Myline Cordial

People of the Philippines vs. Aquilino Pacala and Tranquilino Pacala Jr., alias Chacoy
G.R. No. L-26647, August 15, 1974
58 SCRA 370

FACTS:

A farmer was killed by a group of armed men near his hut located about 130 meters away from the seashore. His son who was with him was able to run and hide. He recognized the five assailants and saw how his father was hacked several times with a bolo. Afterwards, the five men left the victim and proceeded in the direction of the hut.  When he was certain that the assailants had already left the place, he assisted his father and shouted for help. The barrio captain arrived and attended to his father, he then proceeded to their hut and discovered that their transistor radio and a wooden trunk containing cash were missing.

During the trial another farmer confirmed the presence of the assailants at the scene of the incident during that fateful night. When he was fishing in the sea near the area, he saw the assailants aboard a boat pass by and land on the shore. He observed them moving towards the direction of the hut of the victim.

The victim’s son executed before the Municipal Judge an affidavit narrating the incident and also testified on the witness stand during the trial.

ISSUES:

Is the son credible as witness when there are inconsistencies in his testimony?

RULING:

The Court held that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the witness. The inconsistencies referred to by the appellants are minor details, and the rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony.

The alleged contradiction between the affidavit ex parte and testimony during the trial was more apparent than real. It should be noted that affidavit ex parte is often incomplete and will not compare with testimony on the witness stand. An affidavit, “being taken ex-parte is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from the want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestions of his memory, and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject.

NOTES:

Element of robbery in robbery with homicide must be conclusively proved

It is well-settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it is necessary that it be clearly established that a robbery has actually taken place, and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of such robbery, a homicide be committed. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of the victim would, therefore, be classified either as a simple homicide or murder, depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the complex offense of robbery with homicide.

Alibi is a question of fact best determined by the trial court.

We have declared in an earlier case   that whether or not the defense of alibi has been established is a question of fact. By its very nature, alibi is established by the testimony of witnesses who confirm the presence of the accused at some place so far removed from the scene of the crime as to cast reasonable doubt on his actual participation in the offense charged. “As a consequence, the credibility of an alibi depends so much on, and may very well be equated with, the credibility of the witnesses who seek to establish it. On that account, therefore, and in that respect, the relative weight which the trial magistrate assigns to the testimony of said witnesses must, unless patently and clearly inconsistent with the evidence on record, he accepted.”

Motive is not essential to conviction for murder where identity of the assailant is established. –

it must be said that motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when, as in the instant case, there is no doubt as the identity of the culprits.  Despite the absence of proof of motive, the accused may be found guilty of murder.

Right to preliminary investigation deemed waived if not timely raised.

-Inasmuch as the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason that the absence of the certification is nothing but evidence of a fact, and if the omission of the fact itself to be certified is waived, if not properly raised before the accused enters his plea, why should the omission merely of the certification be given more importance than the absence of the fact itself to be certified to?”

Full Text and Summary: People vs. Pacala G.R. No. L-26647, August 15, 1974