02 People vs. Molo

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088 21/10/2017, 10(00 AM
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Molo
No. L-44680. January 11, 1979.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. DOMINADOR MOLO, defendant-appellant.
Evidence; A witness cannot be impeached for allegedly making

inconsistent statements in court and before the police authorities
where the alleged statement before the police was neither offered in
evidence nor shown to the witness so she can explain the
discrepancies.The records show, however, that the alleged
statement given to the police was neither offered as evidence nor
shown to witness in order to enable her to explain the discrepancies
if any in accordance to Section 16, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
The proper basis was, therefore, not laid to impeach Simeonas
testimony on the basis of alleged inconsistent statements which she
allegedly made before the police.
Same; Inconsistent statements on minor matters do not affect
credibility of witness.At any rate, We find the alleged
inconsistencies inconsequential. Inconsistencies on minor details or
on matters that are not of material consequence as to affect the
guilt or the innocence of the accused do not detract from the
credibility of the witnesses. The discordance in their testimonies on
collateral matters heightens their credibility and shows that their
testimonies were not coached or rehearsed. Far from being evidence
of falsehood, they could justifiably be regarded as a demonstration
of good faith.
Same; Hacking the victim with a bolo while said victim is
sleeping is more natural than stabbing him with said instrument.
Appellant also argues that Simeonas account is contrary to physical
facts. He claims that if, as she testified, the victim was lying down
when attacked, he would sustain stab, not incised, wounds. He
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f3cbc322bca0f8de4003600fb002c009e/p/APT861/?username=Guest Page 1 of 32
explains that the natural tendency of a person attacking another

who is lying down with a bolo would be to thrust the bolo towards
the body and not hack him. This claim is without merit. The
Solicitor Generals explanation on this point is well-taken. To simply
______________
* EN BANC.
23
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 23
People vs. Molo
thrust a bolo at a lying person is not as forceful as to hack him with

it. The first is an awkward if not difficult movement, but the second
is natural and can be done with facility.
Same; Where testimony that banana plants obstructed the light
cast by the moon was not disproved same will be given credit.It is
contended that Simeona could not have recognized accused-
appellant while he was at the foot of the stairs because the banana
plants obstructed the light cast by the moon. This, again, is without
merits. Simeona testified that the banana plants did not obstruct
the light cast by the moon and the defense did not disprove this
fact.
Same; Argument that witness pointed to accused as killer of her
husband because accused was a hated criminal in the locality not
given credence.Appellant contends that Simeona pointed to him
as the assailant because he was a hated criminal in the locality
not because he was properly identified as the one who attacked the
victim. This claim has no basis in the records. For the testimony of
Si-meona shows that she was certain of accused-appellants identity
as assailant and that at one point accused-appellant even inquired
from her where her husband was.
Same; Verbal statements made by victim to his son and a
neighbor while mortally wounded that accused was his assailant are
dying declarations.Considering the nature and extent of the
wounds, eight in all, Venancio must have realized the seriousness of

his condition and it can therefore be inferred that he made the
incriminations under the consciousness of impending death, which,
in fact, supervened barely 4-1/2 hours after he was boloed.
Criminal Law; Requirements for mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to be appreciated in favor of the accused. Fact
that accused did not escape after police surrounded his house and
arrested him does not amount to voluntary surrender.We agree
with the Solicitor General that appellant is not entitled the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For in order that
the same may be properly appreciated in favor of the accused, it
must appear thata) he had not been actually arrested; b) he
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent; and c) his
surrender is voluntary, which circumstances are not present in this
case. For appellant admitted that on the day after the killing, police
authorities surrounded his house and arrested him. The fact that he
did not try to escape or did not resist arrest after he was taken into
custody by the authorities, does not amount to voluntary surrender.
24
People vs. Molo
Same; Penalty; Penalty of death amply justified where accused,

aside from the murder committed in the case at bar had been found
guilty of several other crimes some of which were grave in character.
A word about the penalty. It appears that accused-appellant is an
incorrigible criminal with clearly anti-social proclivities against
which the community has the need, if not the right, to defend itself.
Where, as in this case, the reformative and of punishment seems to
have failed in amending his criminal tendencieshe was convicted
for frustrated murder in Criminal Case V-542, Mindoro on
September 2, 1950; murder in Criminal Case No. 862, Romblon on
July 27, 1961; grave slander in Criminal Case No. V-669, Romblon,
on June 5, 1957; less serious physical injuries, before the Municipal
Court of Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case No. 839 on October 9,
1959; qualified trespass to dwelling, before the Municipal Court of
Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case No. 845 on February 25, 1960
and robbery, before the Court of First Instance of Davao in Criminal
Case No. 9982 on March 1, 1967the imposition of the supreme

penalty, is not only justified by the facts of this case, but is required
as a measure of social defense. Society had given accused-appellant
several chances. It would seem that compassion had not reformed
him, but had instead made him a hardened criminal and a menace
to his fellow men. To spare his life is to endanger the lives and
properties of others.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW from a judgment of the Court of

First Instance of Romblon. Job B. Madayag, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Pedro Q. Quadra (Counsel de Oficio) for appellant.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant
Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Solicitor Romeo C.
de la Cruz for appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Automatic review of the death sentence with accessory

penalties imposed on September 3, 1976 upon accused-
appellant Dominador Molo by Hon. Job B. Mandayag of the
Court of First Instance of Romblon, 11th Judicial District,
in Criminal Case No. 571 for the murder of Venancio
Gapisa on 9 April 1976 at Sitio Dacotan, Barrio Tambac,
Romblon, Romblon.
25
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 25

People vs. Molo
The above-named accused was charged with murder in an

Information filed by Asst. Provincial Fiscal Cesar M. Solis,
on May 31, 1976, as follows:
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Romblon accuses

DOMINADOR MOLO of the crime of MURDER committed as
follows:
That on or about the 9th day of April 1976, at around 8:00 oclock
in the evening, at sitio Dacotan, barrio of Tambac, municipality of
Romblon, province of Romblon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and

there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and assault one
Venancio Gapisa, with the use of a bolo as a consequence of which
he sustained mortal injuries that resulted in his death thereafter.
That the killing was attended with the following aggravating
circumstances:
(A) Dwelling, for the crime was committed in the house of the
offended party who has not given any provocation at all.
(B) Recidivism, in view of the fact that the accused has been
charged for (1) Frustrated Murder before the Court of First
Instance of Mindoro in Criminal Case V-542 entitled People
vs. Dominador Molo and convicted thereof on September 2,
1950; and (2) Murder, before the Court of First Instance of
Romblon in Criminal Case No. 862 entitled People vs.
Dominador Molo and convicted thereof on July 27, 1961.
(C) Reiteration, since he has been charged and convicted before
different courts in the following criminal cases:
(1) Grave Slander, before the Court of First Instance of

Romblon in Criminal Case No. V-669 and convicted on June
5, 1957.
(2) Less Serious Physical Injuries, before the Municipal Court
of Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case No. 839 and
convicted on October 9, 1959.
(3) Qualified Trespass to Dwelling, before the Municipal Court
of Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case No. 845 and
convicted on February 25, 1960.
(4) Robbery, before the Court of First Instance of Davao in
Criminal Case No. 9982 and convicted on March 1, 1967.
26

People vs. Molo
That as a consequence of the aforementioned criminal act

committed by the accused, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to
recover civil damages pursuant to the provisions of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Romblon, Romblon, May 31, 1976.
(SGD.) CESAR M. SOLIS

Assistant Provincial Fiscal
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of

(1) the victims wife, Simeona Gapisa, an eye-witness to the
alleged murder; (2) Alejandro Gapisa, a son of the victim
who went to the rescue of his father after he was stabbed
by accused-appellant and was able to talk with him before
he succumbed to several bolo wounds; (3) Roman
Mangaring, a neighbor of Alejandro; and (4) Dr. Victorio
Benedicto, who performed the autopsy and accomplished
the Autopsy Report, Exhibits A and A-1. The accused,
who offered alibi as a defense, presented his testimony and
that of his wife. Barbara Mingo, and Police Patrolman
Rodolfo Manunggay and Exhibits 1, a bolo and 1-a,
scabbard.
The operative facts of the case and the circumstances
surrounding the apprehension and investigation of the
accused now appellant established by the evidence on
record are as follow.
In the evening of April 9, 1976 at about 8:00 p.m. at
Sitio Dacotan, Barrio Tambac, Municipality of Romblon,
Venancio Gapisa and Simeona Rapa-Gapisa, husband and
wife, retired to sleep. The couple lived in a typical hut
made of bamboo flooring and dilapidated buri walling
surrounded by fruitbearing banana plants. Venancio
Gapisa immediately fell asleep because he was tired from
clearing the fields, and besides, had drunk tuba 1
on that
day. He slept near the door lying on his right side.
Not long after the couple had retired, Simeona, who had
not yet fallen asleep, heard an indistinct sound of murmur
and gnashing of teeth. Although she was seized by fear, she
managed to peep through the dilapidated buri wall and
saw ac-
_______________
1 T.S.N., July 12, 1976, pp. 5, 38, 45 and 50.
27
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 27
People vs. Molo
cused Dominador Molo attired only in short pants. He was

alone. Trembling, she immediately lighted a kerosene lamp
and placed it on top of the trunk nearby. She tried 2
to
awaken her husband, but the latter did not respond.
Meanwhile, the accused had already climbed up the
house which was only a flight of two steps. The accused
forcibly pushed the sliding door and barged into the house.
He inquired from Simeona where Venancio was and she
replied that he was asleep. Finding Venancio sleeping near
the door, he immediately grabbed his left wrist and started
hacking at the sleeping old man. Rudely awakened,
Venancio quickly stood up and with his right hand reached
for his bolo which was atop the table nearby; but he was
not able to retaliate in as much as Dominador Molo was
quick to hack at him again. Fearing for her own life,
Simeona rushed out of the house through the door of the
unfinished kitchen to summon help from her son, Alejandro
Gapisa, who was at Roman Mangarings house some 100
meters away. Trembling, she told him that his father was
boloed by Boslo, the name3
by which accused-appellant was
known in their locality.
Upon being informed, Alejandro and Roman ran towards
the house of Venancio, followed by Simeona. Upon arrival,
they saw Venancio bleeding profusely and in weakened
condition. He was sitting on the floor of the kitchen,
defecating in his pants. When Alejandro took him in his
arms, Venancio told him that he was boloed by Boslo.
Roman Mangaring who was present, also inquired from
Venancio 4
who his assailant was and elicited the answer,
Boslo. Venancio was then rushed to the hospital and
arrived5
there at about 1:50 a.m. He expired a few minutes
after.
An autopsy of the victim disclosed that he died of
hemorrhage from multiple incised wounds. The wounds
sustained were:
_______________
2 Id., pp. 38-40, 47 and 57.

3 Id., pp. 3, 10, 13, 21, 26, 40-43, 50, 52, 56-57.
4 Id., pp. 3-6, 15-17, 23-24, 31-32.

5 Id., July 26, 1976, p. 61.
28

People vs. Molo
1. Incised wound, 10 cms. in length, gaping about 4

cms., slanting in position with the lower portion
located anteriorly, penetrating the bone, at the
antero-lateral aspect of the distal 3rd of the left
arm.
2. Incised wound, about 10 cms. in length, gaping,
slanting in position, with the lower and located
anteriorly, penetrating the bone, located 3 cms.
below the wound mentioned above.
3. Incised wound, about 10 cms. in length, gaping
slightly at the antero-lateral aspect of the neck, left
side, slanting, with the lower and located anteriorly
penetrating the muscle layer.
4. Incised wound, about 10 cms. gaping, slightly
slanting with the lower end located anteriorly,
located 3 cms. below the 3rd wound, fracturing the
clavicle, the costo-chondral portion of the 2nd rib
and the lateral portion of the sternum, left side.
5. Incised wound, 8 cms. in length, gaping about 4
cms., slanting with the lower end located anteriorly,
penetrating the bone, located at the lower end of
the distal 3rd of the right arm, anterolateral
portion.
6. Incised wound, 5 cms. in length, gaping slightly,
slanting with the lower end located anteriorly,
penetrating the bone, at the; upper 3rd of the right
forearm, antero-lateral aspect.
7. Incised wound, 4 cms., superficial, at the anterior
portion of the neck.
8. Incised wound, 4 cms., superficial, right medial
aspect, upper 3rd, right forearm.
Internal Findings:
Wound No. 4 penetrated the apex of the left lung inflicting a small
wound, about 2-3 cms., causing minimal bleeding. The Cause of
6
Death: Hemorrhage from multiple incised wounds.
The following morning an investigation of the fatal incident

was conducted. Pat. Manuel Mario in the presence of
Patrolmen Montojo and Antonio Madali took the statement
of Simeona Gapisa, who identified 7Dominador Molo as the
assailant of her deceased husband. Thereafter, PC soldiers
and policemen were dispatched to the house of Dominador
Molo some one and a half (1-1/2) kilometers away from the
_______________
6 Exhibit A, Record, pp. 13-14.

7 Records, pp. 9-13.
29
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 29

People vs. Molo
scene of the killing. Dominador Molo was placed under

arrest and brought by the arresting officers to the
poblacion. Investigated at the PC barracks, Molo denied
having committed any
8
wrong and having gone to the place
of Venancio Gapisa.
On April 23, 1976, after additional statements of
Alejandro Gapisa, Roman Mangaring and Florencio Guarte
were secured, a criminal 9complaint was filed in the
Municipal Court of Romblon. The preliminary examination
was conducted by Mayor Peter M. Montojo, for and in the
absence of the municipal judge. Thereafter, he issued an
order confirming the detention of accused who was then
detained in the Municipal Jail of Romblon, there being . . .
reasonable ground to believe that the offense was
committed10
and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof. The accused waived
11
the second stage of the
preliminary investigation. On May 31, 1976, an
informaton, as adverted to above, was filed against Molo
12
accusing him of the crime of murder.
After trial, the court a quo relying on the testimony of
Simeona Gapisa who was an eye and ear-witness to the
incident and the corroborating testimonies of Alejandro
Gapisa and Roman Mangaring, who testified on the ante-
mortem statements of the victim identifying accused as the
assailant; discounting the defense of alibi put forth by the
accused and his wife; appreciating the qualifying
circumstance of treachery and the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, recidivism and reiteration
alleged in the Information, and a mitigating circumstance,
voluntary surrender, sentenced the accused on September
3, 1976, as follows:
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment finding accused

Dominador Molo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, charged in the information and, since after off-setting the
lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with the
aggravating circumstance of either dwelling, recidivism or
reiteration
_______________
8 T.S.N., July 12, 1976, p. 19; July 29, 1976, pp. 69-70; July 30, 1976, pp. 82-
83; and 90.
9 Records, p. 5-6; 15-17.
10 Id., p. 18.
11 Id., p. 21.
12 Id., p. 38.
30

People vs. Molo
there remains two aggravating circumstances, sentencing him to

suffer the supreme penalty of death. He is further adjudged to pay
the heirs of the deceased Venancio Gapisa, the sum of Twelve
Thousand Pesos (P12,000), and to pay the cost.
13
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant thru Atty. Pedro Q. Quadra, counsel de

oficio now seeks acquittal on the basis of two assigned
erors, to wit
1. Appellant was convicted upon proof not beyond

reasonable doubt;
2. Identification of the appellant
14
was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
1. In support of the first, he argues that while proof of

motive is unnecessary if the evidence of
identification is convincingciting People vs.
Cunanan, 19 SCRA 769; People vs. Portugueza, 20
SCRA 901; People vs. Jamero, 24 SCRA 206; and
People vs. Guardo, 24 SCRA 851there is, he
claims, a total want of motive on appellants part,
as admitted by the victims 15
wife, Simeona Gapisa,
and son, Alejandro Gapisa.
2. In support of the second assigned error, appellant
contents that his identity as the assailant was not
established beyond reasonable doubt, because of
(a) alleged inconsistencies and incredible assertions
in Simeonas testimony; (b) physical conditions
which rendered it impossible for her to recognized
accused-appellant; (c) her alleged admission that
she pointed to accused-appellant as the assailant
because he was a hated criminal in their locality;
and (d) that the so-called dying declarations should
not have been accorded credence, because 16
the
victim could not have identified his assailant.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendozawho was assisted by

Assistant Solicitor General Reynato Puno and Solicitors
Romeo S. dela Cruzafter refuting the foregoing
assignment
_______________
13 Rollo, pp. 18-19.

14 Brief, defendant-appellant, p. 4.
15 Id., id., pp. 4-5.
16 Id., id., pp. 3, 6-16.
31
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 31

People vs. Molo
of errors submits the following conclusions as to the nature

of the offense committed, the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances that attended the commission thereof, and,
that the accused is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, thus
xxx
Since the attack was commenced while Venancio Gapisa was

asleep and therefore he could not make a defense, the killing was
attended with treachery. Treachery qualifies the killing into
murder. (Article 248, Revised Penal Code).
Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance because the killing was
done in the house of Venancio Gapisa who had not given
provocation. (Art. 14 (3), Revised Penal Code).
Other aggravating circumstances are recidivism and reiteration.
(Article 14, paragraphs 9 and 19, Revised Penal Code). Accused-
appellant had been previously convicted of murder, frustrated
murder, grave slander, less serious physical injuries, qualified
trespass to dwelling and robbery. (pp. 10-12, tsn., July 12, 1976).
Accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender. He did not surrender to the authorities. As
admitted by him, he was arrested by a combined force of policemen
and Philippine Constabulary agents at his residence the day after
the killing. (p. 6, tsn., July 29, 1976).
Since there are three aggravating circumstances and no
mitigating circumstance, the penalty properly imposable upon
17
ccused-appellant is death.
and recommends that the finding of guilt for the offense of

murder and the 18death sentence imposed upon appellant be
affirmed in toto.
Now, to consider the merits of the alleged errors.
1. Re the claim that there is no proof of motive on

appellants part. This error may be subsumed under
and/or discussed together with the second, since it
admits that motive need not be shown where there
is positive identification, which, as We shall explain
later, happened in this case. However, by way of
traverse, We find the following
_______________
17 Brief, People, pp. 17-18.

18 Id., id., p. 18.
32

People vs. Molo
observations of the Solicitor General well-taken, and

therefore well worth adopting.
xxx
Appellee concedes that it has failed to show any motive of accused-

appellant in killing Venancio Gapisa.
Both Simeona Gapisa and Alejandro Gapisa ventured robbery as
the motive of accused-appellant (pp. 34, 44, tsn., July 12, 1976).
They could not, however, state how much money was taken, from
whom it was taken and how it was taken (pp. 34-38, 44-45, tsn.,
July 12, 1976).
Lest it be thought that Simeona Gapisa and Alejandro Gapisa
gave false testimony, thus rendering themselves untrustworthy
witnesses, it should be pointed out that when they mentioned
robbery as the possible motive of accused-appellant, Alejandro
Gapisa made it clear that that was only his surmise (p. 34, tsn.,
July 12, 1976) while Simeona Gapisa qualified her assertion with
the word maybe (p. 44, tsn., July 12, 1976). They were not
committal or categorical about the matter.
Aside from robbery, there was no other possible motive of
accused-appellant. Both Simeona Gapisa and Alejandro Gapisa
admitted that accused-appellant had no grudge against Venancio
Gapisa and his family and vice-versa (pp. 33-34, 53-54, tsn., July
12, 1976).
But even in the absence of proof of motive, the conviction of
accused-appellant can stand inasmuch as he had been positively
identified by Simeona Gapisa and by the deceased himself through
his dying declaration. Motive need not be shown when there is
positive identification. (People vs. Feliciano, 58 SCRA 383; People
19
vs. Dorico, 54 SCRA 172).
xxx
2. Re the contention that his identity as assailant was

not established beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) That there are inconsistencies and incredible

assertions in Simeonas testimony. Simeona Gapisa
who was present when accused-appellant
attacked her husband Venancio with a bolo
testified on direct and re-direct examinations by
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Cesar M. Solis and on
cross and recross examinations by Atty. Alexander
Mortel, counsel de oficio of accused, thus
_______________
19 Brief, People, pp. 4-6.
33
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 33

People vs. Molo
x x x
Fiscal Solis:
Q By the way, when you first heard the unusual sound
since you were still awake, what did you do?
A I lighted a lamp. I first looked at him by peeping
thru the wall of our house and once I had recognized
his face as that of Dominador Molo I lighted a lamp.
Q Was it only the face of Dominador Molo that you
recognized outside?
A Yes, and he was alone.
Q What about his body, did you recognize that body
belong to Dominador Molo?
A I could see and that was the very body of his
including his face because it was bright.
Q What provides the brightness that allowed you to

recognize him outside the house?
A The moon was bright.
Q Now, aside from the unusual murmuring sound, did
you hear the sound of grinding teeth?
A In fact that was what he had done he was
murmuring and at the same time sounding like
grinding teeth.
Q Now, after you lighted a lamp what else did you do
inside?
A I stood up and stepped back because he had come up
into the house.
Q Did you not wake up your husband?
A I had but he did not notice.
Q Now, what did you do with the lamp after you
lighted it?
A I placed it on top of our trunk which was towards
our head.
Q Now, how did you know that Dominador had gone
up the house?
A Because I saw him going up into our house.
Q When he went up the house, what did he do?
A Once up the house he held my husband by the arm
and suddenly20pulled out his bolo from his back and
hacked him.
x x x
Q How long have you known him?
A Since he was a boy and until he grew up.
_______________
20 TSN., July 12, 1976, pp. 39-41, direct.
34

People vs. Molo
Q By the way, by what affiliation (sic, should be

appelation or name) is he known in your locality?
A Boslo.
Q If that Dominador Molo the accused in this case
known as Boslo is present in the court room, will you
be able to point him out in the court?
A He is here he is the one sitting.
Q Could you not be mistaken?
A That is true, it was his very
21
appearance who is
looking up in the ceiling.
x x x
Atty. Mortel:
Q Nevertheless, because the moon was a quarter moon
only that night April 9 the illumination to any object
that could be seen is quite pale not so bright as if
there was an alladin lamp, correct?
A Yes.
Q And as a matter of fact when this person whom you
said was making murmuring sounds when you
peeped through your window he was being
illuminated by the beam of the light of the moon and
his face seems to be a yellowish and as clear as if
there is an alladin lamp, correct?
A But I know that he was the very one I recognized his
face and he is far from the banana plantation and
the moon lights very well on him.
Q When the moon lighted very well on him his color
was yellowish was it not?
A It was indeed his appearance that I saw and that is
exactly how he looked.
Q And When you looked at him the first time that
night he looked like Dominador Molo?
A It was his very own appearance, his appearance
never changed.
Q And when you saw him you lighted a lamp, is that
right?
A I lighted a lamp because he was already there and I

was afraid of what he had done to us.
Q You mean from the very first time that you saw him
he was making murmuring sounds you were already
afraid that he would do something bad against you
and your husband?
_______________
21 Id., pp. 43-44, id.
35
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 35

People vs. Molo
A Yes, I was
22
already afraid and my skin seemed to
shiver.
x x x
Q And so when your husband was or rather when your

house that night of April 19 was entered into by a
person making murmuring sounds outside and
boloed to death your husband there was no other
conclusion that you made but that it must be Boslo
the killer?
A Yes, in 23fact he was the very one it was his very
looks.
Fiscal Solis:
Q And who pushed open that door of yours, was it
Dominador Molo or a witch?
A He was Dominador Molo, it was his very looks of the
same person who pushed the shutter of the door.
Q What made you sure that the looks of that person
was the one who pushed open the door and went
inside and hacked your husband?
A He was the one it was his very looks and I saw that
it is his looks.
x x x
Q Now, what is this basis for positively telling us that

is Dominador Molo who killed your husband was it
because of rumor circulating in the locality of Cogon
and that the assailant as to be Dominador Molo
because he has killed or because you saw then
Dominador Molo committing the act against your
husband?
A Not only what was given to me by way of information
from other people
24
but because of what I actually saw
with my eyes.
x x x
Atty. Mortel:
Q Now, according to you when the door was pushed
open the person entered and he has the looks of that
fellow whom you are pointing to as Dominador Molo,
is that correct?
A He is the very one.
_______________
22 Id., pp. 46-48, Cross.

23 Id., p. 54, id.
24 Id., pp. 56-57; re direct.
36

People vs. Molo
Q And not only that person who entered the looks of

that Dominador Molo the accused in this case but he
also has the height that looks like the height of
Dominador Molo, is that correct?
A Yes and he had his shirt off and shorts on.
Q And he has that looks and built of Dominador Molo,
is that correct?
A Yes, that is his very appearance and could not be

altered anymore.25
xxx
Appellant contents that inconsistencies exist between

Simeonas statement given to the police and her foregoing
testimony in court, relative to1) the26 precise moment
when Simeona recognized the accused, and 2) whether
there was27
a conversation between Simeona and the
accused.
The records show, however, that the alleged statement
given to the police was neither offered as evidence nor
shown to witness in order to enable her to explain the
discrepancies if any in accordance to Section 16, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court. The proper basis was, therefore, not
laid to impeach Simeonas testimony on the basis of alleged
inconsistent28
statements which she allegedly made before
the police.
At any rate, We find the alleged inconsistencies
inconsequential. Inconsistencies on minor details or on
matters that are not of material consequence as to affect
the guilt or the innocence of the accused
29
do not detract
from the credibility of the witnesses. The discordance in
their testimonies on collateral matters heightens their
credibility and shows 30
that their testimonies were not
coached or rehearsed. Far from being
_______________
25 Id., p. 57; re-cross.

26 Brief, defendant-appellant, pp. 8-9.
27 Id., id., pp. 13-14.
28 People v. Escosura, L-1291, Nov. 2, 1948, 82 Phil. 41; Juan Ysmael
& Co. v. Hashim & Jorayeb, No. 26247, March 18, 1927; United States v.
Baluyot, No. 14476, Nov. 6, 1919, 40 Phil. 385.
29 People v. Palencia, L-38957, April 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 679; People v.
Reyes, L-33154, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474; People v. Pajenado, L-
26458, Jan. 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 172.
30 People v. Estocada, L-31024, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 295; People v.
Doria, L-26188-90, Jan. 31, 1974, 55 SCRA 435.
37
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 37

People vs. Molo
evidence of falsehood, they could

31
justifiably be regarded as
a demonstration of good faith.
It is also contended that the testimony of Simeona
contains inconsistent averments. According to accused-
appellant Simeona claimed that she was able to identify
him because of the lamp which was then lighted but that
she also declared that the light was put out when the32door
was opened because of the sudden gust of wind. To
support this contention, he quoted Simeonas testimony:
Q And when the door was pushed open there was a

sudden gust of wind that entered the house,
correct?
A There was a consequence of the sudden entry.
Q And with that sudden entry and gust of wind
carried by this fellow the light was snuffed out,
correct?
A Yes. (p. 51, tsn., July 12, 1976).
A review of the transcript of the testimony shows that the

foregoing is an inaccurate representation of Simeonas
testimony. For she clarified that her husband was already
boloed before the light was snuffed out. Thus, she testified
on cross-examination:
Atty. Mortel:
Q And with that sudden entry and gust of wind
carried by that fellow the light was snuffed out,
correct?
A Yes.
Q And in the darkness inside this fellow who entered
the house began stabbing and boloing your husband,
correct?
A My husband was already boloed when the light was
put out because upon entrance he instantly took hold
of my husbands arm and started hacking him all
over.33
xxx
On re-direct examination, she declared
_______________
31 People v. Estocada, supra; People v. Alcantara, L-26867, 33 SCRA

813; People v. Cabiltes, L-18010, Sept. 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 112.
33 TSN., July 12, 1976, p. 52.
38

People vs. Molo
Fiscal Solis:
Q Now, you admitted on cross examination that the
lamp was put out now how were you able to know
that your husband had attempted to hold his bolo
with his right hand and while in that position he
was hacked twice by a bolo by the accused
Dominador Molo?
A That stage occurred
34
when the light was still on so it
was still bright.
Appellant also alleges that her testimony contains

incredible assertions, i.e. that it was very unusual that she
remained35 silent while witnessing the attack on her
husband.
But the transcripts show that appellants own counsel
below, Atty. Alexander Mortel, during the cross-
examination, provided the answer to this misgiving: x x x
Q When the door was pushed open did you not shout?
A No, because I was afraid.
Q Afraid of what?
A I was afraid because I did not shout for fear that he
might bolo me.
Q You were tongue-tied?
A Yes.
Q Because of fear?
A Yes.
Q Terrible fear?
A Yes, it was terrible fear because my body trembled.
Q To such extent that you were shocked?
36
A Yes.
Appellant also argues that Simeonas account is contrary to

physical facts. He claims that if, as she testified, the victim
was lying down when attacked, he would sustain stab, not
incised wounds. He explains that the natural tendency of a
person attacking another who is lying down with a bolo
would37
be to thrust the bolo towards the body and not hack
him. This
_______________
34 Id., p. 56.
36 TSN., p. 51.
39
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 39

People vs. Molo
claim is without merit. The Solicitor Generals explanation

on this point is well-taken. To simply thrust a bolo at a
lying person is not as forceful as to hack him with it. The
first is an awkward if not difficult movement, 38
but the
second is natural and can be done with facility.
(b) That conditions rendered it impossible for Simeona

to recognize accused-appellant. It is contended that
Simeona could not have recognized accused-
appellant while he was at the foot of the stairs
because the banana
39
plants obstructed the light cast
by the moon.
This, again, is without merit. Simeona testified that the

banana plants did not obstruct the light cast by the moon
and the defense did not disprove this fact:
xxx
Atty. Mortel:
Q And because of the banana plantation that is
covering your yard this quarter moon, the
illumination thereof is obstructing a little by this
banana plantation?
A But the bananas are not directly obstructing the door
of our house because they are standing towards the
footpath the part of our house was not obstructed of
the light cast by the moon.
Q Except by the footpath and the surrounding
premises of the east side of the house is shaded
because the banana plantation are there to obstruct
the illumination of the moon, correct?
A No, the light coming from the moon could not be
obstructed anymore by that plantation because the
main door of our house is fronting a yard.
Q Nevertheless, because the moon was a quarter moon
only that night April 9 the illumination to any object
that could be seen is quite pale not so bright as if
there was an alladin lamp, correct?
A Yes.
Q And as a matter of fact when this person whom you
said was making murmuring sounds when you
peeped through your window he was being
illuminated by the beam of the light of the moon and
his face seems to be a yellowish and as clear as if
there is an alladin lamp, correct?
_______________
38 Id., People, p. 13.

39 Id., defendant-appellant, pp. 10-11.
40

People vs. Molo
A But I know that he was the very one I recognized his

face and he is far from the banana plantation and
the moon lights very well on him.
Q When the moon lighted very well on him his color
was yellowish was it not?
A It was indeed his appearance that I saw and that is
exactly how he looked.
Q And when you looked at him the first time that
night he looked like Dominador Molo?
A It was his very own
40
appearance his appearance
never changed.
Indeed, Simeona had no difficulty in recognizing the

accused, considering that their house was only elevated by
two steps and at the time she saw him through the
dilapidated
41
buri wall he was already at the foot of the
stairs.
(c) That Simeona pointed to the accused as the killer 42

because he was a hated criminal in the locality.
Appellant contends that Simeona pointed to him as
the assailant because he was a hated criminal in
the localitynot because he was properly identified
as the one who attacked the victim. This claim has
no basis in the records. For the testimony of
Simeona shows that she was certain of accused-
appellants identity as assailant and that at one
point accused-appellant even inquired from her
where her husband was, thus
xxx
Fiscal Solis:
Q And who pushed open that door of yours, was it
Dominador Molo or a witch?
A He was Dominador Molo, it was his very looks of the
same person who pushed the shutter of the door.
Q What made you sure that the looks of that person

was the one who pushed open the door and went
inside and hacked your husb and?
A He was the one it was his very looks and I saw that
it is his looks.
________________
40 TSN., July 12, 1976, pp. 46-47.

41 Id., pp. 41-45.
42 Brief, defendant-appellant, pp. 3, 5-6.
41
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 41

People vs. Molo
xxx
Q Now, what is this basis for positively telling us that

it is Dominador Molo who killed your husband was
it because of rumor circulating in the locality of
Cogon and that the assailant as to be Dominador
Molo because he has killed or because you saw then
Dominador Molo committing the act against your
husband?
A Not only what was given to me by way of
information from other people but because of what I
actually saw with my eyes.
xxx
Atty. Mortel:
Q Now, according to you when the door was pushed
open the person entered and he has the looks of that
fellow whom you are pointing to as Dominador Molo,
is that correct?
A He is the very one.
Q And not only that person who entered has the looks
of Dominador Molo the accused in this case but he
also has the height that looks like the height of
Dominador Molo, is that correct?

A Yes and he had his shirt off and shorts on.
Q And he has that looks and built of Dominador Molo,
is that correct?
A Yes, that is his very appearance and could not be
altered anymore.
xxx
Court: In your entire testimony you did not mention of any

conversation of Dominador Molo as soon as he went up the house,
did you not talk to him, did you not converse with him?
A No, because he suddenly rushed our house.

Q And did he not ask you where is your husband and
answered there he is?
A That was it he was also asking as he entered.
Q So it is clear that you had a conversation with him?
A Yes.
Q And that is what you stated in the police?
43
A Yes, sir.
_______________
43 TSN., July 12, 1976, pp. 56-58.
42

People vs. Molo
(d) Re the dying declarations. Appellant claims that the

same should not be accorded credence because the
victim could not have recognized his assailant, since
as testified
44
by Simeona he was asleep when
attacked. Again this is inaccurate. It was only at
the initial stage of the attack when the victim was
asleep, because he was awakened by the first blows
and stood up to defend himself. Simeona declared:
x x x
Fiscal Solis:
Q How many times did you see Dominador bolo your
husband on the left arm?
A I saw him boloed my husband twice on the left arm
and when my husband noticed that he was being
hacked he reached for his bolo with his right arm to
which instance Dominador Molo noticing that he
was going to use a bolo Dominador hacked him
again on the right arm.
Q Was your husband able to take hold of his bolo?
A He was able to take hold of the handle only because
at this instance he was hacked by Dominador and so
the bolo fell from his hands.
Q What hand did your husband use in taking hold of
his bolo?
A Right arm (sic: should be hand).
x x x
Q But was your husband able to rise from where he

was ly-ing to get that bolo?
A He was able to rise but the was already weak
45
because his left arm was already wounded.
The statements of Venancio identifying Dominador Molo as

his assailant to Alejandro, his son, and Roman, his
neighbor are dying declarations. Alejandro Gapisa testified:
x x x
Q What was the position when you found him there?

A He was sitting.
_______________

45 TSN., July 12, 1976, p. 42.
43
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 43

People vs. Molo
Q What else if any did you observe of your father?

A When I came up he said, Ando I have wounds
because I was boloed by Boslo.
Q What was his actual physical situation when he
uttered these words?
A He was already weak, his body was weak.
Q How did you observe that he was already very weak,
that he was already weak physically?
A Because his wounds are big and many.
Q Was it bleeding?
A It was bleeding but the flow of the blood had
declined since they had been drained of blood.
Q In your observation, was he dying or not?
A He was about to die.
Q Now, since he had wounds what did you do with
these injuries?
A Upon arrival I tied his wounds.
Q Which injuries did you bind, what did you tie?
A The wounds in the arm because it was dangling.
Q Which arm the left or the right?
A The left.
Q What about the right arm?
A It had also many wounds.
Q What was your father doing there, in that kitchen?
A He was sitting.
Q Was he doing anything else from sitting?
A I think he was defecating as a result of the pain.
Q Did he have his pants on?
46
A Yes.
And Roman Mangaring declared:
xxx
A I was talking to him as to who boloed him.

Q And his answer to you was Boslo?
A Yes.
Q He called his assailant as Boslo?
47
A Yes.
_______________
46 Id., pp. 23-24.

47 Id., p. 16.
44

People vs. Molo
Considering the nature and extent of the wounds, eight in

all, Venancio must have realized the seriousness of his
condition and it can therefore be inferred that he made the
incrimination
48
under the consciousness of impending
death, which, in fact, supervened barely 4-1/2 hours after
he was boloed.
In resume then the credible and unimpeached
testimonies of the victims widow, Simeona Gapisa, who
was an eye-witness to the fatal incident, and that of
Alejandro Gapisa, the victims son, and Roman Mangaring,
a neighbor, who both testified on the ante-mortem
statements of the victim, establish the guilt of accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
qualified by treachery, and aggravated by circumstances of
dwelling, recidivism and reiteration, it appearing that
accused has been convicted by final judgment of murder,
frustrated murder, grave slander, less serious physical
injuries, qualified trespass to dwelling and robbery, and,
had served sentences for said crimes.
We agree with the Solicitor General that appellant is not
entitled the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. For in order that the same may be properly
appreciated in favor of the accused, it must appear thata)

he had not been actually arrested; b) he surrendered
himself to a person in authority or his agent; and c) his
surrender is voluntary,
49
which circumstances are not
present in this case. For appellant admitted that on the
day after the killing, police authorities surrounded his
house and arrested him. The fact that he did not try to
escape or did not resist arrest after he was taken into
custody by50 the authorities, does not amount to voluntary
surrender.
A word about the penalty. It appears that accused-
appellant is an incorrigible criminal with clearly anti-social
proclivities against which the community has the need, if
not the right, to
_______________
48 See: People v. Brioso, et al., G.R. No. L-28482, Jan. 30, 1971, 37
SCRA 336; People v. Beraces, et al., G.R. No. 25016, March 27, 1971, 38
SCRA 127.
49 People v. Hanasan, L-25989, 29 SCRA 534.
50 People v. Reyes, L-33154, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474, citing People
v. Dimdiman. L-12622, Oct. 28, 1959, 106 Phil. 391.
45
VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 45

People vs. Molo
defend itself. Where, as in this case, the reformative end of

punishment seems to have failed in amending his criminal
tendencieshe was convicted for frustrated murder in
Criminal Case V-542, Mindoro on September 2, 1950;
murder in Criminal Case No. 862, Romblon on July 27,
1961; grave slander in Criminal Case No. V-669, Romblon,
on June 5, 1957; less serious physical injuries, before the
Municipal Court of Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case
No. 839 on October 9, 1959; qualified by trespass to
dwelling, before the Municipal Court of Romblon, Romblon
in Criminal Case No. 845 on February 25, 1960 and
robbery, before the Court of First Instance of Davao in
Criminal Case No. 9982 on March 1, 1967the imposition
of the supreme penalty, is not only justified by the facts of

this case, but is required as a measure of social defense.
Society had given accused-appellant several chances. It
would seem that compassion had not reformed him, but
had instead made him a hardened criminal and a menace
to his fellow men. To spare his life is to endanger the lives
and properties of others.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby affirmed IN TOTO,
without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion

Jr., Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Castro, C.J., Fernando and Teehankee, JJ., in the
result.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.The negative testimony of a witness cannot

prevail as against the positive affirmation of persons
testifying to facts observed and investigated. (People vs.
Solon, 79 Phil. 214.)
Mere denials by the defendant in a prosecution for
murder cannot in any degree weaken the positive
testimony of a prosecution witness that appears to be
intrinsically credible. (People vs. Sawah, L-15333, June 29,
1962.)
When one or two witnesses who testify to a particular
fact or state of facts are contradicted by six or seven
witnesses,
46

Benaojan vs. Lacson
equally candid, fair, intelligent and truthful, and who have

no greater interest in the result of the suit, and are equally
well corroborated by all the remaining evidence, the
preponderance of testimony may in such cases be
determined by the number of witnesses. (Municipality of
Moncada vs. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184).
The uncorroborated testimony of a lone witness for the

prosecution is insufficient to sustain conviction of the
accused where the attitude of the witness is inconsistent
with the truth of his testimony and the witness has
contradicted himself on an important detail. (People vs.
Ricarte, 78 Phil. 112).
There are four requisites which must concur in order
that a dying declaration may be admissible, to wit; (a) it
must concern the crime and surrounding circumstances of
the declarants death; (b) at the time it was made, the
declarant was under a consciousness of an impending
death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and
(d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant was
the victim. (People vs. Sagario, 14 SCRA 468.)
The declarations made by the victim immediately before
the death satisfies the requirements of an ante-mortem
statement, because, judged by the nature and extent of the
injury inflicted (the stab wound, on the abdomen causing
his intestine to protrude), the victim could not ignore the
seriousness of his condition, and it is safe to infer that he
made the declaration under the consciousness of impending
death. (People vs. Gracia, 18 SCRA 197.)
A conviction or guilt may be based mainly on the ante-
mortem statements of deceased. (People vs. Sagario, 14
SCRA 468.)
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

02 People vs. Molo

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationorig

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 People vs. Molo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 People vs. Molo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088 21/10/2017, 10(00 AM

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-44680. January 11, 1979.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Evidence; A witness cannot be impeached for allegedly making

explains that the natural tendency of a person attacking another

VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 23

People vs. Molo

thrust a bolo at a lying person is not as forceful as to hack him with

wounds, eight in all, Venancio must have realized the seriousness of

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Molo

Same; Penalty; Penalty of death amply justified where accused,

Case No. 9982 on March 1, 1967the imposition of the supreme

AUTOMATIC REVIEW from a judgment of the Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Automatic review of the death sentence with accessory

VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 25

The above-named accused was charged with murder in an

The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Romblon accuses

treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and

(1) Grave Slander, before the Court of First Instance of

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

That as a consequence of the aforementioned criminal act

(SGD.) CESAR M. SOLIS

At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of

1 T.S.N., July 12, 1976, pp. 5, 38, 45 and 50.

VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 27

People vs. Molo

cused Dominador Molo attired only in short pants. He was

2 Id., pp. 38-40, 47 and 57.

4 Id., pp. 3-6, 15-17, 23-24, 31-32.

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. Incised wound, 10 cms. in length, gaping about 4

The following morning an investigation of the fatal incident

6 Exhibit A, Record, pp. 13-14.

VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 29

scene of the killing. Dominador Molo was placed under

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment finding accused

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

there remains two aggravating circumstances, sentencing him to

Accused-appellant thru Atty. Pedro Q. Quadra, counsel de

1. Appellant was convicted upon proof not beyond

1. In support of the first, he argues that while proof of

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendozawho was assisted by

13 Rollo, pp. 18-19.

VOL. 88, JANUARY 11, 1979 31

of errors submits the following conclusions as to the nature

Since the attack was commenced while Venancio Gapisa was

and recommends that the finding of guilt for the offense of

1. Re the claim that there is no proof of motive on

traverse, We find the following

17 Brief, People, pp. 17-18.

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

observations of the Solicitor General well-taken, and

Appellee concedes that it has failed to show any motive of accused-

2. Re the contention that his identity as assailant was

(a) That there are inconsistencies and incredible