People of the Philippines v. Danilo Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014
♦
Decision, Leonen [J]
♦
Dissenting Opinion, Abad [J]
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-appellants.
DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
I strongly dissent from the majority Decision.
The incident in this case was an offshoot of a campus war between members of two fraternities at the University of the Philippines (UP) where one group, allegedly masked, surprised and beat up the other, resulting in injuries to some and death to one.
Alleging conspiracy, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed an information for murder, two informations for frustrated murder, and three informations for attempted murder against 12 accused, belonging to the Scintilla Juris Fraternity, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to 38 with no bail recommended. Only 11 of the accused were tried, however, since accused Benedict Guerrero remained at large.
The Facts and Case
The evidence for the prosecution shows that seven Sigma Rho Fraternity members were taking lunch at the Beach House Canteen inside the UP campus in Diliman, Quezon City, between 12:30 and 1 :00 p.m. on December 8, 1994 when about 15 men, carrying baseball bats or lead pipes, with some wearing masks, swooped down upon them. SR Dennis Venturina shouted an alarm, "Brods ! Brods ! " His brods scampered away but the attackers got to some of them. (To avoid confusion, SR or SJ is affixed before the names of those involved to distinguish members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity from members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity.) SR Leandro Lachica, his fraternity's Grand Archon, testified that the attackers all wore improvised masks of cloth or t-shirts. Five of them went after SR Lachica, hitting him on the back and forearms as he parried the blows. In the course of that attack, the mask of one of them, SJ Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, with whom he was familiar, fell off. SR Lachica got away from those who were beating him but he looked back while running and saw SJ Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor Medalla, two of the attackers, no longer wearing masks. The attack lasted for about 30 to 45 seconds.1
SR Mervin Natalicio, a 4th year law student and Vice-Grand Archon of his fraternity, testified that while most of the attackers running towards their group wore masks, one of them, SJ Medalla, wore none. Natalicio tried to scamper away but he tripped on a tree root and fell. About 10 attackers, including SJ Zingapan and Christopher Soliva who also wore no masks, bludgeoned him on the back, arms, left shoulder, hips, toes, and right hand.2
After his initial attackers left SR Natalicio, a group of four or five others led by SJ Benedict Guerrero, took over and beat him up, too. A third group came and also mauled him on the left side of his body. When Natalicio was so hurt he could no longer move, some people brought him to the UP Infirmary where they treated his injuries.3
SR Natalicio later went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), gave his statement, and submitted himself to medico-legal examination. He said that Scintilla Juris members attacked them as an offshoot of an August 1994 rumble despite a signed truce.4
SR Cesar Mangrobang testified that after SR Venturina sounded the alarm, he saw a group of men, some with cloth masks, approach with lead pipes and clubs. As he received a blow on his back, he tried to run but two masked men blocked his way and repeatedly beat him up. When their masks fell off, the two turned out to be SJ Gilbert Magpantay and Carlo Fajardo.5
SR Mangrobang succeeded in running away until he reached the corner of the Main Library. On glancing back, he saw no one after him. He then decided to return to the scene of the commotion where he saw from three to four meters away SJ Danilo Feliciano, Jr. and Raymund Narag hitting SR Venturina with lead pipes. SJ Feliciano's cloth mask had fallen off. SR Mangrobang also saw SJ Reynaldo Ablanida wielding a lead pipe while running.6
SJ Narag and Feliciano were about to turn on SR Mangrobang when somebody shouted, "Pulis! Takbo! Takbo!," prompting the two to run in the direction of the Main Library. SR Mangrobang and others helped carry SR Venturina into a passenger jeepney to bring him to the Infirmary.7
SR Cristobal Gaston, Jr. testified that, of the men who came, two attacked him: the first with a lead pipe, hitting him on the arms and hands as he tried to cover his head, while the second stabbed him on the left chest and forearm. The two wore masks. SR Gaston got away and ran towards Palma Hall but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan, Feliciano and George Morano at the scene.8
SR Gaston went to confer with his fraternity brothers at the College of Law building. Later that evening, they met with their alumni brothers.9
SR Arnel Fortes testified that some of the men who attacked them wore masks but some did not. He saw SJ Feliciano, whom he recognized despite a cloth mask, and SJ Medalla who wore none. SR Fortes managed to run away but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan and Morano, who also wore no masks, running after him. They hit him on the back, causing him to fall. He stood up and tried to run again but a group of 10 men attacked him for five to eight seconds, hitting his head five to seven times. They also hit him on the legs. He did not recognize any of his attackers. But, standing up again after the second attack, SR Fortes saw SJ Feliciano beating up SR Venturina. SJ Feliciano 's mask fell off in the process.10
Dr. Rolando Victoria described the injuries that SR Venturina suffered.11
Dr. Aurea Villena, on the other hand, testified on the results of her medical examinations of SR Natalicio, Fortes, Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston four days after the mauling incident.12
