G.R. No. 121828 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDMAR AGUILOS, ODILON LAGLIBA Y ABREGON AND RENE GAYOT PILOLA, ACCUSED, RENE GAYOT PILOLA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds RENE GAYOT PILOLA of 606 Nueve de Febrero Street, Mandaluyong City, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua . Pilola is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of deceased Joselito Capa alias Jessie in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnity for his death jointly and solidarily with Odilon Lagliba who was earlier convicted herein. With cost against the accused. [12] In the case at bar, the appellant assails the decision of the trial court contending that: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY ANENT THE ASSAILED INCIDENT. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS ELISA ROLAN AND IN SETTING ASIDE THE EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT. III THE TRIAL COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [13] The appellant avers that Elisa is not a credible witness and her testimony is barren of probative weight. This is so because she contradicted herself when she testified on direct examination that Ronnie struck the head of the victim with a hollow block. However, on cross-examination, she stated that it was Edmar who struck the victim. The inconsistency in Elisa's testimony impaired her credibility. The contention of the appellant does not hold water. First. The identity of the person who hit the victim with a hollow block is of de minimis importance. The victim died because of multiple wounds. The appellant is charged with murder for the killing of the victim with a knife, in conspiracy with the other accused. Second. The perceived inconsistency in Elisa's account of events is a minor and collateral detail that does not affect the substance of her testimony, as it even serves to strengthen rather than destroy her credibility. [14] Third. Elisa has been consistent in her testimony that the appellant was one of the men who stabbed the victim, the others being Ronnie and Odilon. Elisa's testimony is corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr. Bienvenido MuÙŒoz and his testimony that the victim sustained eleven stab wounds. The doctor testified that there were two or more assailants: Q Could you tell the court what instrument could have been used by the perpetrator in inflicting those two incise wounds? A Those incise wounds were caused by a sharp instrument like a knife or any similar instrument. ... Q Now you also found out from the body of the victim eleven stab wounds? A Yes, sir. Q Now, tell the court in which part of the body of the victim where these eleven stab wounds [are] located? A Shall I go one by one, all the eleven stab wounds? Q All the eleven stab wounds? A One stab wound was located at the front portion of the chest, right side. Another s