning of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 of the Code, imposing stiffer penalties under special circumstances. Section 10 of the Decree explicitly repealed or modified the inconsistent provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Because P.D. No. 533 served only to amend those codal provisions, the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the graduation of penalties based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances remain applicable.

• Trial Court's Findings on Credibility — The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given the highest respect and recognition by appellate courts, the former being in a better position to hear and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies. Applied to affirm the trial court's crediting of the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of appellants.

• Minor Inconsistencies Strengthen Credibility — Alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses relating to minor details do not destroy credibility; on the contrary, they indicate that the witnesses were telling the truth and were not previously rehearsed. Applied to reject appellants' challenge based on discrepancies regarding what awakened the witnesses and where Alejandro was shot.

• Delayed Reporting Does Not Affect Credibility If Explained — Delay of witnesses in informing others of what they know about a criminal offense will not affect their credibility where the delay is satisfactorily explained. Applied to Segundina's twelve-day delay (attending to her hospitalized husband) and Pascual's delay (motivated by fear).

• Alibi Cannot Prevail Over Positive Identification — For alibi to be given full faith and credit, it must be clearly established and must not leave any doubt as to its plausibility and verity; it cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses. Applied to reject appellants' unsubstantiated alibi, which was not supported even by their own family members.

• Recidivism Without Allegation in the Information — While recidivism must generally be alleged in the information and supported by certified copies of prior sentences, it may still be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. Applied because appellants never objected to the trial court's reference to their prior convictions nor denied they were the same persons.

• Absorption of Violence into Cattle Rustling — Under Section 8 of P.D. No. 533, if a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of cattle rustling, the violence is absorbed as a qualifying aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty for cattle rustling, precluding a separate conviction for the injury or killing. Applied to set aside the frustrated murder conviction, though the qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated in the cattle rustling case because the information did not allege the victim's injury.

• P.D. No. 533 as a Modification of the Revised Penal Code — P.D. No. 533 is not a special law but a modification of Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as shown by its Section 10 repealing clause. The Indeterminate Sentence Law and graduation of penalties therefore apply. Applied to permit imposition of an indeterminate penalty for cattle rustling.

• "The circumstances of 'committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, and a person was seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattling rustling' are no doubt qualifying aggravating circumstances as they 'not only give the crime committed its proper and exclusive name but also place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that especially prescribed for said crime.'" — This passage defines the legal character of violence and injury in cattle rustling as qualifying aggravating circumstances under P.D. No. 533, establishing the principle that such circumstances are absorbed into the cattle rustling offense and cannot be separately prosecuted.

• "Thus, the trial court could no longer convict separately accused Martinada and Mesias of the crime of Frustrated Murder, otherwise there would be double jeopardy." — This statement articulates the double jeopardy bar that flows from treating the shooting as absorbed in cattle rustling, the decisive rationale for setting aside the frustrated murder conviction.

• "P.D. No. 553 merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing stiffer penalties thereon under special circumstances. In other words, P.D. No. 553, served only the purpose of amending Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage establishes the classification of P.D. No. 533 as a modification of the Revised Penal Code rather than a special law, which determines the applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the graduation of penalties. (Note: the text contains "553" which appears to be a typographical error for "533.")

• People vs. Trigo, 174 SCRA 93 (1989) — Followed. Reaffirmed the doctrine that appellate courts give the highest degree of respect to trial courts' findings on witness credibility in criminal prosecutions.

• Matabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 170 (1989) — Followed. Held that absent substantial proof that the trial court's decision was grounded on speculation, surmises, or conjectures, its findings must be accorded full consideration and respect.

• People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446 (Jan. 31, 1989) — Followed. Established that inconsistencies of witnesses on minor details do not detract from the positiveness of identification of the accused.

• People vs. Serante, 52 SCRA 525 — Followed. Held that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification and must be clearly established to be credited.

• People vs. Monteverde, 142 SCRA 668 — Followed. Held that recidivism may be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance even if not alleged in the information, provided it is proved by evidence.

• People vs. Bayot, 64 Phil. 269 (1973) — Followed. Defined qualifying aggravating circumstances as those that give the crime its proper and exclusive name and place the author in a situation deserving the especially prescribed penalty.

• People vs. Respecio, 107 Phil. 995 (1960) — Distinguished/rejected. Appellants relied on this case for the proposition that P.D. No. 533 is a special law; the Court rejected this characterization, holding that the decree merely modified Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Section 8, P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974) — Prescribes the penalties for cattle rustling, escalating from prision mayor to reclusion perpetua depending on the presence of violence, intimidation, or force, and imposing reclusion perpetua to death when a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling. Applied to determine that the shooting of Alejandro was a qualifying aggravating circumstance absorbed in cattle rustling, though not appreciable because the information did not allege the injury.

• Section 10, P.D. No. 533 (Repealing Clause) — Repeals or modifies the provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code that are inconsistent with the decree. Applied to establish that P.D. No. 533 is not a special law but a modification of the Revised Penal Code, permitting application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Article 10, Revised Penal Code — Provides that offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the Code, which shall be supplementary to such laws unless the latter specially provide otherwise. Invoked by appellants but held inapplicable because P.D. No. 533 is not a special law.

• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code — Prescribe penalties for theft and qualified theft of large cattle, respectively. Modified by P.D. No. 533, which imposed stiffer penalties under special circumstances.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to impose an indeterminate penalty for cattle rustling, the Court having determined that P.D. No. 533 is not a special law and therefore the graduation of penalties based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances remains available.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.