On 3 March 1977, an information was filed in the Criminal Circuit Court of Manila charging Cipriano Barba y Doria, alias "Perry Barba", with the crime of murder committed as follows
Unable to accept the decision, accused, hereinafter referred to as Appellant, interposed the instant appeal. In his Brief, he assigns the following errors:
3
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT "OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION COMMITTED DURING THE NIGHTTIME WHICH HE PURPOSELY SOUGHT THE BETTER TO ACCOMPLISH HIS CRIMINAL INTENT".
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT.
The operative facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime charged are summarized by the trial court as follows:
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The evidence in chief for the prosecution is articulated through eight (8) witnesses, namely: Rosalie Zafra, Nenita Tolentino, Dr. Angelo Singian, Alexander Roman, Antonio Villegas, Renato Abaya, Eduardo Sison and Pfc. Florencio Munar. Shorn of its unnecessary details, the said evidence tends to prove the following facts:
The Victim. — The deceased, Magdalena Juliano y Sultan who was nicknamed Maggie, 30 years old and single, was employed as a service attendant at the Coffee Shop of the Philippine Plaza Hotel. She has been working there since the said hotel opened on September 27, 1976. She had for her closest friends among her co-workers, Rosalie Zafra who was the receptionist in the coffee shop, and Nenita Tolentino, another service attendant with whom she boarded in an apartment located at 1827 Tiago Street in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Her friendship with these two, Rosalie Zafra and Nenita Tolentino, was such that she has confided to them her past; that she once lived with the accused, Cipriano Barba, nicknamed Perry, without the benefit of marriage, but that she has separated from him because she has found out that Perry was a married man and with children, and because wherever Perry who was a heavy drinker, got drank, he would maltreat her. She further confided that she was avoiding Perry who was then insisting that they resume their living together.
The death of Maggie. — On the night of February 9, 1977, the two boardmates, Magdalena Juliano and Nenita Tolentino, went home together after their tour of duty ended at about 11:30 o'clock. They actually left the premises of the Philippine Plaza Hotel at about 12:00 o'clock, midnight, in an owner-type jeep with one, Exequiel Yuzon, a suitor to Magdalena and another named Caloy who was driving the jeep. Upon reaching the corner of Isagani and Tiago streets, the two girls alighted and walked home. Exequiel and Caloy then drove away.
The two girls arrived at their apartment at about 12:55 o'clock a.m. Five minutes later, while still on the ground floor thereof, they heard successive knocks on their door, accompanied by a man's voice who (sic) introduced himself as "JIM". Nenita and Magdalena refused to open the door as house rules forbade them to accept visitors at that late hour and when they told the caller that they did not know anyone by that name, the insistent caller continued to knock on the door and announced that he was "PERRY". . . . (The caller peeped through the glass jalousie window, moved the curtain aside through the missing jalousie and was thus recognized by Nenita to be Perry Barba who was then wearing a white polo.) . . . The knocking continued but the girls ignored the same. Nenita then told Magdalena to go upstairs, which the latter did, while she went to the comfort room (at the ground floor). While there Nenita sensed that somebody went downstairs and opened the door which slammed with a loud noise when it closed. (Even while in the comfort room, Nenita could hear Magdalena and Perry quarreling outside.) Getting out of the comfort room, Nenita went upstairs and saw Magdalena's ring, wrist watch and college ring on the latter's empty bed. Through the open window she heard Perry and Maggie talking in loud voices and a little later, she heard shouts from Maggie asking for help like "Aray! Aray! Tulungan ninyo ako!" and other words to that effect. Looking out of the window facing the street, she saw Perry and Maggie on the sidewalk just outside the gate leading to the apartment, with Perry (apparently) slapping both sides of Maggie's face with the latter shouting "Aray! Aray! until her view of them became obstructed by the gate. Then she heard people shouting to the effect that Maggie was stabbed, so she and her other roommates who were awakened by the shouts, ran downstairs and to the street where they saw Maggie sprawled and bloodied just outside the gate. The dying Maggie was brought to the Chinese General Hospital in a jeep where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
The cadaver was autopsied by Dr. Angelo S. Singian, Chief, Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police district, who reported the following Postmortem Findings as contained in Exhibit "H".
EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
1) Stab wound of the face piercing the right ala nasi as the point of entry going obliquely backwards, upward and lacerally to the left zygomatic area traversing a path of 5 cm. in length in the subcutaneous tissue.
2) a) Point of Entry measures 1.7 cm. x 0.5 cm.
b) Point of exit measures 1.7 cm. x 0.4 cm.
Stab wound of the face immediately below the left nostril and measuring 1.2 cm. x 0.3 cm. x 1 cm. piercing deep into the bone in a right angle trajectory.
3) Stab wound, neck, right anterior, level of the cricoid cartilage and measuring 3.4 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 9.5 cm. and course is slightly downwards, backwards, and medially cutting the right common carotid artery.
4) Stab wound, thru and thru, proximal 3rd of right arm, lateral as the point of entry going obliquely upwards, slightly forwards and medially, traversing a path of 6 cm. in length in the subcutaneous tissue.
a) Point of entry measures 2.5 cm. x 0.8 cm.
b) Point of exit measures l.7 x 0.8 cm.
5) Penetrating stab wounds of the chest, right level of the 4th intercostal space lateral to the right, midelavicular line and measuring 2 cm. x 0.8 cm. x 11 cm. Course is obliquely backwards and slightly downwards and medially cutting 4th rib and piercing the lower lobe of the right lung.
6) Penetrating stab wound of the chest, left, level of the 4th intercostal space, lateral to the left parasternal line and measuring 2.3 cm. x 0.8 cm. x 10 cm. Course is obliquely backwards and slightly downwards and laterally perforating the diaphragm.
7) Stab wound, left arm, distal 3rd, anterior measuring 2 cm. x 0.7 cm. x 11.5 cm. Course is obliquely upwards, slightly backwards and medially piercing the bicep muscle.
8) Stab wound, thru and thru proximal 3rd of the left forearm, anterior as the point of entry going obliquely downwards, slightly backwards and medially traversing a path of 5 cm. in length piercing through the anterior muscle of the left forearm.
9) Incise wound, right hypothenar surface and measuring 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. involving the subcutaneous tissue.
10) Stab wound, right arm, middle 3rd, lateral and measuring 2.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. x 12 cm. Course is obliquely downwards, forwards and medially.
11) Incise wound, right forearm, distal 3rd, posterior and measuring 4 cm. x 1.3 cm. involving the subcutaneous tissue.
12) Stab wound, left arm, proximal 3rd, lateral and measuring 3 cm. x 1.3 cm. x 11.5. Course is obliquely downwards, forwards and slightly medial piercing the left deltoid muscle.
13) Stab wound, thru and thru middle 3rd, lateral and a little posterior as the point of entry going traversely inwards and slightly upwards, traversing a path of 6 cm. in length piercing the tricep muscle.
a) Point of entry measures 3.5 cm. x 1 cm.
b) Point of exit measures 2.4 x 0.5 cm.
14) Penetrating stab wound of the chest, left midaxillary line, 6th left intercostal space and measuring 3 cm. x 0.7 em. x 11 cm. Course is obliquely downwards, forwards and medially perforating the left dome of the diaphragm with evisceration of the portion of the descending colon.
15) Non-penetrating stab wound of the posterior chest wall, 3 cm. left of the midline, level of the inferior angle of the left scapula and measuring 1.8 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 4 cm. Course is obliquely upwards, slightly forwards and medially piercing the muscle of the left inter scapular area.
16) Non-penetrating stab wound, of the posterior chest wall, 5 cm. x left (sic) of the midline, level of the 12th thoracic vertebra and measuring 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 7.5 cm. Course is obliquely upwards slightly forwards and medially and piercing the muscle superficially.
17) Non-penetrating stab wound of the posterior chest wall, right posterior axillary line, level of the inferior angle of the right scapula and measuring 3.5 cm. x 1 cm. x 9 cm. Course is obliquely forwards, upwards and medially and piercing the right scapular muscle.
18) Non-penetrating stab wound of the posterior chest wall, right posterior axillary line, level of the 10th thoracic vertebra and measuring 2 cm. x 11 cm. Course is obliquely downwards, slightly forwards and medially and piercing the muscle superficially.
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
1) Cut right common carotid which is completely severed.
2) Fractured 4th right rib at anterolateral surface.
3) Stabbed wound of the lower lobe of the right lung at the anterior surface.
4) Stabbed wound of the diaphragm at the left anterior and lateral portions.
5) Left hemothorax — 750 cm.
6) Right hemothorax — 400 cm.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Shock and hemorrhage secondary to multiple (18) stab wounds of the body, face and upper extremities lacerating the right common carotic artery and right lung.
