Republic of the
Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
8th
Judicial Region
Branch 34
Bulwagan Ng
Katarungan
Tacloban City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-
versus -
Criminal
Case No. 99-06-120
For: FRUSTRATED MURDER
ROGELIO MARGARITA,
DANILO MARGARITA,
FELICITO BALILING, &
SONOY DOE
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x
DECISION
“When you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” - Mark Twain
At
bar is the above-captioned case charging Rogelio Margarita, Danilo Margarita,
Felicito Baliling and Sonoy Doe for the crime of Frustrated Murder.
The
Information charging all accused on April 28, 1999, reads as follows:
“That on or about 3:00 o’clock, A.M., March 14, 1999
at San Jose, Tacloban City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one another,
armed with a bolo knife or machete, and with intent to kill, qualified by
treachery, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of said
weapon, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one RENANTE
ONGIS, by holding and kicking the latter and hacking him, thereby inflicting
upon said Renante Ongis physical injury described as follows:
Hacking wound,
about 5 inches in length, on
his forehead slanting from his right eye going up to the middle of his
forehead.
thus performing all the acts of execution which would
have produced Murder as a consequence but which did not, by reason of causes
independent of the free will of the accused, as their evil designs were foiled
by nearby Barangay tanods who, attracted by the commotion, rescued and brought
the victim to the hospital for timely medical intervention .”
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On June 16, 1999, accused Rogelio Margarita,
Danilo Margarita and Felicito Baliling were arraigned.
All three accused after having been
arraigned entered their respective plea of NOT GUILTY.
On October 15, 1999, pre-trial was
conducted pursuant to the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The prosecution
was represented by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Percival S. Cana and the
accused Rogelio Margarita and Danilo Margarita, assisted by counsel Atty. Evelyn
R. Lesigues, and accused Felicito Baliling, assisted by counsel Atty. Lauro A.
P. Castillo, appeared.
The prosecution did not
mark any documentary
evidence and manifested that the marking will be made during the course of the
trial.
On the part of
the accused, the counsels did not mark any documentary evidence nor offer any
stipulation of facts.
1.
RENANTE
ONGIS, 27 years old, single, unemployed, and resident of Brgy. Tagiktik, San
Jose, Tacloban City, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law,
testified as follows, for the purpose of proving the material allegations in
the Information:
He testified that on Saturday, March
13, 1999 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening he was at the house of his
employer, Artemio, whose family name he did not know, in Brgy. 83-C, Tagiktik,
San Jose, Tacloban City. His employer Artemio is a contractor for car painting.
That he, Renante Ongis, was at Artemio’s house that evening to get his wage.
Artemio pays him Nine hundred pesos (Php 900.00) a week as a helper in car
painting. On that same evening his co-employees Chicay, Lito, and Rolly Tipanan
were also at his employer’s house to get their wages. After they were paid
their wages, Artemio invited them to a drinking session. They started drinking
at about 8:00 P.M. and by the time they finished their drinking session at
about 3:00 o’clock in the morning the following day of March 14, 1999, they had
consumed twelve (12) bottles of beer grande. Thereafter, Ongis accompanied
Rolly Tipanan, Chicay, and Lito to the highway so his co-employees could take
their rides home. The highway is about two hundred (200) meters from Artemio’s
house. On their way to the highway, they noticed that there was some fighting
going on but they did not mind it and just proceeded to the highway. After Lito
took his ride home, Renante decided to go home because he felt sleepy.
On his way home his arms were
suddenly held by Felicito Baliling on the right and Danilo Margarita on the
left. And immediately Rogelio Margarita kicked him on the abdomen. Right after
he was kicked by Rogelio Margarita, he was hacked on the head by Sonoy Salvacion
(Sonoy Doe) with a long bolo or “sundang,” hitting his forehead. On the witness
stand, Renante showed a scar, about 5 inches in length, on his forehead
slanting from his right eye going up to the middle of his forehead. He also
testified that the vision in his right eye has been blurred since the hacking.
In open court, Ongis positively
identified Rogelio Margarita, Danilo Margarita and Felicito Baliling. Sonoy Doe
remains at-large. After he was hacked, Ongis testified that all of the accused
scampered away.
Renante Ongis was brought to the
hospital by Barangay Tanods and was treated and remained confined for one week.
He presented a Statement of Account issued by the Divine Word Hospital in the
amount of P30,541.25 (Exhibits “A” and “A-1”) as the amount he paid the
hospital. It took over a year before he was able to return to work.
On cross-examination, Ongis stated
that on his way home from the highway he had to pass by that same place where
there was trouble, and it was in this place where the incident happened. That
at the time of the incident he did not know the names of the accused; he was
only familiar with their faces. He found out the names of the accused only
after their arrest. That the policemen who arrested the accused were not
present during the incident, only the barangay tanods were there. He also did
not know the name of the person who hacked him, Sonoy Doe, at the time of the
incident but was familiar with his face.
The witness was shown his
affidavit and confirmed that it was the same affidavit he signed at the
emergency room of the hospital at 7:00 AM of March 14, 1999. He also confirmed
that when the policeman asked him to sign the affidavit it was already prepared
for him. That he was having a hard time reading it because of the problem with
his right eye but he affixed his signature anyway after being assured by the
police that what was stated in the affidavit reflected what happened during the
incident on the early morning of March 14, 1999. The witness testified that
after he was hacked all the accused and himself ran away.
2.
EDWIN
LABO, 38 years old, Barangay Tanod and resident of Burayan, San Jose, Tacloban
City, testified to prove that he saw the group of the accused maltreat and hack
the victim on the date stated in the Information.
Under
direct-testimony, Labo testified that he and Crispin Batingting, also a barangay
tanod, were on duty at the time of the incident and were posted at the corner
of Burayan and the street leading towards Taguiktik. He saw Rogelio Margarita,
Felicito Baliling, Danilo Margarita and Sonoy approach the corner and block the
way of Renante Ongis, who was on his way home. Hee testified that Danilo Margarita
kicked Ongis while Rogelio and Felicito held the Ongis’s arms. After Ongis was
kicked, Sonoy hacked him and the four ran towards San Jose but were intercepted
by policemen. Labo brought the victim to the hospital.
The witness positively
identified accused Rogelio and Danilo Margarita in open court. When asked about
Felicito Baliling he stated that the accused was not present in court.
On
cross-examination, the witness stated that after the victim was kicked and when
he was hacked and no longer being held by his arms, Sonoy hacked him while the
three accused were not doing anything. He affirmed the contents and veracity of
his Joint Affidavit with Crispin Batingting. In his joint affidavit, he stated
that it was Rogelio Margarita who kicked the victim. Pressed further, he
testified that Danilo and Rogelio kicked the victim; then stating that he saw
Danilo kick the victim, and then confirming that Rogelio did not kick the
victim. After the victim was hacked, Labo took the victim to the hospital and
the other tanod chased the accused.
After the
testimony of Edwin Labo, the prosecution manifested in open court that the
testimony of another prosecution witness, barangay tanod Crispin Batingting, is
dispensed with. The Medical Certificate, having been admitted by the defense as
to its genuineness, the Findings marked as Exhibit “B-1” and the attending
physician’s signature as Exhibit “B-2,” were admitted in evidence for the
purposes to which they were offered.
The prosecution
rested its case and the presentation of defense evidence followed:
1.
ROGELIO
MARGARITA was presented as the first defense witness and stated that he was 28
years old, single and resident of Brgy. Paraiso, San Jose, Tacloban City. His
testimony was offered for the purpose of denying the charges in the Information
that he acted in conspiracy with the other accused, Danny Margarita and
Felicito Baliling, in hacking the victim in this case.
At 3:00 AM of
March 14, 1999, the witness and his elder brother, Danilo Margarita, had just
arrived at the corner of Burayan on their way to Taguiktik to buy cigarettes. They
were not able to buy cigarettes because they were met at the corner by Renante Ongis
and three others. Ongis immediately delivered punches on Rogelio Margarita,
hitting Rogelio on his left neck. Rogelio fell to the ground and when he stood
up Ongis said, “We will still see each other.” Rogelio did not know any of them
by their names but knew Ongis by his face and nickname Santik because they
sometimes meet at the billiard hall. While this was going on, Ongis’s
companions were by the Santol tree towards the left. Danilo Margarita,
Rogelio’s brother, was by the side of the road towards the right. When Rogelio
stood up he didn’t say anything and just approached his brother Danilo who was
talking to barangay tanod Edwin Labo. Ongis was on his way to the hospital,
wounded on the forehead because of trouble at the interior of the road. Ongis
was already wounded when he punched Rogelio. According to the witness, his
brother Danilo uttered that there was someone by the banana plant. When asked
what he and his brother did next, Rogelio said they decided to go home. They
did not proceed to buy the cigarettes anymore, concerned that they could get
involved with what just happened. But they did not reach home because they were
apprehended by the tanods, the same tanods that Danilo was having a
conversation with earlier. They were being arrested as the suspect in the
wounding of Renante Ongis. When the police arrived, Rogelio and his brother
were taken to the San Jose Police Station.
When asked why
he was still awake at around 3:00 A.M., Rogelio replied that his elder brother
woke him up at 2:00 A.M. so together they could ferry a passenger to V&G
subdivision. The passenger was already with his brother in the motor cab. After
ferrying the passenger, they turned in the motor cab to another brother’s house.
They charged the passenger Php40.00 for the trip to V&G. It was about 3:00 A.M. when they left on foot
towards Tagiktik to buy cigarettes, and that is when the incident occurred. He
did not know Sonoy at the time of the incident; he got to know him only during
the trial of this case
On
cross-examination, Rogelio Margarita admitted that it was only on that occasion
on March 14, 1999, that Danilo ever woke him up in the early morning hours to
accompany Danilo in ferrying a passenger because the place where the passenger
was going was rather far. However, it was pointed out to him that the trip was
only from Paraiso to V&G, not a far distance, but he did not respond. They
did not leave right away for V&G when he was roused at 2:00 A.M. because Danilo
was still negotiating with the passenger, although the passenger was already on
board the motor cab. It was about 3:00 A.M. when they arrived at Paraiso from
V&G.
On their way
from Paraiso walking towards Tagiktik to buy cigarettes, they were blocked at
the corner of Burayan by Ongis who immediately punched Rogelio for no apparent
reason. Rogelio was not aware if Ongis was already wounded when the latter
approached and punched him. When he was punched, his brother Danilo was just
nearby talking to the barangay tanod, but Danilo and the tanod did not do
anything, even after he told Danilo, within hearing distance of the tanod, that
he had been punched. Also, he did not retaliate after he was punched, or ask
the tanod to arrest Ongis; neither did he file a complaint against the tanod
who arrested him nor the policemen who detained him.
2.
FELICITO
BALILING, 28 years old, single, an employee of Maxwan, Tacloban City and a
resident of Brgy. 83, Paraiso, San Jose, Tacloban City. His testimony was
offered to deny the accusation and the testimony of prosecution witnesses and
to testify on other matters relative to this case including his age at the time
of the incident.
He
testified that he was born on September 28, 1982, and that he was 16 years old
at the time of the incident. A photocopy of a Certificate of Live Birth of
Felicito Baliling, after stipulation by the prosecution of the age of the
witness, was marked as Exhibit “1”.
At
about 3:00 A.M. on March 14, 1999, he and several friends were at the corner of
Burayan on their way home from a friend’s birthday party when they noticed a
fistfight. During the incident he was just behind barangay tanods Butiktik and Labo,
who were just watching the fistfight. He noticed about 5 people, including Ongis,
were involved in the fistfight. Then he saw Sonoy hack Renante Ongis, then the
people, including his companions, scampered to different directions. He
testified that he knew the Margarita brothers and Sonoy (but not his family
name) prior to the incident because they are from the same barangay. He also
knew Renante Ongis prior to the incident only by his face. He said he was
arrested by a police officer after he was pinpointed by the barangay tanod as
one of the culprits.
On
cross-examination, he testified that he was about an arm’s length behind the
tanod and about 8 to 10 meters from Ongis while the fistfight was going on.
According to him, the tanods noticed that he was just behind them, including
the tanod that pinpointed him. As far as he was concerned, the tanods witnessed
the fistfight and saw how Ongis was hacked. Ongis was alone during the incident.
There were about 5 persons involved in the fight but he did not see the Margarita
brothers during the incident; he only saw Sonoy who hacked Ongis but did not
notice where the latter was hit. He was the only one from his group that was
implicated by the tanod because, unlike his companions, he did not run. He did
not complain when arrested because the police officer was pointing a gun at
him.
He
was taken to the San Jose Police Station, where he saw the Margarita brothers
because the police also arrested the latter. He does not know why Ongis
implicated him but the two of them did not have any misunderstanding before the
incident. He does not know what the Margarita brothers do, whether they are
tricycle drivers or not. Although they are from the same barangay, they live
far from each other. When asked if he will agree if told that the Margarita
brothers admitted that they were present during the fistfight, he answered in
the negative.
3.
DANILO
MARGARITA, 42 years old, married, tricycle driver and a resident of Brgy.
Paraiso, San Jose, Tacloban City. His testimony was offered to belie the allegations
of the prosecution witnesses and testify as to what transpired before, during,
and after the incident; and to other matters relative to this case.
At
around 2:30 in the morning of March 14, 1999, he was at home still awake. He
roused his younger brother, Rogelio, his co-accused in this case, from sleep to
accompany him in ferrying a passenger to V&G in their motorcycle for hire
(MCH). After taking the passenger to V&G, they returned home to Paraiso and
left the MCH there since his elder brother was going to use it to get fish from
the fish shed. After about 15 minutes, he and Rogelio proceeded on foot to
Taguiktik, on the opposite side of Paraiso, to buy cigarettes. After 10 minutes
of walking and still on the way to the store, Rogelio was blocked by Ongis and
about 4 companions. Thereafter Rogelio was punched by Ongis in the presence of barangay
tanod Edwin Labo, who did not do anything even when Danilo asked him to stop Ongis.
He then told his brother that they would be going home. When asked, Danilo
confirmed that it was the same barangay tanod who arrested him and his bother
later on, but he does not know the reason why they were arrested.
He
denied blocking the way of Ongis and holding the latter’s arm when a certain Sonoy
hacked victim. Further, Danilo denied knowing Renante Ongis prior to the
incident and only got to know the latter after he was arrested. Danilo
testified that he did not know what Rogelio did after the latter was punched by
Ongis and companions, and Danilo did not know if Rogelio was hit. He also did
not know if Ongis was already injured or not when the latter punched Rogelio.
Meanwhile, this was all happening right in front of the barangay tanod who
accordingly was talking to Danilo.
On
cross-examination, Danilo said that he was driving the motorcycle on March 13,
1999. However, when asked what time he started driving, he said that he did not
drive on that day. It was not until 2:30 in the morning of March 14, 1999, that
he decided to go out and look for passengers. Although his brother was going to
use the MCH to go to the fish shed, he still decided to take the passenger because
the passenger was right there at their place and was only going to V&G. He
was paid P40.00 by the passenger whom Danilo claimed he did not know. On their
way back from V&G they passed by the Burayan junction going towards Taguiktik,
but it did not occur to them to buy cigarettes. His other brother who was going
to the fish shed would also have to pass by the same junction but it did not likewise
occur to them to hitch a ride from their brother.
The
defense did not ask any re-direct questions but formally offered the
Certificate of Live Birth of Felicito Baliling as Exhibit “1” to prove his
minority, with no objection from the prosecution.
CAREFUL
EVALUATION of the foregoing assertions and circumstances will show that the story
weaved by accused Rogelio Margarita, Danilo Margarita and Felicito Baliling are
inconsistent with common experience and reason, which render their testimonies
self-serving and highly suspect.
First, the
explanation offered by Rogelio and Danilo Margarita as to why they were still
awake at 3:00 o’clock in the morning is ludicrous and utterly dubious. Danilo
said that he did not drive the motor cab on March 13, 1999. It was not until
2:30 in the morning of March 14, 1999, that he decided to go out and look for
passengers. So he roused his brother Rogelio at about 2:30 A.M. so the latter
could accompany him in ferrying a passenger to V&G. Danilo woke up Rogelio
even before the former and the unknown passenger had agreed on the amount of
the fare. Now they would have everyone believe that they ferried the passenger,
a total stranger, at the ungodly hour of 2:30 in the morning from Paraiso to
V&G subdivision – and all that trouble for a measly forty pesos!
Second, the
reason the brothers gave for going to Tagiktik in the wee hours of the morning was
to buy cigarettes. Their return trip from V&G to Paraiso would pass by the
junction of Burayan towards Tagiktik; however, they proceeded straight to
Paraiso because their brother will use the MCH to go to the fish shed. Although
on the way to the fish shed their brother would also have to pass by the same
junction, they did not hitch a ride from their brother. Instead, from Paraiso,
at 3:00 A.M., they decided to walk the arduous distance towards Tagiktik. An
unlikely scenario that challenges elemental reasoning.
Third, the Margarita
brothers’ narrative as to what happened next on their way to Tagiktik is akin
to a badly written script of a fantastic tale. Accordingly, when they reached
the junction in Burayan, Rogelio was blocked by Renante Ongis and 3 or 4
companions. Thereafter, Rogelio was punched, for no apparent reason, by Ongis
right in the presence of barangay tanods Edwin Labo, and Crispin Batingting, who
did not do anything to break the fight. And on the part of Danilo, all he did
was just tell his brother that they would be going home. The tanods did not
arrest Ongis and his supposed companions. Rogelio did not file a complaint
against Ongis or the tanods.
According to
Rogelio, Renante Ongis was already wounded and was on his way to the hospital
when the latter punched Rogelio. The punch, hitting his neck, was so hard that
he fell down. When he stood up, he did not retaliate or do anything except
approach his brother who told him that they would be going home.
Fourth, Felicito
Baliling’s non-felicitous narrative inferring supernatural powers on the Margarita
brothers as invisible men. While the Margarita brothers admitted they were at
the scene of the incident, he claimed that he did not see the brothers although
he saw Sonoy Doe hack Ongis. It would have been impossible for him not to see the
Margarita brothers since he claimed he was just behind the tanod during the
incident. Both Rogelio and Danilo testified that the latter was talking to Labo
as the fighting transpired.
Finally, the
testimonies of the three accused denying any involvement in the hacking of
Renante Ongis were uncorroborated. In fact, other than the accused themselves,
there were no other defense witnesses presented. Their collective and composite
tale appears as if it was simply contrived to bolster a weak attempt at denying
the charges. In Ocampo v. People (528
SCRA 547, 560), the Supreme Court held that the time-honored
test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its
compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.
Thus, in People v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012), the Supreme
Court declared that whatever is repugnant to the standards of human
knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside
judicial cognizance. Here, the tale, as can be discerned from such standards,
is clearly incredible
On
the other hand, the version of events recounted by the private complainant is
highly credible. Renante Ongis’s testimony that he was kicked by Rogelio Margarita
while Danilo Margarita and Felicito Baliling held his arms, and then was hacked
by Sonoy Doe, is corroborated by two prosecution witnesses – barangay tanods
Edwin Labo and Crispin Batingting. What is more, Renante Ongis positively
identified all three accused in open court while prosecution witness Edwin Labo
positively identified accused Rogelio Margarita and Danilo Margarita. Indeed,
the Supreme Court, in People v. Faustino (394
Phil. 236, 259 (2000)), ruled that the identification of an accused by an
eyewitness is a vital piece of evidence and most decisive of the success or
failure of the case for the prosecution. Here, the identification by
prosecution witnesses of the accused was conclusive and reliable.
Renante
Ongis testified that it was Rogelio who kicked him, while Edwin Labo exhibited some
confusion, vacillating from Danilo to Rogelio, to both and, finally, to Danilo,
as the person who kicked Ongis. Such inconsistency in the testimonies of the
two prosecution witnesses is minor and understandable. In fact, as the Supreme
Court held in People vs. Dando (325
SCRA 406), they
only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for
they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Considering the similarity
in the facial features and build of the Margarita brothers, it is not
surprising that the witness could get a bit confused. What is important in this
case is the fact that all three prosecution witnesses were one in saying that
the accused were the perpetrators.
As to the crime
committed, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery as alleged
in the Information was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The Supreme
Court, citing Untied States v. Rana (4
Phil., 231) in People v. Manlangit
(73 SCRA 49), declared that “as the [qualifying] circumstance of treachery
(alevosia) is an important one, in considering
it, it should by all means be based on some positive and conclusive proof and
not merely upon hypothetical facts, drawn more or less logically, because it is
necessary that the existence of this circumstance in the commission of the
crime should be proven as fully as the crime itself, in order to aggravate the penalty
incurred by the guilty party.” Such standard of proof is wanting in this case. Indeed,
prosecution witness Edwin Labo testified on cross-examination that Danilo Margo
and Felicito Baliling were no longer holding the victim Renante Ongis when the
latter was hacked by Sonoy Doe. What is more, the incident happened in the
presence and plain view of barangay tanods who were on patrol. Thus, “positive
and conclusive proof” of treachery is utterly lacking. Hence, absent the appreciation
of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is merely
frustrated homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 in relation to
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
In considering the
criminal liability incurred by the accused, their degree of participation
must be established whether or not the responsibility is in the character of a
principal or co-principal. In the leading case of People v. Tamayo
(G.R. No. L18289, November 17, 1922), the Supreme Court held, in what has been
known since as the Tamayo doctrine, that “[p]articipation on the part of an
accomplice in the criminal design of the principal is essential to the same
extent as such participation is necessary on the part of one charged as
co-principal, nevertheless, it is evident, … that, as against an accomplice, a
court will sometimes draw the inference of guilty participation in the criminal
design from acts of concert in the consummation of the criminal act and from
the form and manner in which assistance is rendered, where it would not draw
the same inference for the purpose of holding the same accused in the character
of principal. This is because, in case of doubt, the courts naturally lean to the
milder form of responsibility."
The
express testimony of prosecution witnesses, corroborated by no less than
accused Felicito Baliling, clearly established that it was Sonoy Doe/Sonoy Salvacion
who delivered the hacking blow with a machete and inflicted the wound on the
victim. With all three accused in the case at bar, possessing no weapon and
merely using their hands and a foot to deliver a single kick to the victim
before and not during the hacking, certainly their responsibility is of the
“milder form.”
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, accused Rogelio Margarita, Danilo Margarita and Felicito Baliling are hereby pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as accomplices, of the crime of frustrated homicide committed against Renante Ongis and each of them is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision correccional as maximum. They are hereby further ordered to indemnify the victim the total amount of Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Forty-One Pesos and Twenty-Five Centavos as actual damages.
This court takes judicial notice of the age of accused Felicito Baliling, who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. However, considering his present age of 29 years, this court hereby orders service of sentence pursuant to Section 38 of R.A. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, and Section 48 of A.M. 02-01-18-SC, November 24, 2009, or the Revised Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law.
NO COST.
October 15, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
JESUS BALLESTEROS CABANACAN
Pretending Judge-Designate
This court takes judicial notice of the age of accused Felicito Baliling, who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. However, considering his present age of 29 years, this court hereby orders service of sentence pursuant to Section 38 of R.A. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, and Section 48 of A.M. 02-01-18-SC, November 24, 2009, or the Revised Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law.
NO COST.
October 15, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
JESUS BALLESTEROS CABANACAN
Pretending Judge-Designate
