SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 124309 May 16, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

VIRGILIO RIMORIN, EDRITO CASTILLO and GLENN GARCIA, accused, VIRGILIO RIMORIN, accused-
appellant.

QUISUMBING, J.:

Before us is the appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, La Union. Branch 30,
in Criminal Case No. 2994, finding accused-appellant Virgilio Rimorin, along with his co-accused, Edrito
Castillo and Glenn Garcia, guilty of the crimes of kidnapping with murder imposing on him two
sentences of reclusion perpetua, as well as ordering him to indemnify the respective mothers of the two
murder victims in the amount of P50,000.00 each.

Appellant Rimorin, Castillo, and Garcia were initially charged in an information dated June 22, 1992,
worded as follows:

That on or about the 16th day of April, 1981, in the Municipality of San Fernando, Province of La Union,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with evident premeditation and treachery and armed
with deadly weapons, did than and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously forcibly take and carry
away PETER LIM against his will in the presence of his sister Amelia Lim and later attack, assault and
strike the victim with the use of the deadly weapons causing his death thereafter to the damage and
prejudice of his lawful heirs.

That the crime was committed with aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle.
CONTRARY TO LAW.1

An amended information dated August 31, 1992, was later filed to include the name of another victim,
Louie Gonzales.2

The pertinent facts, culled from the records, are as follows:

On April 16, 1981, Peter Lim and Louie Gonzales were taken at gunpoint from their homes by Ely Rillon
and appellant Rimorin.3 Later that same day, Napoleon Osoteo was likewise picked up from his house
by Rimorin.4 Osoteo was brought to the house of Rillon, where he saw Lim and Gonzales seated at the
back of a jeep, with their hands tied behind their backs.5 Rillon was at the wheel. Osoteo was also
forced to board the jeep.6 From San Fernando, La Union, Rillon drove the jeep to Barangay Wenceslao,
Caba, La Union.7 There, they were met by Castillo, Garcia, and Danilo Ananias, cousins of appellant.8
Osoteo was told to alight while Lim and Gonzales were brought down from the jeep. The group then
proceeded on foot towards a forested mountain, stopping at a spot where two mango trees stood. 9 A
pit had been dug in the area. Lim and Gonzales were made to sit under a tree. Appellant then struck
them both in the head with a piece of wood. 10 Rillon also struck the victims with the blunt of a bolo. 11
Rillon then ordered appellant, Castillo, Garcia, and Ananias to dump the bodies into the pit. Afterwards,
appellant went down the pit and stabbed the two bodies. After he climbed out, firewood was placed
over the bodies and gasoline was poured over the pile. Appellant also wanted to stab Osoteo but Rillon
prevailed upon him not to. The latter warned Osoteo not to report the matter to the police lest he meet
the same fate as Lim and Gonzales. 12 Rillon set the pile on fire, which burned until around early
afternoon. The pit was covered with earth and banana trees were planted in the area. Rillon and
Rimorin warned the others in the group to keep their mouths shut, on pain of death.

The families of Lim and Gonzales did not report the abduction of their kin to the authorities out of fear.
The crime went undercovered until October 1991 when Osoteo, having earlier learned that Rillon had
denied the previous September, informed Lim's sister Amelia and barangay captain Johnny Go of the
incident at Caba. 1 Amelia and Go accompanied Osoteo to the police station at San Fernando, La Union,
where the latter executed a sworn statement on October 5, 1991. Castillo and Ananias were
apprehended thereafter. 14

Osoteo and Ananias went back to the scene of the killing, together with policemen of San Fernando,
relatives of the victims, and the municipal trial judge of Caba. After days of searching, the exact site was
found and the burned skeletal remains of two individuals 15 were exhumed. After examination, one set
of remains was found to belong to a male above 18 years old. 16 No significant finding was made of the
other set, except that the bones were human. 17 No other findings were made due to the fragmentation
and erosion of the bones and their limited number. 18 The exact cause of death of the two individuals
could also not be determined. 19
Appellant was convicted after trial. His co-accused Edrito Castillo was acquitted since, from the records,
the trial court believed that he was not a participant either in the kidnapping or the killing, and that he
was threatened with death to keep silent. The other co-accused, Glenn Garcia, has remained at large.

In this appeal, appellant Rimorin alleges that the trial court gravely erred in:

. . . CONVICTING APPELLANT VIRGILIO RIMORIN FOR TWO COUNTS OF KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER
DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

. . . IN NOT RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT, ON THE STRENGTH OF ITS OWN EVIDENCE, THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT
RIMORIN. 20

Appellant denies the charges against him, which he labels as a police concoction. He contends that they
were merely concocted to prevent him from testifying in a case for murder and frustrated murder filed
against several policemen of San Fernando, La Union, including the chief of police. He claims that he and
Rillon, were treacherously shot at by said policemen on September 2, 1991, where Rillon died. He avers
that the sworn statement of Osoteo, the prosecution's principal witness, was made before an
investigator from the San Fernando police station, where the policemen implicated in his and Rillon's
shooting were also assigned.

