People vs. Sabellano

Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on collateral details do not impair their credibility, and a delay in reporting the identity of the perpetrators is excusable when adequately explained by the trauma of the experience and cultural mourning practices.

The accused-appellants, Vivencio and Wesly Sabellano, along with other family members, were charged with frustrated homicide and murder in separate informations for attacks on Benito Abrogar. The Abrogar and Sabellano families had a prior altercation. The cases were jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 156.

On February 6, 1985, a misunderstanding erupted during a game near the house of Benito and Walderita Abrogar in Mandaluyong, involving Julio Catayong and Wesly Sabellano. Julio struck Wesly, and Julio's brother Salvador advanced with a knife, but Vivencio Sabellano intervened. Wesly fetched a knife, stabbed Salvador, and later blocked a taxi with Vivencio and Paulino Sabellano. When Benito Abrogar emerged with a bolo upon hearing the commotion, he was met by Vivencio, Mayoling, Wesly, and Jaime Sabellano. Benito was struck with a bareta, mauled, and stabbed in the back by Vivencio, resulting in his confinement for ten days. This incident led to the frustrated homicide charge in Criminal Case No. 65155.

On March 9, 1986, at around 3:45 a.m., Benito and Walderita Abrogar, accompanied by Gertrudes Basilides, were walking along Cordillera Street towards Divisoria. They encountered Vivencio, Wesly, Jimmy, and an unidentified person at a grocery store. Further down the street, Wesly and Vivencio, posing as joggers, approached from behind. Wesly grabbed Walderita by the neck, while Vivencio embraced and stabbed Benito. Jaime and the unidentified person then stabbed Benito in the abdomen, and Wesly released Walderita to stab Benito in the back. Benito died shortly thereafter. Gertrudes, who was an arm's length away and aided by light from a nearby house, recognized the assailants and recalled their clothing. Walderita reported the incident to the police and identified the Sabellanos as the culprits two days later. Wesly claimed he was asleep at home during the incident, corroborated by his mother, Erlinda. The trial court found Wesly guilty of murder and Vivencio guilty of frustrated homicide, but Vivencio's appeal was denied due course after he escaped from detention.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Walderita Abrogar and Gertrudes Basilides contained material inconsistencies and contradictions, rendering them biased, improbable, and unworthy of credence.
• Delay in Reporting: Petitioner maintained that Walderita Abrogar's failure to immediately report the Sabellanos as the culprits during the on-the-spot police investigation on the day of the incident weakened her credibility.
• Defense of Alibi: Petitioner argued that the trial court unjustly failed to appreciate his defense of alibi, asserting he was asleep at home at the time of the incident, corroborated by his mother.

• Procedural Bar: Whether the appeal of Vivencio Sabellano should be given due course despite his escape from detention.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the delay in reporting the identity of the assailants warrant the reversal of the conviction.
• Defense of Alibi: Whether the defense of alibi should prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of Wesly Sabellano for murder beyond reasonable doubt, including the existence of conspiracy and treachery.

• Procedural Bar: No. The right to appeal is a statutory right that must comply with the Rules; having escaped from detention, Vivencio Sabellano's appeal was correctly denied due course.
• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The inconsistencies pertain to minor details that do not alter the essential facts, and the delay in reporting is justified by the trauma of the experience and cultural mourning practices.
• Defense of Alibi: No. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification, especially when it is corroborated only by immediate relatives and physical impossibility to be at the crime scene is not established.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Yes. The prosecution established Wesly Sabellano's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conspiracy was inferred from the concerted acts of the assailants, and treachery qualified the killing due to the swift and methodical attack on an unarmed and surprised victim.

