G.R. No. 132354 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DEOMEDES IGLESIA, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and, as a consequence, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs. Further, the accused is ordered to pay moral and nominal damages in the respective sums of P100,000.00 and P30,000.00, and the additional [sum] of P50,000.00 for the death of the victim, with legal interest thereon from the filing of this case. [12] Hence this appeal. First. Accused-appellant questions the veracity of the testimonies of Rodora and Modesta Agua. He contends that these witnesses were not at the scene of the incident when it happened and that their absence is shown by the fact that they were not the ones who took the victim to the hospital. The contention has no merit. The mere fact that Rodora and Modesta Agua are the daughter and wife of the victim, respectively, does not necessarily make their testimonies untruthful. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim without further evidence cannot serve as proof of bias. [13] It may not be presumed that these witnesses would testify falsely just to obtain retribution for the death of a loved one by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent. [14] To the contrary, the inclination of the victim's relatives is to see that the real culprits are punished. [15] It is true Modesta and Rodora Agua were not among those who took the victim to the hospital. But, as Modesta explained, it was because she had left to get help when she saw that the victim had been stabbed. When she came back, she saw her husband already being taken to the hospital. Indeed, Modesta and her daughter could not have been unaware of the incident as it started near their house. As it was about 12:30 o'clock in the morning when the incident happened, it is highly probable that they were in their house at that time. In ascertaining the credibility of the testimonies of witnesses, the test is whether they agree on the essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole. [16] In this case, Modesta and Rodora gave consistent, straightforward, and credible accounts on how the victim was killed by accused-appellant. Both testified: (1) that because accused-appellant was making trouble by breaking beer bottles, Demetrio Agua tried to pacify him; (2) that accused-appellant went up to his room, but while Demetrio Agua was on his way home, he came out of the window, jumped from the roof, and attacked the latter; (3) that accused-appellant and the victim wrestled with each other for several minutes and then accused-appellant was able to stab Demetrio Agua in the course thereof. What reinforces the credibility of Modesta and Rodora Agua is the fact that their account of the events leading to the victim's death is corroborated by the testimony of Bernardo Babaran and the findings of Dr. Baluyot, who found that the victim died of a stab wound on the