Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FRANCISCO, J.:

On the bases of the separate sworn statements executed by Rosita Emperio, Arlyn Entension and Gener Diabordo, appellant Ignacio Zumil and Nicolas Oliver were charged with murder ¹ for the death of Leopoldo, Sr.. When arraigned, Oliver pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide and was accordingly sentenced by the trial court. ² Appellant, on the other hand, entered a plea of not guilty. Full dress trial thereafter ensued against appellant culminating in this assailed verdict of conviction sentencing him "to suffer reclusion perpetua . . . and . . . pay the heirs of Leopoldo Emperio [the sum of] P50,000.00 as death indemnity." ³

It is indubitable that the trial court's judgment of conviction was based principally on Rosita and Gener's ⁵ testimony narrating appellant's actual participation in the commission of the crime. Claiming that Rosita has "an entirely different version" of the incident from those of Gener and Leopoldo, Jr., appellant now insists that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are unworthy of belief. ⁶ Specifically, appellant cites the following alleged inconsistent portions of their respective testimonies:

While there appears to be an inconsistency between the testimony of Rosita, and of Gener and Leopoldo, Jr., as to how Leopoldo, Sr. was able to get a bolo which he used to repel Oliver's assault, the same is nonetheless inconsequential. This is so because, referring as it does to only a minor detail of the incident, such inconsistency will not cast serious doubt on witnesses' credibility, ¹⁰ but even suggests that their testimony were unrehearsed. ¹¹ Moreover, we do not expect the testimony of the witnesses regarding the same incident to be consistent all throughout because different persons may have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. ¹²

We must stress the appellant has been positively identified by no less than three (3) prosecution eyewitnesses as the one who struck a bamboo pole with a protruding nail ¹³ upon Leopoldo, Sr.'s face when the latter was chasing Oliver out of his (Leopoldo, Sr.) house. ¹⁴ That as a consequence thereof, Leopoldo, Sr. fell from the makeshift bridge, plunged into the water underneath and was finally stabbed to death by Oliver. ¹⁵ The trial court, through entertaining its misgivings on Leopoldo Jr.'s credibility, ¹⁶ found that Gener passed the "acid test of cross-examination", ¹⁷ and that Rosita's testimony "rang with the fervor truth". ¹⁸ We uphold these findings of the trial court considering that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect on appeal. ¹⁹ Furthermore, their testimony was corroborated by Dr. Pedrita J. Rosauro — the Assistant Health Officer of Ozamiz City — who conducted a post-mortem examination on the cadaver of Leopoldo, Sr. Thus:

On the other hand, appellant's defense of denial which Nicolas Oliver, ²² the self-confessed author of the crime, corroborated is unworthy of belief. As against the testimony of the prosecution witnesses amply demonstrating appellant's participation in the commission of the crime, his denial cannot prevail. ²³ Well entrenched is the rule that positive testimony carries much weight than negative ones. ²⁴

With respect to appellant's argument that his flight from Ozamiz City — his family's residence for over twenty years ²⁵ — immediately after the incident is not indicative of his guilt, the same does not merit our serious consideration. In this jurisdiction, while non-flight is not a conclusive proof of innocence, ²⁶ flight has been invariably considered as an evidence of guilty conscience. ²⁷ No less deserving of scant consideration is his explanation that his stealthy and untimely flight from Ozamiz City was for fear of possible reprisals from the Leopoldo Sr's clan. ²⁸ Indeed, we see neither rhyme nor reason why appellant would harbor such an apprehension if he was truly innocent. As we have often quoted: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as the lion." ²⁹

We thus believe that the evidence for the prosecution have sufficiently overthrown the presumption of innocence accorded by the Constitution to the appellant. Truly, appellant was not the one who inflicted the fatal thrust on Leopoldo, Sr.. However, his participation therein speaks so well that he conspired with Oliver who, were it not for the latter's timely plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, could have similarly been convicted of the crime of murder. Appellant therefore is as equally guilty as Oliver pursuant to the oft-repeated rule in conspiracy that the "act of one is the act of all". ³²