Emmanuel Batungbakal testified that he saw a group of men board three cars that had no plate numbers. The cars sped past the back of the law library. SJ Feliciano was one of those on board. Batungbakal did not, however, witness the reported incident that followed.13
Ernesto Paolo Tan testified that he was at the Beach House Canteen during the incident. He saw three separate groups of men, some of whom wore masks, attack SR Natalicio. After the attackers left, he helped Natalicio board a service vehicle.14
Dennis Gaio testified that he was having lunch outside the canteen when three of the attackers came from the Arts and Science Building followed by 10 more from the College of Law. Some wore masks but the others did not. They attacked the group that was having lunch, including SR Venturina. He tried to help the latter after he had fallen but one of the attackers stopped him. Gaio had two women companions but he told them to run towards the sunken garden when he sensed the arrival of the masked15 men.
The defense presented 42 witnesses. To prove its claim that the identities of the attackers were unrecognizable because of their masks, the defense presented, among others, Benito Lato and Frisco Capilo, both utility workers at UP and some student customers at the canteen. Lato recalled that he was collecting plates at the canteen when the attackers came. But he was unable to recognize them because they wore masks and he could see only their eyes.16
Capilo, on the other hand, testified that he was on his way to the Main Library to work when several men, all wearing masks and carrying lead pipes, rushed towards the canteen and attacked some who were eating there.17
Daniel Mabazza testified that he was on his way out of the canteen when 15 men arrived from the South wing of the Main Library and attacked some customers who were eating at the tables. He testified further that he was about 3 to 5 meters from where SR Venturina was attacked but he could not identify any of the attackers because they were all wearing masks and none of these fell off during the attack.18
Alpha Sigma Nu Sorority members, Eda Pangilinan, Luz Perez, and Bathalani Tiamson testified that they were unable to identify the attackers because they all wore masks. Pangilinan and Tiamson insisted that they did not see any of the attackers' masks fall off.19
UP police officer Romeo Cabrera testified that he and fellow officer, Oscar Salvador, were at the Arts and Science Building when they responded to reports that a rumble was taking place at the back of the Main Library. On arrival at the Beach House Canteen, they saw the wounded SR Natalicio with some companions. They put him on board a jeepney and brought him to the UP Infirmary with his companions. On the way, Cabrera asked SR Natalicio who attacked his group. He replied that he did not recognize any of them because they wore masks. Cabrera asked SR Natalicio the same question after he had received treatment. SR Natalicio gave the same answer. Cabrera could not interrogate SR Venturina because the latter suffered serious injuries.20
UP police officer Salvador testified that when he and Cabrera responded to reports of commotion, they noticed a mauling victim, SR Natalicio, surrounded by some people. Salvador asked some of the bystanders who the culprits were. They said they did not recognize them since they were wearing masks.21
The police officers brought SR Natalicio and his three companions to the Infirmary using the canteen's jeepney. On the. way, Cabrera asked SR Natalicio and the others with him who attacked them. They replied that they could not tell since the men wore masks. Salvador saw SR Venturina and Gaston being treated at the Infirmary. After SR Natalicio was treated, Cabrera asked him again if he recognized the men who hit him. Natalicio replied that he did not because they wore masks. When asked how many hit him, Natalicio said that he could not tell because he had his back on them.22
SJ Feliciano testified that he was in Pampanga on December 8, 1994, visiting his grandfather whom he thought had undergone surgery of the prostate gland.23 His mother, Feliciana, and an elementary school teacher, Rogelio Yumul, corroborated his testimony. Yumul testified that he was on his way to the principal 's office at around noon of December 8 when he saw Feliciano seated at a waiting shed.24
SJ Alvir testified that he had been ill since December 5. Consequently, he neither reported for work nor went to UP on December 8.25
SJ Medalla testified that on the day in question he was with his classmate Michael Vibas working on a school project. He claimed that he could not have taken part in the rumble since he suffered from an August 1994 head injury that affected his balance.26 Jose Victor Santos testified that he and Medalla played darts after lunch on December 8 and they later went to Jolibee since Medalla had to treat him after losing the game.27 Dr. Gerardo Legaspi corroborated Medalla's testimony regarding his previous head injuries.28
SJ Soliva testified that he was having lunch with his girlfriend and her lady friend at Jollibee Philcoa when the incident took place. They returned to UP at around 1 :00 p.m. Soliva went straight to his "tambayan" where he learned of the rumble at the main library.29 Anna Cabahug, Soliva's girlfriend, corroborated his testimony.30
SJ Zingapan testified that he could not have taken part in the incident at UP since he was at that time having lunch with Teodoro Canay in Kamuning, Quezon City. From there, he went to the SM City mall at around 1 :00 p.m. to buy an electric thermos as a wedding gift for a town mate. He was on his way out of the mall when he chanced upon two of his "brods."31 The RTC absolved SJ Rodolfo Penalosa on a demurrer to evidence since none of the prosecution witnesses testified that he had taken part in the attack.
