The appellant contends that the testimony of Henry Cabrera, the prosecution's principal witness, is not only uncorroborated but marked with inconsistencies, therefore the lower court erred in giving full credence to his testimony.
The contention is without merit.
As stated by the Solicitor General, there is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witnesses has to be corroborated, except where expressly mandated as in treason where the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act is needed. In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict. (People v. Luces, 125 SCRA 813; People v. Demeterio, 124 SCRA 914; and People v. Romero, 119 SCRA 234).
Our examination of the testimony of Cabrera leads us to apply the well- established rule that trial courts' findings of facts carry great weight for these courts have the privilege of examining the demeanor of a witness while on the witness stand, and, therefore can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not. (People v. Tala, 141 SCRA 240) It is true that this rule is subject to certain exceptions as: (1) when the conclusion is a finding guided entirely on speculations; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee. The records show that the case at bar does not fall under any of these exceptions. We, therefore, apply the established rule (Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 135 SCRA 620).
Appellant Dondoy questions what he describes as the inconsistent testimony of Cabrera vis-a-vis the testimony of Dr. Juanito Padilla on his post-mortem autopsy findings.
Cabrera testified that the appellant ". . . held the arms of the victim Manuel Pasaol" (tsn, p. 6, February 24, 1981) when Pasaol was stabbed by co-accused William Canada. On the other hand, Dr. Padilla testified that his post-mortem examination of the victim showed that the latter had three wounds on the right hand (tsn, pp. 47-48, July 7, 1981). The appellant contends that the nature of the wounds indicate that the victim used his hands to defend himself which he definitely could not have done if his arms were held by the accused-appellant.
The alleged inconsistency pertains to a minor detail. It is of a kind which does not affect the integrity of Cabrera's testimony. It is well-settled that inconsistencies on minor details do not affect credibility as they only refer to collateral matters which do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself (People v. Pelias Jones, 137 SCRA 166; People v. Balane, 123 SCRA 614; People v. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812; People v. Escoltero, 139 SCRA 218).
The fact that Dondoy had locked or pinned the arms of the victim does not prevent the latter's hand from reaching out for the knife thrust at his belly. Rather than discredit the testimony of the prosecution witness, such discrepancy on a minor detail serves to add credence and veracity to his categorical, straightforward and spontaneous testimony (People v. Espinosa, 141 SCRA 110).
We held in the case of People v. Alcantara, (33 SCRA 812): "The contradictions in the declarations of a witness when trivial cannot be ascribed to an insidious attempt to distort the truth. It is a truism that the most candid witness oftentimes commits mistakes and incurs inconsistencies in his declarations, but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair his intrinsic credibility. Far from being evidence of falsehood they could justifiably be regarded as a demonstration of good faith and a confirmation of the fact that the witness was not a rehearsed witness."
The appellant Dondoy further contends that the testimony of Danilo Mercado, the barrio captain, being a disinterested witness, should have been given more weight than the uncorroborated word of Cabrera, a gangmate of the victim.
Mercado testified that in the evening of June 8, 1979, while he was in the house of his friend Roger Capoy on Jacinto Street, the accused-appellant with William Canada and Orlando Quinamot came to inform him that one Madi Pisao was stabbed by the group of the Pasaol brothers. In response, he stated that he advised them to tell the father of Amado Pisao to report the matter to the police in order that the assailant could be apprehended. As Barrio Captain, he knew the Pasaol brothers who, according to the records of his barangay, are notorious thieves and trouble makers (tsn, pp. 18-21, Oct. 26, 1981). At about 8:00 o'clock that same evening, he saw Henry Cabrera reading comics in the store right in front of the house of his friend where he was (tsn, p. 22, Oct. 26, 1981).
The mere fact that Cabrera was a friend of the victim is not proof of prejudice sufficient to disregard his testimony. This Court has upheld even the testimonies given by relatives notwithstanding their relationship to the deceased victims in a number of cases. (See People v. Puesca, 87 SCRA 130; People v. Abujuela, 92 SCRA 503; People v. Ruiz, 93 SCRA 739; and People v. Ciria, 106 SCRA 381).
When there is no showing of improper motive on the part of witnesses for testifying against the accused, the fact that they are related to the victim does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of full faith and credit. On the contrary, their natural interest in serving the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity. (People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548; People v. Jabequero, 125 SCRA 144; and People v. Alcantara, supra).
Cabrera clearly and positively Identified the appellant regarding his participation in the crime. The latter's denial and explanations cannot overcome such evidence (People v. Chavez, 117 SCRA 221, 227). Greater weight is given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness than to the accused's denial (People v. Mostoles, Jr., 124 SCRA 906).
Regarding the alibi offered by the barangay captain, it is well-settled that against the positive identification of the accused, alibi is unavailing (People v. Terrobias, 103 SCRA 321) and that as a minimum requirement for the theory of alibi to be accepted, the accused must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime (People v. Bihasa, 130 SCRA 62; People v. Muñoz, 107 SCRA 313; People v. Capillas, 108 SCRA 173; and People v. Sambangan, 125 SCRA 726).
On the testimony of the barrio captain that he saw the witness Cabrera at a store on Jacinto Street reading comics at about the time of the incident, it was not impossible for Cabrera to be at the scene of the crime as it was committed along the same street.
Appellant Dondoy alleges that the scene of the crime was well-lit and, therefore, there should have been more witnesses in addition to Cabrera. If the defense believed that there were other witnesses who could exculpate the accused or show his non-participation by showing who the perpetrators were, it should have called for them even by compulsory process (People v. Campana, 124 SCRA 271). lt did not do so.
We have carefully examined the records in relation to the arguments presented under each of the assigned errors. We are convinced that the trial court did not err in finding appellant Dondoy guilty of the crime as charged. However, the indemnification for the death of Manuel Pasaol is raised from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, except for the indemnity which is increased from TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) insofar as the appellant is concerned, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