• Procedural Bar: The trial court issued an order denying due course to Vivencio Sabellano's Notice of Appeal because he escaped from detention. Citing Section 18, Rule 114 and Section 8, Rule 124, the failure of Vivencio's counsel to seasonably question the order rendered it final and executory. The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory one, requiring compliance with procedural rules.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The alleged contradictions in the testimonies of Walderita Abrogar and Gertrudes Basilides pertained to minor details such as the frequency of going to Divisoria, the exact movements during the attack, the direction the assailants fled, and the presence of police at the scene. These discrepancies do not negate the essential fact that Benito Abrogar was fatally stabbed by Wesly Sabellano. The truth need not be narrated with perfect symmetry. Furthermore, the two-day delay in reporting the identity of the culprits was adequately explained by the trauma of the experience and the cultural priority of mourning, which is consistent with normal behavior to avoid provoking reprisals.
• Defense of Alibi: The defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. Wesly Sabellano failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, as his house was not far enough. Moreover, his alibi was corroborated only by his mother, making it less plausible since immediate relatives naturally tend to favor the accused.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused showing a community of criminal purpose. The concerted actions of Wesly, Vivencio, Jimmy, and John Doe in attacking Benito Abrogar demonstrated a common design, making the guilt of one the guilt of all. The killing was qualified by treachery because the assailants adopted a mode of attack that was swiftly and methodically done, ensuring the killing of the unarmed victim without risk to themselves, as the victim and his party were taken by surprise.

• Credibility of Witnesses; Minor Inconsistencies — Minor inconsistencies on collateral details do not impair the credibility of witnesses. What is important is that the witnesses agree on essential facts and their versions corroborate each other to make a consistent and coherent whole. The Court applied this by disregarding the alleged contradictions in the testimonies of Walderita and Gertrudes.
• Delay in Reporting — The failure of a witness to immediately report the identity of the offender is understandable when they are related to the victim and have just experienced a traumatic event. The delay, when adequately explained by trauma and cultural mourning practices, does not impair credibility or destroy the probative value of the testimony.
• Inherent Weakness of Alibi — Alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. To be credible, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The defense becomes less plausible when corroborated mainly by immediate relatives.
• Inference of Conspiracy — Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused tending to show a community of criminal purpose. When the acts of the assailants demonstrate a common design, the guilt of one becomes the guilt of all.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery — Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the assailants adopt a mode of attack that swiftly and methodically ensures the killing of the victim without risk to themselves, particularly when the victim is unarmed and taken by surprise.

• "The truth need not be narrated with perfect symmetry. Several persons remembering the same incident may vary in their recollections of some of the details but these differences do not necessarily make liars of them all." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the issue of witness credibility, explaining why minor inconsistencies do not destroy the probative value of testimonies.
• "the last thing that the bereaved would want to happen is to provoke further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act." — This explains the Court's reasoning for excusing the two-day delay in reporting the identity of the assailants, grounding it in normal human behavior and cultural mourning practices.
• "Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused tending to show community of criminal purpose." — This defines the canonical formulation for inferring conspiracy from circumstantial evidence, applied here to the concerted attack on the victim.

• People vs. Tomas Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, March 13, 1991 — Cited to support the rule that minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not affect credibility and that truth need not be perfectly symmetric.
• People vs. John Gabriel Gamboa, G.R. No. 91374, February 25, 1991 — Cited to support the proposition that a delay in reporting the identity of the offender after a startling occurrence is understandable and does not affect credibility.
• People vs. Ponciano Mandapat, G.R. No. 76953, April 22, 1991 — Cited for the rule that failure to report a crime at once cannot be taken against the witness, especially due to natural reticence and fear of reprisals.
• People vs. Roberto Soriano y Bruan, G.R. No. 74783, April 22, 1991 — Cited to affirm the rejection of the defense of alibi as inherently weak against positive identification and in the absence of physical impossibility.
• People vs. Martin Cagadas, Jr., G.R. No. 88044, January 23, 1991 — Cited to support the finding of conspiracy based on the concerted acts of the accused showing a common design.
• People vs. Luis Mision y Salipot, G.R. No. 63480, February 26, 1991 — Cited to support the finding of treachery where the attack is swift, methodical, and takes the unarmed victim by surprise.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. The Court applied this provision in affirming Wesly Sabellano's conviction, qualified by treachery.
• Section 18, Rule 114 and Section 8, Rule 124, Rules of Court — Procedural rules regarding the right to appeal and the effect of escape from detention. The Court applied these to deny due course to Vivencio Sabellano's appeal.

Fernan, C.J. (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Davide, Jr., JJ.