On February 28, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment32 finding SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of murder and four counts of attempted murder. The court gave credence to the testimonies of the victims who identified their attackers. It thought little of the failure of some of the victims to name them when asked by the UP police officers and the physicians at the Infirmary. It did not agree that the victims' delayed identification of their attackers tainted their testimonies. The RTC held that the accused conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. But it acquitted SJ Ablanida, Fajardo, Magpantay, Morano, and Narag for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), Special First Division of Five,33 with one Justice dissenting, affirmed the RTC Decision and found SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan guilty of three counts of slight physical injuries in Criminal Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135, and Q95-61134; two counts of attempted murder in Criminal Cases Q95-61138 and Q95-61137; and one count of murder in Criminal Case Q95-61133. The CA imposed on the accused the penalties that corresponded to the offenses and ordered them to pay various civil indemnities to the victims or, in the case of SR Venturina, to his heirs.
The CA ruled that the witnesses' positive identification of SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan prevailed over the latter's defenses and alibis. It regarded the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses as trivial and did not tarnish their credibility. The CA held that the delay in the identification of the accused had been explained: SR Natalicio and Fortes needed medical attention; the others with them wanted to come together when they filed their complaints.
The CA explained that it characterized the crimes charged in Criminal Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135, and Q95-61134 as mere slight physical injuries since the intent to kill was not evident, given that none of the accused chased them. SR Gaston, said the CA, suffered only a lacerated wound near his breast, precluding an attempt on his life.
The Issue Presented
The central issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred, like the RTC, in not rejecting the victims' identification of their assailants as mere fabrications to go around the fact that the latter wore masks and in thus not absolving the accused of the charges.
In every criminal action, the prosecution has to establish the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, its first duty is to prove the identity of the offender for, even if the commission of the offense can be established, no conviction can take place without proof of his identity beyond reasonable doubt.34
True, alibi is a weak defense in the face of positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime. But such testimonies must be credible and must come from credible witnesses.35
Several circumstances militate against the mauling victims' testimonies that they were able to identify their attackers:
1. SR Lachica, one of the victims, himself testified that the men he saw coming to attack his group, at least 10 in number, all wore masks. He said:
Q: When one of your brod you heard shouted "Brads'', what did you do?
A: I stood up and I was alarmed. I stood up and looked back and from my side, I saw at least ten (10) armed men and masked men.
Q: You said armed men, you saw armed men when you looked back.
With what were they armed with?
A: They were armed with lead pipes and baseball bats.
Q: You also mentioned that these men were wearing masks. What kind of masks?
A: They were wearing handkerchiefs, piece of clothes, and some t-shirts.36
SR Lachica also said that, as five of the attackers beat him up on the back, he covered his head with his forearms.37 Consequently, it was not likely that, as he would claim, he saw SJ Alvir's mask fall off his face.
SR Lachica also testified that as he ran away from his assailants, he looked back running and was able to place the accused SJ Zingapan and Medalla at the scene.38 But, considering that SR Lachica was trying to get away from the men who were beating him up, it was not likely, having succeeded in sprinting away, that he would look back and risk slowing down his escape. He did not even claim that SJ Zingapan and Medalla were among those who attacked him. He appears to have just made up the statement to get on record evidence that the two were paii of the attackers.
2. SR Natalicio testified that the men who attacked them mostly wore masks but SJ Medalla who led those men wore no mask.39 This is not easy to believe since SR Lachica, the other prosecution witness, testified that the attackers all wore masks but when he looked back while getting away, he saw SJ Medalla already without a mask, implying that the latter lost it, thus belying SR Natalicio's testimony that SJ Medalla wore no mask from the start.
SR Natalicio testified that while parrying his attackers' blows, he saw SJ Zingapan and Soliva.40 These two must be near each other since he saw them at glance. But, contradicting SR Natalicio, SR Gaston also saw SJ Zingapan, not with Soliva but with Morano.41
3. The RTC itself gave no credence to SR Mangrobang's testimony and for this reason acquitted SJ Magpantay and Fajardo, two of his attackers whose masks supposedly fell off. The trial court also acquitted SJ Narag, whom SR Mangrobang said he saw, when he returned to the scene of the commotion, hitting SR Venturina with the aid of SJ Feliciano. It is quite unbelievable that having narrowly escaped his attackers, SR Mangrobang would go back while the mauling was still in progress. Finally, the trial court acquitted SJ Ablanida whom SR Mangrobang said he saw wielding a lead pipe while running because it simply could not believe this witness.
4. After SR Lachica and Natalicio, the third witness to use the look-back proposition was SR Gaston. He testified that one of two masked men tried to bludgeon him on the head as the other lunged at him with a knife, wounding his chest and forearm. As SR Gaston ran and escaped from those two men, he managed to look back just to place SJ Zingapan and Morano at the scene of the mauling.
The trial court itself found something terribly wrong with SR Gaston's testimonies. It said:
In this regard, Gaston related a hazy story. At one point, he said that he saw Zingapan and Morano at the same place but not at the same time explaining that the former was there first and when he moved, the latter stood in the same place. Later, he said that both were there at the same time. Granting arguendo that Morano was moving, his story does not entirely jibe with that of Fortes.42
5. SR Fortes was the fourth witness to foist the same look-back proposition. He ran away after seeing about 15 men, armed with lead pipes and clubs, coming to attack his group. But he looked back while on the run to see SJ Zingapan and Morano, who supposedly had no masks, right behind him. They hit him on the back, causing him to fall. As he stood up and tried to run again, a group of 10 men attacked him for five to eight seconds. He recognized none of them. But, standing up again after the second attack, he supposedly saw SJ Feliciano whose mask fell off while beating up SR Venturina.
Just what are the chances that four out of five witnesses who were fleeing and, indeed, running for their lives would just look back, risk stumbling and crashing down, to put in evidence the identities of some of those whom the RTC and the CA convicted? Very little. It appears a convenient excuse for providing evidence where none existed. The circumstances of the separate identifications, taking place in split seconds, defy belief. What baffles me is the fact that the trial court acquitted SJ Morano whom SR Fortes and Gaston identified while looking back on the run but convicted SJ Zingapan, Soliva, and Medalla who were also targets of look-back testimonies.
The trial court had reason to further doubt SR Fortes' testimonies. It said:
By the way, the Court has not ignored the testimony of Amel Fortes that Morano repeatedly struck him with a lead pipe. It was, however, given during the rebuttal stage. When he sat at the witness stand for the first time, he said nothing of that sort. He could have been saying the truth and that what he related was not an afterthought but still the cloud of doubt remains. As there still that haziness, the barrier remains uncleared.43
6. Emmanuel Batungbakal of course testified that he saw three plate-less cars rush out towards the Main Library44 with SJ Feliciano on board one car. But this testimony is inconclusive since Batungbakal admitted on cross-examination that he was not sure it was SJ Feliciano he saw. Besides, as pointed out above, no credible testimony supports the view that SJ Feliciano in fact took part in the mauling.
The trial court acquitted some of the accused after rejecting the testimonies of SR Mangrobang who fingered SJ Feliciano as well. On the other hand, although SR Gaston did not mention SJ Feliciano on direct testimony, he brought up his name only on cross, a catch-up kind of testimony that the trial court rejected in SJ Morano’s case. SR Fortes, the final witness against SJ Feliciano, said an uncanny thing: two groups of attackers had just bludgeoned him one after the other, yet SR Fortes claimed that he still managed to stand up in time to observe SJ Feliciano attacking SR Venturina.
7. Notably, the two sides gave conflicting testimonies regarding the victims' opportunity to identify their attackers. The prosecution witnesses claim that some of the attackers could be identified because they wore no masks or their masks fell off. The defense witnesses testified that all the attackers wore masks and none of these fell off. Since identification of the attackers is the key issue, the Court has to consider which witnesses and stories appear to be more credible.
I am impressed with the testimony of UP police officer Salvador, who had served the UP's police force for 18 years and had no motive to fabricate or lie. He testified that when he and fellow officer Cabrera arrived at the scene of the mauling, he asked the bystanders the identities of the assailants. The bystanders replied that they were unable to identify the attackers because they wore masks. Salvador testified:
Q: Upon being informed by the blue guard that there was a rumble near the Beach House canteen, tell the Court what did you and Cabrera do?
A: We rushed to the place where the incident took place, sir.
Q: And upon reaching the area of the Beach House Canteen, what did you notice?
A: I noticed one victim together with some people, sir, and I asked some of the bystanders if they saw what happened and they said they did not recognize the attackers because they were wearing mask.45
The statement of the bystanders, made while some of the wounded were bleeding there and the excitement lingered, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides:
Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. x x x
These statements are spontaneous reactions inspired by the excitement of the moment. It may be assumed that, unlike tardy witnesses, the bystanders who made the statements had no opportunity to deliberate or fabricate. The words they uttered are part of the commotion they described.46 The res gestae contradicts the attempt of prosecution witnesses to show that a number of the attackers wore masks or that identification was possible because the masks of some fell off.
In fact, Luz Perez, a 3rd year Interior Design student, then lining up to get food at the Beach House Canteen, testified like many others that she was unable to identify the attackers because they all wore masks. She said:
Q. How many masked men did you see Miss Perez?
A. There were about ten to fifteen masked men.
x x x x
ATTY. W. CHUA
Q. And can you identify any of the attackers that you saw?
WITNESS
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Why can you not identify them?
A. Because they were wearing masks.47
8. In the same way, while the startling incident and the pains it caused still occupied their minds, SR Natalicio and his three companions admitted to the two UP police officers investigating the mauling incident that they could not identify their attackers because the latter wore masks. UP police officer Cabrera testified:
q- On you way to the Infirmary, please tell the court if anything had transpired.
a- I asked Marvin Natalicio of his names, sir.
q- What else did you ask him, if any?
a- I asked him who hit him, sir.
q- What did he say?
a- He told me he did not recognize any of them because they were wearing masks, sir.
q- What about his companions who were with you in this vehicle, did you not ask them?
a- They answered the same thing, they did not recognize any of them, sir.
x x x x
q- Now, upon arriving at the Infirmary, please tell the Court what transpired?
a- At the Infirmary, there were two (2) other persons who were also injured, Sir.
q- Please tell the court what you did at the U.P. Infirmary?
a- I asked Marvin again if he recognized the two (2) other persons who hit him and he answered the same thing as what I have asked him when we were at the vehicle, Sir.48
Notably, as SR Fortes testified, it was "SOP" for all fratmen to familiarize themselves with the faces and names of the members of other fraternities.49 This being the case, there was no reason for SR Natalicio and his companions, all fratmen, not to promptly name the attackers from the rival fraternity when first queried by the police officers.
9. Besides, Dr. Carmen Mislang, a physician who had been serving at the UP Infirmary for 20 years, also testified that when asked, SR Natalicio and his companions told her that they could not identify their attackers because the latter were masked.50 Dr. Mislang in fact included this information in her medical report. She thus testified:
Q: You said doctor, in this history of present illness, marked as Exhibit 9-a-2=zingapan, that I quote: "x x x he was allegedly hit by a lead pipe during the rumble by unknown assailants." What was the basis of your statement here?
A: He told us, the group because they came with friends, they alleged that he was hit by a group of people masked by a lead pipe. I asked if they know the assailants and they said no because they are masked.
Q: You said he, to whom are you referring to?
A: The patient and their friends around because there are also commotion in the emergency room, sir.
Q: Are you referring to the patient by the name of Mervin Natalicio?
A: Yes, sir.51
SR Natalicio of course denied having said that he could not identify their assailants when the police officers and the doctor asked him and his companions about it. But between the latter, on the one hand, and those officers and the doctor, on the other, the Court should have been more inclined to believe the latter.
Indeed, there is no evidence that SR Natalicio, Lachica, Fortes, Gaston, Mangrobang, and Tumaneng, who survived the mauling, gave statements shortly after the incident either to the UP police officers or the Quezon City police which had primary jurisdiction over the crimes. They took four days mulling over it before going to the NBI to name their assailants.
10. SR Natalicio of course gave a different version of his interview with the UP police officers. When they asked him who their assailants were, he said that he requested them to come back as he was not feeling well.52
There is testimony that two of his Sigma Rho brothers conferred with him to discuss what happened and their strategy for getting back at those whom they believed were responsible. Further to this, SR Lachica53 and Gaston54 testified that they met with their alumni brothers that evening. SR Natalicio said that when the police officers came back to ask him the identities of the attackers, a senior fraternity brother-lawyer was present and he told the police officers that the statements would be given to the NBI and they would just be furnished copies.55
This is ludicrous. The right to silence is given to persons under suspicion for committing some crimes, not to the victims whose duty is to promptly assist the police investigators in pinpointing criminal responsibilities. No evidence has been presented to show that the UP police force was partial to the opposing fraternity. I am thus unable to blame the accused for believing that the only possible reason in this case for withholding information from the police from day one was that the victims and their counsel had yet to put their acts together.
11. The supposed identification of the accused came four days later at the NBI office in Manila.1âwphi1 Admittedly, the victims and their brods waited for everyone to be ready before they came as a group to give their statements at the NBI office. The excuse that SR Natalicio and Fortes needed medical attention and that the others with them wanted to come together when they filed their complaints at the NBI is not a valid excuse. Since they claim that they were terribly aggrieved and that one of them lost his life, the natural thing was for them to demand immediate justice and action from the police or the NBI on the afternoon of December 8, 1994.
12. The prosecution witnesses testified that the masks of five of the accused just fell off to reveal who they were. These were (a) SJ Alvir per SR Lachica's testimony;56 (b) SJ Zingapan and ( c) SJ Medalla also per SR Lachica's testimony that the two were not wearing masks when he looked back and saw them,57 implying that they had masks at the beginning of the attack; (d) SJ Magpantay and (e) SJ Fajardo per SR Mangrobang's testimony that the masks of these two fell off.58 SR Fortes also testified that he saw SJ Feliciano's mask fell off as he was hitting SR Venturina.59
Just what are the chances that the masks of five out of 12 accused just fell off during the mauling? Quite little or nil since it was not actually a fraternity rumble where the protagonists hit each other creating the possibility that any mask they were wearing could fall off. Here, the victims testified that they bore the punishment and were unable to fight back since their attackers were numerous and carried lead pipes and clubs. Indeed, none of the victims testified that his action in protecting his head resulted in the unmasking of one or some of his attackers. Evidently, the attackers deliberately wore masks to hide their identities. It made no sense for them to wear masks that would just fall off when one sneezes.
Those who swing bats to strike at objects before them rarely hit their own faces. Only in funny movies like The Three Stooges can that happen. What are the chances that a mask would just fall off from the face of the person wearing it? Construction and industrial laborers doing strenuous work wear mask all day long to protect themselves from dusts, chemicals, or fumes. Food processing workers wear them at work to prevent food contamination. They are not likely to be heard experiencing unpredictable falling off of masks taking place in great number. Here, if the prosecution were to be believed, five out of just 12 accused lost their masks in only 30 to 45 seconds. The odds of this happening are unbelievable. Indeed, prosecution witness Gaio himself who was at the scene of the commotion testified that he did not see any of the attackers losing their masks at any point in time. He said:
ATTY. CHUA:
Q: At any point in time, did you see any mask pulling [sic] off?
WITNESS:
A: I did not see anything, sir.60
Gaio also belied SR F01ies' testimony that SJ Feliciano's mask fell off while he was hitting SR Venturina. Gaio said:
Q: Mr. Dennis Venturina was hit and fell down, was the person who hit Dennis wearing mask?
A: Their faces were covered, sir.
Q: All of them?
A: Yes, sir.61
Q: There is no way to recognize them?
A: None, sir.
While the attack by masked men is doubly condemnable, not only for the treachery involved but also for the cowardice and deception that came with it, the Court cannot hastily send to prison those charged with these crimes without proof beyond reasonable doubt that they committed them. The Constitution ordains this.
In a case like this, where the identities and participations of the several accused involved are difficult to prove, the ideal solution is to convince the least guilty of them, the one who showed the most reluctance and delivered the lightest blows, to turn state witness. I am unable to say if efforts in this direction were taken by the NBI or the prosecutors to ensure that they had a good case.
I condemn the senseless death of SR Venturina and commiserates with the sufferings of his family. Fraternity wars, many of them cruel and barbaric, are the scourge of many campuses. New recruits are romanticized with the mystery, pride, and drama of brotherhood or kinship with senior members of great reputation. This of course invites envy and annoyance from other brotherhoods for none is greater or more courageous than one's own. They thus test each other's unity, capability, and resolve, destroying each other, and subordinating the real purpose of their being in school. They forget that true brotherhood comes from mutual kindness and respect.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petition, REVERSE AND SET ASIDE the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to 38 dated February 28, 2002, and ACQUIT the accused-appellants Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Danilo A. Feliciano, Jr., Christopher L. Saliva, Julius Victor L. Medalla, and Warren L. Zingapan on ground of reasonable doubt.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Certified True Copy
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Third Division
June 6, 2014
Footnotes
1 TSN, June 5, 1995, pp. 11-14.
2 TSN, July 3, 1995, pp. 6-16.
3 ld.at17-19.
4 Id. at 20-23.
5 TSN, September 28, 1995, pp.14-19.
6 Id. at 20-30.
7 Id. at 28-34.
8 TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 17-38.
9 Id. at 44-46.
10 TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 42-63.
11 TSN, July 24, 1995, pp. 11-24.
12 TSN, July 31, 1995, pp. 9-I 0.
13 TSN, November 6, I 995, pp. 33-39; 61-62.
14 TSN, September 3, I 996, pp. I 6-17; 24-54.
15 TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 10-22.
16 TSN, November 27, 1995, pp. 10-12.
17 TSN, December4, 1995, p. 13.
18 TSN, September 17, 1997, pp. 7-16.
19 RTC Decision, p. 37.
20 TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 22-53.
21 TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 15-22.
22 Id. at 22-40.
23 TSN, February 17, 1999, pp. 8-9.
24 TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 7-10.
25 TSN, February 2, 2000, pp. 9-16.
26 TSN, September 22, 1999, pp. 4-21.
27 TSN, August 11, 1999, pp. 7-12.
28 TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 10-25.
29 TSN, June 16, 1999, pp. 12-21.
30 TSN, November23, 1998, pp. 5-27.
31 TSN, May 12, 1999, pp. 7-18.
32 Penned by Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now a member of the Court.
33 The cases were re-raffled many times after several Court of Appeals justices inhibited themselves, claiming close relation with a party, a counsel, or a fraternity involved in the case. See: Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 26-27.
34 People v. Pineda, 473 Phil. 517, 548 (2004); People v. Tresvalles, Jr., 313 Phil. 471, 492 (1995), citing Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 311 Phil. 813, 817 (1995).
35 People v. Mansueto, 391 Phil. 611, 633 (2000); People v. Crispin, 383 Phil. 919, 932 (2000).
36 TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 11.
37 Id. at 29.
38 Id. at 13.
39 TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 9.
40 Id. at 14-16.
41 TSN, October 11, 1995, p. 143.
42 RTC Decision, p. 65.
43 Id.
44 TSN, November 6, 1995, pp. 31, 33.
45 TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 19-20.
46 2 Jones, Sec. 10:1, 6th Edition.
47 TSN, December 11, 1995, pp. 80, 85.
48 TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 37-40.
49 TSN, October 30, 1995, p. 12.
50 TSN, September 16, 1998, pp. 20-21.
51 Id.
52 TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 3.
53 TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 15.
54 TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 46, 148-149.
55 TSN, February 7, 2001, p. 31.
56 TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 12.
57 Id. at 13.
58 TSN, September 28, 1995, pp. 17-18.
59 TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 62-63.
60 TSN, April 13, 1997, pp. 48-49.
61 Id. at 49.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