According to appellant the testimony of Osoteo is full of inconsistencies. During the preliminary
investigation of this case, he claims Osoteo narrated that it was Rillon who hit the victims first, but
during trial, Osoteo said it was Rimorin who first did it. Further, he adds that during the preliminary
investigation, Osoteo said what were recovered at Caba were bones and ashes, while during trial,
Osoteo said that only ashes were recovered. He also states that Osoteo testified inconsistently on the
number of persons he had told about the incident at Caba.

Appellant contends that the remains recovered at Caba were not positively identified. They could have
been those of persons summarily executed by certain San Fernando policemen, or perhaps even the
policemen accused of shooting him and Rillon, for summary executions were common in San Fernando
during the early 1990s.

Lastly, appellant asks why Osoteo only came out with his assertions in 1991, when the alleged crimes
happened in 1981 or ten years earlier. He faults Osoteo for not reporting the alleged killings to the
police sooner, particularly since Rillon had gone to the United States in 1982 and Osoteo himself had left
San Fernando to live with his wife in Luna, La Union, in 1984.

For the appellee, the Solicitor General contends that the alleged inconsistencies in Osoteo's testimony
are minor ones that tend to strengthen rather than weaken Osoteo's credibility. He points out that the
delay in reporting the incident was satisfactorily explained by Osoteo's fear of Rillon. When the latter
died in September 1991, the threat ceased and Osoteo was finally able to talk about the crime to the
barangay captain and to the sister of one of the victims. The Solicitor General asserts that Osoteo could
not have led the authorities to the victims' burial site, had he not been actually present at the scene of
the crime.

While the Solicitor General urges the Court to affirm the conviction of appellant, he stresses that
appellant should be convicted only of two counts of murder, and not kidnapping with murder. The
taking of the victims from their homes was only incidental to the main objective of killing them,
according to the Solicitor General.

We now resolve the issue raised by appellant's assignment of errors, namely, whether the prosecution
has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

It is apparent that the present appeal is anchored mainly on the credibility, or the lack thereof, of
prosecution witness Osoteo. Appellant itemizes the alleged inconsistencies in Osoteo's testimony that to
appellant evidence a fabricated tale. But, in our view, these details do not destroy the case for the
prosecution.

Firstly, the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility is accorded great weight, even finality, by
appellate courts, absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain matters that, if taken into
consideration, would have materially affected the outcome of the case. 21 The trial courts are in the
best position to view witness' demeanor and deportment during trial. 22 These are well-founded and
well-settled rules.

Secondly, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not necessarily impair his credibility. As
held in People v. Sesbreño, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999, at times, inconsistencies indicate truth
rather than falsehood, and strengthen rather than weaken the witness' credibility. We have long
observed that they safeguard against memorized perjury. 2 There allege inconsistencies in Osoteo's
statements during the preliminary investigation vis-à-vis his testimony during the trial, do not detract
from the crucial fact that appellant participated in the plot to kill Lim and Gonzales. Whether it was
Rillon or appellant who first hit the victims could not erase the fact that the killings took place. Whether
Osoteo told one, two, or several persons about the crime is of little consequence. The fact remains that
he did report the incident finally to the authorities. Above all what matters is that Osoteo did identify
the perpetrators of the crime, including appellant.

That Osoteo's fear of Rillon constrained him for ten years from revealing the crime and identifying the
perpetrators to the authorities is understandable. The delay should not in any way taint his credibility.
24 It should in fact foster credence in his revelation, considering that after ten years he did not have to
come out to testify if there was no grain of truth in it.

We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that Osoteo could not have led the authorities to the
scene of the crime were he not actually present as eyewitness when the crime was committed.
Appellant's bare denials obviously prevail over the positive identification made by said eyewitness.

Appellant claims he was charged with the murder of Lim and Gonzales to prevent him from testifying in
criminal cases filed against certain policemen of San Fernando. But nothing appears on record to
corroborate this claim. Appellant's assertion that there is a connection between the two sets of cases is
at best conjectural. It cannot suffice to support his plea for reversal of the judgment below.

Finally, for each victim killed, we find that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime of
kidnapping with murder. The offenses were committed on April 16, 1981, prior to the effectivity of R.A.
No. 7659 on December 31, 1993. 25 In this instance, it is evident that the purpose of appellant and his
companions when they kidnapped the victims was to kill them. Hence, there were with murder.

The information alleged that each killing was qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. In
treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. This means that the accused must make
some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to
make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. 26 Eyewitness
Osoteo said the victims' hands were tied behind their backs when appellant killed them, disabling the
victims from defending themselves. Hence, treachery was sufficiently established.

Concerning evident premeditation, however, the prosecution evidence is bare. There was no showing of
(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the
determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect on the
consequence of his act. 27 Thus, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not
established.

Lastly, as to civil indemnity, payment should be made not only to the mother of each victim but to all his
heirs. 28

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 30, in
Criminal Case No. 2994, finding appellant Virgilio Rimorin guilty of two complex crimes of kidnapping
with murder and imposing on him two sentences of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that he is further sentenced to pay the heirs of each of the victims the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as INDEMNITY. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur.

De Leon, Jr., J., is on leave.