Dr. Singian also issued a death certificate for the deceased Magdalena Juliano (See Exhibit G).
The assailant. — The death of Magdalena Juliano was reported to the Crimes and Persons Section, Investigation Division, of the Western Police District at about 1:00 o'clock a.m., February 10, 1977, by Pfc. Cesar Yanco of the Traffic Division, and Pfc. Florencio Munar was assigned as officer of the case. Through interviews with persons who brought the dying Magdalena to the Chinese General Hospital, particularly, Nenita Tolentino, who was Magdalena's roommate, Pfc. Munar came to know the name of the suspect: Cipriano D. Barba nicknamed Perry Barba, a Meralco employee. Aside from Nenita, Munar also questioned Eduardo Sison, Alexander Roman and Romy Liongson, who declared that while walking home along Tiago Street, they noticed a man and a woman quarreling near the gate of a house until the woman fell to the ground, with the man bending over her and moving his arm up and down as if boxing her with his fists. The three further told Munar that when they approached the man and the woman, the man ran away and when pursued by one of them, he threatened the pursuer (See Exhibit "I") with his knife, saying "Huwag kang makialam!" Statements of Nenita Tolentino and Eduardo Sison (See Exhibits "C" and "I") were taken by Pfc. Munar later during the day. Munar also interviewed Antonio Villegas, barangay chairman who turned over to him a ball pen with the engraved name "PERRY BARBA" which he claimed was given to him by one, Renato Abaya with the information that the latter found the same in the premises of the killing. Proceeding to the scene of the crime at 1827 Tiago St., Pfc. Munar further made inquiries and was able to interview residents in the vicinity like Renato Abaya who found the afore-described ball pen and Antonio Villegas himself.
With the suspect having been identified as Cipriano D. Barba, the police flashed a teletype message to all police stations for his apprehension (See Exhibit "K"). On February 24, 1977, at about 7:00 o'clock, p.m., the suspect, accompanied by one, Atty. Rafael Bueno, presented himself to the offices (sic) of the Homicide Section of the Manila Police where he was identified in a police line-up by Nenita Tolentino as PERRY BARBA, the man who knocked at their apartment door on the early morning hours of February 10, 1977, and with whom the deceased Magdalena Juliano had a quarrel a few minutes later. A picture showing Nenita Tolentino pointing to Perry Barba was taken by the police on the said occasion (See Exhibit "L").
Sworn statements were taken from Rosalie Zafra (Exhibit "O"), Nenita Tolentino (Exhibit "D"), Alexander Roman (Exhibit "M"), and Renato Abaya (Exhibit "N").
Motive for the killing. — The motive for the killing of Magdalena Juliano, nicknamed Maggie, is suggested by prosecution witnesses Rosalie Zafra and Nenita Tolentino, her closest friends and co-workers at the Philippine Plaza Hotel, the former being the receptionist in the coffee shop where they worked and the latter being her co-attendant in the same coffee shop as well as her roommate in their boarding house besides (sic). Both Rosalie and Nenita, testified among others on Maggie's love life with Perry Barba; her living with him without the benefit of marriage; her discovery that he was a married man and with children; her separation from him; how she has been avoiding him; the insistence of Perry that they resume their living together; and the fear which she entertained whenever he is known to be waiting for her to leave the Philippine Plaza Hotel after her tour of duty late in the evening.
Rosalie Zafra also testified about phone calls she received as receptionist from a caller who identified himself as Perry Barba of Meralco who wanted to talk with Maggie, his sweetheart. In several of these calls, Perry was angry because he was told that service attendants are prohibited from answering calls over the telephone. On one occasion, Perry has berated Rosalie for hiding Maggie from him in the following manner: "Putang ina mo, bakit itinatago mo si Maggie!" (You son of a bitch, why are you hiding Maggie!). On another occasion he asked Rosalie to tell Maggie "Bago siya mapakinabangan ng iba, papatayin ko muna siya!" which, loosely translated, means, "Before any one else can have her, I will kill her first."
Rosalie Zafra testified further about an occasion when, before finishing her tour of duty one night in January, 1977, one of the lady security guards in the employees' exit and entrance door called on her, saying that a drunken man was outside who wanted to talk to Maggie over the intercom. Rosalie gave permission for Maggie to talk over the intercom and when Maggie was through, she told Rosalie that she was going to sleep in the hotel because she was afraid of Perry who was waiting for her outside. On this occasion, when Rosalie went home at 11:00 o'clock, p.m., and as her bag was being inspected, the lady security guard who conducted the inspection pointed to Perry seated in a taxi cab parked in the parking lot. On her way to her taxi which was waiting for her, she passed by Perry's taxi and saw the face of the man for the first time.
As regards the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the People submits that the trial court correctly ruled that the same was sufficiently established as Maggie was unsuspecting and unarmed at that time of the stabbing. Furthermore, the fact that appellant inflicted 18 wounds on Maggie and that some of those wounds were caused even after she was already lying on her back with the former on top of her, proves that the killing was treacherous. It likewise maintains that evident premeditation was sufficiently established as the records show that barely a week after appellant's threat to kill Maggie, he was seen in the vicinity of the employees' exit of the Philippine Plaza waiting for her. It further argues that there is no question that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime. Appellant knew that in the early morning, the tenants of the boarding house of Maggie would be sleeping already and that the chances of passers-by witnessing the intended crime would be very slim; he thus took advantage of the darkness to successfully consummate his plan.
On 17 March 1980, the appellant filed his Reply Brief wherein he categorically admits that "upon the state of evidence on record:
Except as to the issue of treachery, We find no merit in this appeal.
We agree with the trial court's holding that appellant's identity as well as his participation in the killing of Magdalena Juliano was sufficiently proven by the prosecution. While it may be true that prosecution witnesses Alexander Roman and Eduardo Sison failed to point to the appellant as the culprit, the latter was positively identified by Nenita Tolentino. Thus, on direct examination, Nenita declared:
Q What did you do after you sensed that the door was opened and slammed close?
A I went out of the comfort room and saw that Maggie was not there, sir.
Q What did you do?
A I heard somebody talking outside, so, I went upstairs, sir.
Q What did you do upstairs?
A I saw Maggie's things on the bed like her ring, wristwatch and college ring, sir.
Q What else happened?
A I heard them talking outside, sir.
Q Who they?
A Perry and Maggie, sir.
Q What did you do after you heard still Maggie and Perry talking outside?
A I remained upstairs. A few minutes thereafter I heard Maggie shout, sir.
Q How did Maggie shout?
A "Aray! Aray! Tulungan ninyo ako," sir.
Q And where was the voice of Maggie coming from at the time she was uttering these words?
A Outside the gate of the boarding house, sir.
Q What did you do after you heard Maggie shouting for help?
A I peeped through the window, sir.
Q What floor is this window?
A Second floor, sir.
Q What did you see after you peeped at the window?
A I saw her being hurt by Perry, sir.
Q In what manner did you see Perry hurting Maggie?
A He was moving his hands backwards and forwards. I saw Perry striking by his right hand from right to left direction several times, sir.
Q And what was Maggie doing in the meantime that Perry was hitting her in this manner?
A She was still shouting, sir.
Q What was she shouting?
A "Aray! Aray!," sir.
Q And what happened — what transpired next?
A Both disappeared from my eyesight, sir.
11
The attempt to diminish the impact of Nenita's identification of the appellant by a showing of her conflicting testimony as to the number of times she saw appellant before the date of the incident is of no moment. It is true that on cross-examination, she testified that she saw the appellant on two (2) separate occasions, a month before said date, the first of which was when she was introduced to him by Maggie and the second when appellant fetched Maggie from her place of work and she, Nenita, joined them in the taxi.
14
Having been positively identified, appellant's defense of alibi merits no further consideration. Such a defense, being inherently weak and easily fabricated,
20 looked upon with suspicion and always to be received with caution,
21 cannot prevail over the positive identification of an accused.
22
The killing is thus qualified to murder by evident premeditation.
We likewise agree with the trial court and the People that nighttime should be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Appellant deliberately sought it either to prevent him from being recognized or to ensure his unmolested escape.
41 He chose a very unholy hour after midnight believing that everybody would be asleep and, therefore, none could witness his deed and that the darkness of night would facilitate his escape and prevent his identification.
The appellant shall be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He surrendered on 25 February 1977,
44 before the filing of the information in this case. This offsets the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
45
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered affirming the decision appealed from with respect to the sentence and modifying it with respect to the indemnity. As affirmed, this Court finds the appellant, CIPRIANO BARBA y DORIA, GUILTY beyond all reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all the accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Magdalena (Maggie) Juliano y Sultan in the sum of P50,000.00.
With costs against appellant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Rollo, 4.
2 Rollo, 5-14. Per then Judge Amante Q. Alconcel.
3 Brief for Appellant, 1-2.
4 Rollo, 5-11.
5 Rollo, 11-12.
6 Rollo, 12-13.
7 Rollo, 13-14.
8 Rollo, 13-14.
9 Rollo, 57, et seq.
10 Rollo, 73, et seq.
11 TSN — de la Cruz, 29 April 1977, 12-15.
12 TSN — Macariola, 17 April 1978, 60.
13 TSN — de la Cruz, 29 April 1977, 13.
14 Id., 28, 34, 36.
15 TSN — Macariola, 19 July 1978, 4.
16 TSN — Macariola, 19 July 1978, 4-6.
17 People vs. Del Socorro, 182 SCRA 359; People vs. Javier, 182 SCRA 830; People vs. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329; People vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289; People vs. Santos, 183 SCRA 25; People vs. Palino, 183 SCRA 680; People vs. Flores, 185 SCRA 366.
18 177 SCRA 427, 433.
19 181 SCRA 19.
20 People vs. Rafallo, 86 Phil. 22; People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47.
21 People vs. Bondoc, 85 Phil. 545; People vs. Cinco, 67 Phil. 196; People vs. De Guzman, 70 Phil. 23; People vs. Loveria, supra.
22 People vs. Pasco, 181 SCRA 233; People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316; People vs. Obando, 182 SCRA 95; People vs. Corrales, 182 SCRA 439; People vs. Repuela, 183 SCRA 244; People vs. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 375; People vs. Cayaan, 183 SCRA 445; People vs. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493; People vs. Clores, 184 SCRA 638; People vs. Carmine, 185 SCRA 59; People vs. Demecillo, 186 SCRA 161; People vs. Acosta, 187 SCRA 39; People vs. Ampo-an, 187 SCRA 173; People vs. Marapao, 188 SCRA 243; People vs. Cagalingan, 188 SCRA 313; People vs. Felipe, 191 SCRA 176; People vs. Tasarra, 192 SCRA 266; People vs. Kyamko, 192 SCRA 374.
23 People vs. Samonte, 64 SCRA 319; People vs. Sarmiento, 118 Phil. 266.
24 TSN — Perez, 23 September 1977, 13-16.
25 TSN — Macariola, 25 April 1977, 20-21; 24-25; 28-30.
26 Id., 32.
27 Testimony of Nenita Tolentino, TSN — de la Cruz, 29 April 1977, 9-11.
28 4 Phil. 141.
29 34 Phil. 786.
30 People vs. Cananowa, 92 SCRA 427; People v. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, June 1991.
31 People vs. Bachar, 170 SCRA 700.
32 People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649.
33 13 Phil. 530.
34 People vs. Torejos, 43 SCRA 158; People vs. Canial, 46 SCRA 634; People vs. Tingson, 47 SCRA 243; People vs. Palacpac, 49 SCRA 440; People vs. Renegade, 57 SCRA 275; People vs. Manangan, 59 SCRA 31; People vs. Tumalip, 60 SCRA 303; People vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 69580, 15 February 1990.
35 U.S. vs. Bañagale, 24 Phil. 69; People vs. Diaz, 35 SCRA 178; People vs. Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245; People vs. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89; People vs. Estillore, 141 SCRA 456; People vs. Camilet, 142 SCRA 402; People vs. Obenque, 147 SCRA 488; People vs. Manalo, 148 SCRA 98.
36 People vs. Obenque, supra; People vs. Molato, 170 SCRA 640; People vs. Repe, 175 SCRA 422; People vs. Batas, 176 SCRA 46.
37 TSN — Macariola, 25 April 1977, 12-13.
38 Id., 24.
39 Brief for Appellee, 11.
40 TSN — de la Cruz, 11 May 1977, 16.
41 People vs. Baring, 187 SCRA 629; People vs. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887; People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 800.
42 Section 19 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
43 170 SCRA 107. See also People vs. Cagalingan, 188 SCRA 313; People vs. Espiritu, G. R. No. 80406, 20 November 1990.
44 TSN — Macariola, 17 April 1978, 52.
45 Article 64(4), Revised Penal Code.
46 189 SCRA 643 (1990).
47 189 SCRA 700 (1990).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation