G.R. Nos. L-38907-09 - Nerio Belvis III vs. Court of Appeals

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. L-38907-09 November 14, 1988

NERIO BELVIS III,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.

Raymundo A. Armovit for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

NARVASA,J.:

By separate informations, four (4) related criminal actions were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila.1One, Criminal Case No. 8953, accused petitioner Nerio Belvis III, together with Rodolfo Donate and Antonio Reyes, of robbery. The second, Criminal Case No. 8954, charged the three with murder. The other two, Criminal Cases Numbered 8955 and 8956 did not involve Belvis-Case No. 8955 accused only Rodolfo Donate of the felony of assault upon an agent of a person in authority; and Case No. 8956, only Antonio Reyes, of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

The cases were jointly tried on motion of the accused.2Belvis was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of homicide (in Crim. Case No. 8954), together with his two co-defendants, and each was sentenced "to suffer an indeterminate term ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day ofreclusion temporal,as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of Hermenegildo Monta alias 'Peklat' in the sum of Pl2,000. 00, and to pay the costs." He was acquitted (in Crim. Case No. 8953) of the accusation of robbery, on reasonable doubt. The other cases resulted in the conviction of the other accused.

Only Belvis and Donate appealed the conviction of homicide to the Court of Appeals.3The appeals met with no success, were in fact quite infelicitous. They resulted in an increase in the penalties imposed on both of them for the crime of homicide. The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal4affirmed their conviction and ordained5that "with the only modification ... that in Criminal Case 8954 the appellant Nerio Belvis III y Soliven and appellant Rodolfo Donate y Daquila are hereby sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day ofreclusion temporalprision mayor ral, as maximum, the decision appealed from in the three cases (Crim. Cases Nos. 8953, 8954 and 8955) is hereby affirmed in all respects.6Nerio Belvis moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied.7

Only Nerio Belvis III took an appeal to this Court. For a third time, he pleads for acquittal. But again the verdict must go against him.8He has not succeeded in demonstrating any serious error in the decision of the Court of Appeals. On the contrary, a review of the evidence shows him to have been properly convicted and correctly sentenced.

There is no dispute about the fact that the victim, Hermenegildo Monta @ Peklat, was shot eight (8) times at close range and killed with two hand guns, one a.45 caliber, and the other, a .38 caliber pistol. It is in the manner of his shooting and the reason therefor that disagreement exists between the prosecution and the defense.

Now, shortly after driver Maderal had left his taxicab and gone to seek police succor, Patrolman Oscar I. Rosal-of Precinct No. 4, MMP, then on duty as security guard of the building housing the IBM Budget Commission situated at the comer of Vito Cruz and Adriatico Streets-heard gunshots coming from the direction of the nearby Vietnamese Embassy. He forthwith went to that place, together with Severino Rodriguez an IBM machine operator. They saw two persons running from Vito Cruz towards them: Belvis (Tisoy)and Reyes. Belvis had a gun in his hand. When the two were about 50 feet away, Pat. Rosal fired a warning shot, blew his whistle, and Identified himself as a peace officer. The duo did not stop, however. Instead they turned back towards Pasay City, and ran into a vacant lot, jumping over a bougainville hedge. Rosal and Rodriguez followed but did not go into the area. They waited. Another person came,Dolfo.Again Rosal Identified himself.Dolforaised his arms and said "Boss, hindi ako kasama;" but he suddenly leaped backwards two steps, drew his gun and fired at them twice. They were not hit however. Rosal himself fired four times atDolfo,who thereupon ran to the same vacant lot and disappeared from view. After a while, Rosal went to the place whence he surmised the first shots had come, leaving Rodriguez to watch the area whereTisoy,Reyes andDolfohad taken refuge. Rosal found a man lying beside a taxicab, dead to all appearances: this wasPeklat,as was afterwards established. Rosal then went to the Vietnamese Embassy and used its telephone to report the incident to the Homicide Division. Homicide Operatives soon arrived, and Rosal turned over the case to them. Other policemen also came and apprehendedTisoy,Reyes andDolfo. Tisoywas found in a house under construction in an adjoining lot; Reyes, crouching under some talahib grass; andDolfo,near a burned restaurant at the corner of Saygan and Vito Cruz Streets. Rosal thereafter made his own official report of the events.12

Pat. Joaquin Uy, investigator, was one of three police officers of the Homicide Division,13the others being Pat. Javier and Corporal Yanguiling, who went to investigate the killing reported by Pat. Rosal. On arriving at the corner of Saygan and Vito Cruz Streets, they came uponDolfoDonate, on his knees, bleeding from a bullet wound on his left thigh, and had him brought to theOspital Ng Maynila.Uy then went to the place in front of the Vietnamese Embassy where the victim was lying on his stomach, beside the "Midori" Taxicab. The vehicle still has its headlights on. Uy saw that the victim had bullet holes in the back of the head and the left temple. He also found some empty shells. Uy had the official police photographer take pictures of the scene. That done, Uy proceeded to theOspital Ng Maynilaand interrogatedDolfoDonate. Uy askedDolfowho his companions were and the latter named them,TisoyandTony;who had shotPeklat,and the answer was,"Kami;"where the gun was, and the answer was that it had been thrown away at the vacant lot whenDolfowas being pursued by uniformed policemen; who the victim was, and the answer was, "Peklat;"and whyPeklatwas shot, and the answer was, because of a previous grudge in connection with a robbery.

TisoyBelvis and Reyes were thereafter brought to the hospital from the Homicide Division; and once there, Reyes IdentifiedDolfoandTisoyas his companions during the taking of the taxicab and the shooting ofPeklat.14Nerio (Tisoy) Belvis and Antonio Reyes were also both Identified at the Homicide Division by taxi driver Geronimo Maderal.

Reyes statement was taken that same night, as also, those of Maderal, and Pat. Rosal.15Reyes' written statement, taken without assistance of counsel, was subscribed by corporal Yanguiling and Pat. Javier, as witnesses, and signed and sworn to before Assistant City Fiscal Chavez16The next morning, Antonio Reyes was subjected to a paraffin test. But Belvis refused the test, on advice of counsel.17

No license to possess or permit to carry a firearm had ever been issued to Antonio Reyes y de Guzman.18

In his statement, Reyes related how the shooting of Peklat had taken place, as follows:19

In the same statement, he reiterated the intention to liquidate Peklat:"...yayariin namin si Peklat dahil may atraso siya kay DolfoI"the plan simply being,"basta't babarilin na lang namin,"and he had agreed to go along with the plan because Dolfo was his friend. He also declared that in fact he, too, had shot at Peklat but his gun misfired (nagmintis).

Nerio Belvis argues that the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating Antonio Reyes' extra-judicial statement, Exhibit L, against him, and in finding that there was adequate circumstantial evidence to establish a conspiracy among him and his co-accused.

Reyes' extra-judicial confession having been taken onMarch 13, 1972,its legal status should be determined by the jurisprudential standards existing prior to January 17, 1973, the date of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution20

By these standards, no impropriety can be ascribed to Reyes' statement. There is, in the first place, affirmative testimony of its voluntary character, given by the police officers present at its taking.ℒαwρhi৷This testimony finds corroboration in the opening paragraphs of the statement, in which Reyes affirmed his willingness freely and voluntarily to make a narration (salaysay) without being forced, threatened or promised anything (na hindi ka pinipilit, tinatakot o pinapangakuan ng ano mang bagay), and after being informed (1) that what he would say might be later used against him or others before any court (pagkatapos malaman mo na ano mang sasabihin mo ... ay maaaring gamitin laban sa iyo o kanino man tao sa harap ng alin mang husgado ...) and (2) that he had not only the right to retain counsel to assist him in the interrogation but also the right to give or not to give any statement. Reyes' final response to all these cautionary admonitions was clear and categorical: "Opo. Total katutuhanan lang naman ang sasabihin ko.21The voluntariness of the statement is also cogently indicated by the fact (1) that it is replete with details that only the confessant could have supplied;22(2) that it is also corroborated by proof of the statements of Dolfo Donate at theOspital Ng Maynilathat he and his companions,Tisoyand Tony (Reyes), had shotPeklatbecause of a previous grudge;23(3) that it is entirely consistent with the subsequent written statement of the taxicab driver, Maderal;24and (4) that there is no proof whatever of any maltreatment of Reyes, or any undue pressure or influence to extract involuntary statements from him.25

There is thus no cause for the exclusion of Reyes' statement on the ground of its involuntariness, even assuming that such an objection might properly be raised by a party other than Reyes himself, e.g., Nerio Belvis.26

To be sure,TisoyBelvis could have objected to the admission of Reyes' statement against him as well as to the testimonial proof of Dolfo Donate's extra-judicial admissions that he (Dolfo),Tisoy,and Tony (Reyes) had shot Peklat because of a previous grudge27 —on the well knownres inter alios acta rule28He did not. The trial ended without any protest from him against the admission as to him of Reyes' written statement and Dolfo's oral declarations, whether on the ground of the involuntariness of Reyes' confession, or ofres inter alios actaas regards both Reyes' and Dolfo Donate's declarations or either of them. Neither did he raise the question in the course of the appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the issue was conspicuously absent even in his petition filed with this Court for the review on certiorari of the judgment of said Appellate Court. The question was set out for the very first time in his motion for reconsideration dated September 3, 1974. This is much too late. Under the circumstances the objection to the admissibility of Reyes' confession on the avowed ground must be deemed waived, must in truth be considered as nothing but an afterthought, quite apart from the demonstrated lack of merit thereof.

The Court of Appeals has made it clear, in any event, that the conviction of Belvis and Donate for the slaying of Peklat may be sustained independently of the extra-judicial confession of Reyes, there being other adequate proofs on record establishing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt as co-conspirators in the crime of homicide. The Court of Appeals is quite correct.

Petitioner's impugnation of the foundation of the Appellate Court's finding, in affirmance of those of the Trial Court, that a conspiracy to kill Peklat did exit among him (Belvis) and his co-accused, Donate and Reyes, must also be spurned as devoid of merit. The Court of Appeals based its conclusion (as the Trial Court did) on circumstantial evidence which it went to some pains to detail in its decision. It specified no less than eight (8) circumstances established by the evidence (substantially set out in this opinion), and concluded that "Grouped together, these stubborn facts and circumstances form a strong and formidable chain of evidence from which the male factors can not claim innocence ... , (and which) (s)ingly and collectively ... serve to corroborate the statement of Antonio Reyes that he and appellants confederated in killing the deceased.29The conclusion is clearly a factual one, and in line with established and familiar doctrine, cannot and should not be reviewed by this Court, absent, as here, a showing of any compelling reason therefor.30At any rate, the correctness of the factual conclusion of the existence of a conspiracy cannot be gainsaid, given its asserted premises.

It thus result that the conviction of Nario Belvis III @ Tisoy must be upheld. However, the indemnity which he must give to Peklat's heirs must, consistently with established case law, be increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.

WHEREFORE,the petition for review is DENIED, and, with the sole modification of the increase to P30,000.00 of the civil indemnity to be paid by the petitioner to the heirs of Hermenigildo Monta alias Peklat, the appealed judgment isAFFIRMEDin all respects, with costs against the petitioner.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes