People of the Philippines vs.
Garchitorena
GR 175605 August 28, 2009
Facts
Version of the Prosecution
In the proceedings before the trial court, witness for the prosecution Dulce Borero testified that on September
22, 1995, at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, she was selling "balut" at Sta. Inez, Almeda Subdivision, Brgy.
Dela Paz, Binan, Laguna. Her brother, Mauro Biay, also a "balut" vendor", was also at the area, about seven (7)
arms length away from her when she was called by accused Jessie Garcia. Borero testified that when her brother
Mauro approached Jessie, the latter twisted the hand of her brother behind his back and Jessie’s companions-
accused Arnold Garchitorena and Joey Pamplona – began stabbing her brother Mauro repeatedly with a shiny
bladed instrument. Joey was at the right side of the victim and was strangling Mauro from behind. Witness saw
her brother Mauro struggling to free himself while being stabbed by the three (3) accused., until her brother
slumped facedown on the ground. Arnold then instructed his two co-accused to run away. During cross-
examination, Borero claims that she wanted to shout for help but nothing came out from her mouth. When the
accused had left after the stabbing incident, witness claimed that she went home to call her elder brother
Teodoro Biay, but when they returned to the scene, the victim was no longer there as he had already been
brought to the Perpetual Help Hospital. They learned from the tricycle driver who brought Mauro top the
hospital that their brother was pronounced dead on arrival.
Dr. Rolando Poblete, the physician who conducted an autopsy on victim Mauro Biay and prepared the post-
mortem report, testified that the victim’s death was caused by "hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple stab
wounds." Witness specified the eight (8) stab wounds suffered by the victim – one in the neck, two in the chest,
one below the armpit, two on the upper abdomen, one at the back and one at the left thigh – and also a
laceration at the left forearm of Mauro. According to the expert witness, the nature of stab wounds indicate that
it may have been caused by more than one bladed instrument.
Version of the defendant
On the other hand, accused Joey Pamplona denied that he participated in the stabbing of Mauro Biay. Joey
Pamplona claims that he was seated on a bench when co-accused Arnold came along. Then the "balut" vendor
arrived and Joey saw Arnold stand up, pull something from the right side of his pocket and stab the "balut"
vendor once before running away. Joey Pamplona testified that after the stabbing incident, due to fear that
Arnold might also stab him, he also ran away to the store of a certain Mang Tony, a barangay official and
related the incident to Aling Bel, the wife of Mang Tony. Joey Pamplona said that he stayed at Mang Tony’s
store until his father arrived and told him to go home.
Barangay Captain Alfredo Arcega testified that he investigated the stabbing incident and, although he had no
personal knowledge, he found out that it was Arnold Garchitorena who stabbed Mauro Biay. Upon questioning
Arnold, the latter admitted that he did stab Mauro. (pleaded insanity)
The other co-accused Jessie Garcia (used alibi) took the stand and claimed that on September 22, 1995,
between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening, he was still riding a bus from his work in Blumentritt. He arrived at his
home in Binan only at 11:00 p.m. On September 24, 1995, he was fetched by two (2) policemen and two (2)
Barangay Tanods from his house and brought to the Binan Police Station for questioning. Thereafter, he was
put in jail and incarcerated for six (6) months without knowing the charges against him. He was only informed
that he was one of the suspects in the killing of Mauro Biay by his mother.
With respect to Arnold Garchitorena, Dr. Evelyn Belen, Medical Officer III and resident physician of the
National Center for Mental Health, testified that she examined the accused Arnold and based on the history of
the patient, it was found that he had been using prohibited drugs like shabu and marijuana for two (2) years
prior to the stabbing incident in 1995. The patient is allegedly suffering from schizophrenia, wherein he was
hearing auditory voices, seeing strange things and is delusional. However, Dr. Belen also testified that the
accused Garchitorena had remissions or exaservation and understands what he was doing and was aware
of his murder case in court.
RTC Ruling
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds accused
Arnold Garchitorena y Gamboa alias Junior, Joey Pamplona alias Nato and Jessie Garcia y
Adorino GUILTY beyond reasonable of the crime of "MURDER" as defined and penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by Republic Act 7659, (Heinous Crimes). Accordingly, all of them are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Furthermore, all of the accused are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally Amelia Biay, widow of the
victim Mauro Biay, the following sums:
a) 50,000.00 – as and for civil indemnity
b) 50,000.00 – as and for moral damages
c) 50,000.00 – as and for exemplary damages
d) 16,700.00 – as and for actual damages
e) 408,000.00 – as and for loss of the earning capacity of Mauro Biay; and
f) To pay the costs of suit.
Court of Appeals
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the appealed
March 9, 2001 Decuision of the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 9440-
B finding herein accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED in
its entirety.
Supreme Court Ruling
The core issues raised by the both accused-appellants Joey Pamplona and Jessie Garcia are factual in nature
and delve on the credibility of the witnesses.
Since the accused-appellants raise factual issues, they must use cogent and convincing arguments to show that
the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence. They, however, have failed to do so.
Accused-appellant Pamplona contends that the trial court’s decision was rendered by a judge other than the one
who conducted trial. Hence, the judge who decided the case failed to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on
the stand so as to gauge their credibility. No merit, jurisprudence say “that the circumstance alone that the
judge who wrote the decision had not heard the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would not taint
his decision.”
The eyewitness Dulce Borero’s testimony clearly established Pamplona and Garcia’s participation and,
consequently, their culpability in the appalling murder of Mauro Biay. Absent any showing of ill motive on the
part of Borero, we sustain the lower court in giving her testimony full faith and credence. Moreover, the
prosecution’s version is supported by the physical evidence.
Accused-appellant Pamplona’s argument that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution
witnesses Borero is not convincing. The minor inconsistencies may, in fact, increase their credibility as it
guards against memories falsites.
In view, however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as the Anti-Death Penalty Law,
which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
should instead be imposed. Accordingly, accused-appellants shall be sentenced to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole in lieu of the penalty of death.
Accused-appellant Garcia’s alibi has no leg to stand on. he failed to prove that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity. His alibi must fail.
Accused-appellant Garchitorena’s defense of insanity has also no merit. insanity is a defense in the nature
of confession and avoidance. As such, it must be adequately proved, and accused-appellant Garchitorena
utterly failed to do so.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00765, finding the three-accused
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder is hereby AFFIRMED WITH the following
MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death imposed on accused-appellants is REDUCED to RECLUSION
PERPETUA without eligibility for parole pursuant to RA 9346; (2) the monetary awards to be paid jointly and
severally by the accused-appellants to the heirs of the victim are as follows: ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu
of actual damages; (3) ₱408,000.00 for loss of earning capacity; and (4) interest is imposed on all the damages
awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.
