People v. Nitcha
People v. Nitcha
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
MELO, J.:
Before the Court is the appeal interposed by accused-appellant from the decision rendered on
September 22, 1994 by the Honorable Pedro C. Cacho, Presiding Judge of Branch 52 of the
Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region, stationed in Tayug, Pangasinan, which pronounced
accused-appellant's culpability of the murder of May Villa Rica Sibayan. In addition to the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant was required to pay to the heirs of the victim
P50,000.00 as indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 in the form of exemplary
damages, and P43,000.00 for actual expenses (p. 494, Record; p. 132, Rollo).
The factual background of the imputed felony, as formulated by the Office of the Solicitor General, is
supported by the record, and is accordingly adopted, thusly:
On October 1990, at around 7 o'clock in the evening, Jojo Belmonte went out of his
house located at Purok IV, Barangay Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan to buy some
cigarettes in a nearby store. (p. 6, TSN, December 10, 1991) Before Jojo Belmonte
could buy the cigarettes, Doro Nitcha arrived, uttered the words "You are one of
them" ("Maysa ca met") in the vernacular, then started mauling him. (p. 7, TSN,
December 10, 1991) Unable to endure the pain, Jojo fought back. (Ibid) A few
minutes had gone into the fight when May Villarica (a.k.a. Lydia) Joselito, Agustin
and Marcelina (Nenet), all surnamed Sibayan, arrived. (p. 8, TSN, December 10,
1991; p. 6, TSN, September 9, 1992) May and Joselito tried to pacify the two
protagonists, however, their efforts proved futile as Doro Nitcha refused to be
pacified. (Ibid.)
The fighting stopped upon the arrival of Doro's sister Victoria Corpuz (Baby) who,
upon seeing the commotion, dragged Doro away from the fight and brought him
home. (p. 7, TSN, march 30, 1993; pp. 6-7, TSN, March 1, 1993)
Likewise, Marcelina (Nenet), Agustin, May and Joselito proceeded towards their
house located in front of the store where the incident occurred. (p. 8, TSN, March 1,
1993)
Not long thereafter and while the Sibayans were still on their way, appellant Florestan
Nitcha, brother of Doro, arrived at the sari-sari store brandishing a gun and shouting
in Tagalog, "Walanghiya kayo, putangina ninyo, papatayin ko kayong lahat!" (p. 7,
TSN, February 2, 1993) After uttering those words, appellant fired his gun in the
direction of the Sibayans, the bullet hitting May at the back of her head and existing
through the middle of her forehead. (p. 11, TSN, December 10, 1991; p. 8, TSN,
September 9, 1992; p. 7, TSN, February 2, 1993; p. 8, TSN, March 1, 1993; pp. 6-7,
TSN March 8, 1993) Appellant then aimed his gun at Joselito but missed. (p. 12,
TSN, December 10, 1991)
May was brought to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital in Tayug, Pangasinan
where she was given first aid treatment. (p. 10, TSN, February 2, 1993) Upon the
advice of a doctor, the victim was brought to a hospital in Dagupan City. (Ibid.) May,
however, expired on the way thereto. (Ibid.)
Shortly after the shooting incident, appellant went back to his mother's house before
proceeding to the police station of San Quintin, Pangasinan where he surrendered
himself together with his service firearm. (p. 4, TSN, April 29, 1993; p. 4, TSN, June
14, 1993; p. 7, TSN, June 14, 1993)
(pp. 2-4, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee)
Premised on the foregoing backdrop, an indictment for murder was filed against herein accusedappellant (p. 18, Rollo) who, after trial, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on account of the
positive identification made by the People's witnesses, the defense of accused-appellant anchored
on denial being found unavailing.
Jose Belmonte, Agustin Sibayan, and Joselito Sibayan collectively pointed an accusing finger at
accused-appellant whom they witnessed firing his .38 caliber firearm towards the direction of May
Villa Rica Sibayan who was then negotiating an earthen dike about three to four meters from the
position of accused-appellant. In parrying the inculpatory thrusts of the prosecution, accusedappellant ventured to develop the theory that it was not he but one of the companions of Jojo
Belmonte who pulled and fired the gun. According to accused-appellant, the bullet missed the head
of his brother who was then astride Jojo Belmonte while the latter and accused-appellant's brother
was engaged in a scuffle, and that unfortunately, the bullet hit the head of May Villa Rica Sibayan.
The court a quo was understandably far from convinced by accused-appellant's thesis by reason of
the categorical statements of the People's witnesses (pp. 130-132, Rollo).
The prospect of spending practically the rest of his life behind bars as a form of retribution naturally
became the source of mental concern for accused-appellant who continues to maintain in the appeal
at bench that he is not in any way responsible for the death of the victim. To buttress the plea for
reversal of the assailed discourse, accused-appellant's counsel enumerated twelve (12) errors
supposedly overlooked by the magistrate below (pp. 87-88. Rollo) which all revolve on the principal
query of whether accused-appellant's profession of innocence is tenable.
With reference to the first, fifth, eight, and penultimate points of discussion aired by accusedappellant, efforts were exerted to denigrate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses first by
questioning the integrity of Jojo Belmonte through capitalizing on Belmonte's inability to convey the
number of seconds in a minute, thereby suggesting that Belmonte's testimony can not be accepted
as an accurate recollection of the crime (p. 90, Rollo). The basic faux pas from the witness can
hardly diminish his veracity of the entire narration of how the felony was perpetrated for the simple,
nay, obvious reason that an omission of this character is insignificant to merit rejection of the whole
testimony, unflawed as it has remained. Besides, it is difficult to subscribe to the theory put forward
by accused-appellant anent the imaginary companion of Jose Belmonte who allegedly pulled and
fired the gun in the light of the statements of three witnesses of the People who declared in no
uncertain terms that it was accused-appellant who fired the gun.
Jose Belmonte testified, thus:
PROSECUTOR BINCE:
Q What happened when Forestan Nitcha arrived, if any?
A He said "Asan ba sila? (Where are they?)
Q Is that the only statement he uttered?
A There was, Sir.
Q Please tell this court the complete statement he stated?
A "Where are they? Come out, I'll kill you!"
xxx xxx xxx
Q What was the appearance of Florestan Nitcha when he uttered that
statement?
A He was standing, sir.
Q What else?
A He shot Lydia Sibayan.
Q What did he use in shooting Lydia Sibayan?
A A short firearm, sir.
Q How far was Lydia to Florestan when Florestan shot Lydia
Sibayan?
A More or less, four (4) meters, sir.
Q Where was Lydia Sibayan facing when he was shot by Florestan
Nitcha?
A Here, sir. (Witness pointing and touching the back portion of his
head.)" (tsn, pp. 10-13, Dec. 10, 1991) (Emphasis Supplied)
(pp. 54-56, Rollo.)
Corroborating Jose Belmonte's open-court statements was Agustin Sibayan who narrated in part:
PROSECUTOR BINCE:
xxx xxx xxx
Q What happened, next, if any, when you heard the accused Pat.
Nitcha shouting "Putangina nila, nasaan sila"?
A It is because my son was the last one my daughter-in-law
requested my son to go ahead and she was left behind that it is why
when Nitcha fired his gun she was the one who was hit, sir.
Q May Villarica Sibayan was the one who was hit?
A Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Do you know the position of your daughter-in-law in relation to
Nitcha when the latter shot your daughter-in-law?
A Her back was turned against Florestan Nitcha, sir.
Q How far is your daughter-in-law to Nitcha when she was shot by
Nitcha?
A More or less three (3) meters, sir.
Q How about you how far were you to Nitcha when you saw him
shooting with the use of 38 caliber your daughter-in-law?
A Around 20 meters, sir.
Q From your place, please point to a particular place wherein you can
estimate to be a 20 meters which is your distance to that place of
Nitcha?
A (Witness is pointing from the witness stand up to the bamboo tree
guard outside the courtroom which is 10 to 15 meters more or less)
xxx xxx xxx
Q And since the time of your birth up to the time you graduated from
high school, you stayed there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Of course, being a resident of Brgy. Alac, particularly Purok "4" of
San Quintin, Pangasinan, you know your neighbor Joselito Sibayan.
Am I correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You also know Agustin Sibayan?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the rest of the family of Sibayans?
A Maybe, sir.
Q Of course, because you know them, naturally they also know you.
Is it not?
A Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR BINCE
Q And being a neighbor of the Sibayans' at Purok "4," Brgy. Alac, San
Quintin, Pangasinan, you have a good relation to (sic) them since the
age of reason up to the time during all those occasions wherein you
visited Brgy. Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan?
WITNESS
A Precisely, sir.
(pp. 20-21, tsn, may 19, 1993; pp. 12-13, Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee)
Absent any indication of a sinister scheme to prevaricate, the affirmative statements uttered by the
People's witnesses showing accused-appellant's culpability must be respected inasmuch as positive
declarations subordinate disclaimers emanating from the defense (People vs. Espinoza, 228 SCRA
143 [1993]). Verily, proof of motive is not indispensable where the culprit has been positively
identified (People vs. Salveron, 228 SCRA 92 [1993]).
What militates heavily against accused-appellant's pretense is the concocted tale to the effect that
an unnamed assailant fired the gun but the bullet missed the brother of accused-appellant as he was
sitting on top of the fallen Jose Belmonte tsn, March 23, 1993, p. 22), and that instead, the bullet
penetrated the back of the head of the victim in a straight trajectory while the latter was walking on
the earthen dike. Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that a bullet fired by an assailant from a standing
position directed downwards against the so-called intended victim, such as accused-appellants
brother on the ground, would, against the law or gravity, change course from its groundward
trajectory and instead, suddenly ascend after missing the intended victim, and hit the back of the
head of the victim who was at an elevated position.
Accused-appellant argues next that procedural infirmities attended the trial below such as (a) the
hearsay character of the testimony of the People's third witness which was heard in the absence of
accused-appellant and his counsel; (b) the denial of due process on account of the perceived bias of
the trial judge; (c) the illegality of accused-appellant's arrest and detention; and (d) the absence of
preliminary investigation. However, as correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the
record of the case indubitably shows that accused-appellant's counsel opted not to cross examine
Agustin Sibayan (p. 323, Record) which deliberate omission obviously negates the so-called hearsay
nature of said witness' testimony. Similarly wanting in substance is accused-appellant's claim relative
to the alleged bias of the trial judge considering that mere apprehension that a magistrate is partial is
inefficacious to sustain a charge of breaching the tenet of "cold neutrality" normally expected of a
judge. And even on the assumption that accused-appellant's arrest was illegal for want of preliminary
investigation, such a hypothesis was nonetheless negated by accused-appellant's act of posting a
bail bond thereafter, apart from the fact that he entered a plea of not guilty which is tantamount to
foregoing the right to question the assumed irregularity (People vs. Hubilo, 220 SCRA 389 [1993]).
Too, accused-appellant's submission that there is absence of physical evidence showing that he
fired a gun simply because the paraffin test yielded negative is unacceptable, for as held by this
Court in People vs. Manalo (219 SCRA 656 [1993]):
. . . even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative
finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible
for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the
hands are washed before the test (People vs. Talingdan, 191 SCRA 333 [1990];
People v. Roallos, 113 SCRA 584 [1982]). The Court has even recognized the great
possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case,
the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol (People vs. Rebullar, 188 SCRA 838
[1990]).
The subsistence of a bail bond is also no legal obstacle to accused-appellant's immediate
incarceration after promulgation of a decision involving a felony punishable by reclusion
perpetua following the principle enunciated in People vs. Fortes (223 SCRA 619 [1993]) this:
It is clear from Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114
of the Revised Rules of a s amended, that:
. . . before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It
is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any
penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. To that extent the right is
absolute.
xxx xxx xxx
Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be
circumstances negative the hypothesis that the defendant reflected on the means,
method and form of killing the offended party. There was absolutely nothing personal
between the accused and Basas. He was, so he thought, erroneously, protecting the
property which he was detailed to watch by killing the stranger. His purpose was to
kill, the decision was sudden, and the position of the stranger was accidental and did
not matter. In fact, in the nature of things, to give the other man an opportunity to
defend himself or to return the attack would have been a contradiction.
(People vs. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738; 742 [1949]);
The herein appellant has, no doubt, liquidated Maximo Cabuenos. However, we do
not believe that the killing was accomplished with treachery. It does not appear that
the shooting was premeditated not that the accused had consciously chosen that
method of attack directly and specially to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide
without risk to himself. His decision to shoot Cabuenos seemed to be sudden, in view
of the latter's fight, and the position of both the victim and the killer was entirely
accidental. Therefore treachery may not be imputed to him.
(People vs. Abalos, 84 Phil. 771; 773 [1949]);
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that murder is committed by any
person who kills another treacherously. Under Art. 14 916) of the same Code, there
is treachery "when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make." It was while Nestor was retreating from Ernesto when
Oscar stabbed Nestor at his back. An aggression from behind, however, does not
necessarily make the act treacherous. There is no showing that the aggressors
"consciously" adopted a mode of attack to directly and specially ensure the execution
of the act without any risk to themselves. In fact, the stabbing was preceded by
challenges to fight on Nestor by Ernesto. The first was when the two had a heated
argument, and the second was less than ten minutes later, when Ernesto came back
with a "batuta", which must have placed the deceased on guard; in any case, the
latter cannot be said to have been totally unaware of possible danger.
(People vs. Balderama, 226 SCRA 537; 550-551 [1993])
The crime committed by accused-appellant is, therefore, homicide and not murder. The penalty for
homicide, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal. There being no
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposable is reclusion temporal in its medium
period; and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that should be imposed upon
accused-appellant is an indeterminate sentence within the range of prision mayor, as minimum,
and reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED, and accused-appellant is hereby
found guilty of HOMICIDE and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.