No ill motives

The credibility of witnesses sometimes depends on their motive or reasons. They are believable if they have no reason at all to lie about what they actually saw especially if it involves their close relative like their father. This is explained in this case of Nardo.

Nardo has eight children by his wife Naty. One of them was Fely, about 18 years old who already had a boyfriend, Gino. Fely did not realize that her own father had some immoral motive on her until one morning when Nardo went outing in a town resort with Fely and her friends and their neighbor, Linda. After lunch Nardo brought Fely to a nearby mangrove. Barely a few minutes later, Fely came back running away from the mangrove looking anxious and with dress torn on the left side. Fely confided to Linda that her father wanted and tried to abuse her.

That evening, Nardo got mad when he saw Gino in their house. After Gino left, and when Naty was nursing her baby in another room and the other children were not around except Medy, Fely’s younger sister, Nardo threatened Fely that he would kill her if she will proceed to marry Gino or continue her love relations with him. Then suddenly while Fely was sitting, Nardo grabbed her by the hair with one hand, and with the other hand forced her to open her mouth and poured into it a liquid used for killing worms in the rice field known as “Endrin” contained in a bottle he got from the window sill.

Medy started to shout asking for help and her mother Naty responded by rushing Fely to the hospital where she died after 25 minutes due to chemical poisoning. Medy and her two brothers on the other hand went to their neighbor Linda’s house, crying and telling her that Fely was made to drink “Endrin” by their father.

When the Police learned about the poisoning, PFCs Manny and Rolly immediately rushed to Nardo’s house to apprehend him. They found Nardo there who admitted to them that he poisoned his daughter, and as they search the place they found the bottle of “Endrin.”

After proper investigation, Nardo was charged with the crime of parricide with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and immoral, highly contemptible motive. Testifying against him was Medy, Linda and PFC Manny who narrated in court the above events which they saw and experienced.

Nardo, on the other hand denied the charge and claimed that he did not go with Fely and her group at the town resort and that he was the one who tried to stop Fely from drinking the “Endrin” but it was too late. He said that after Fely drank from the bottle, she jumped out of the window and went to the rice field. He searched for her but it was futile. And when he returned home to attend to a crying baby, the police came and arrested him.

The RTC however found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced him to death because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of immoral motive.

On automatic review by the SC, Nardo insisted that the lower court should have believed his testimony because the testimony of her daughter Medy is incredible and full of inconsistencies. The same is true with the testimony of Linda their neighbor who had an ulterior motive to testify against him because of their incident concerning the use of irrigation water.

But the SC relied more on the testimony of Medy and their neighbor Linda. The SC believed the testimony of Medy since she was present when Nardo forced Fely to drink the poisonous liquid. It is hard to believe that Medy would falsely accuse her own father of a crime or any act unless he really committed it. The inconsistencies in her testimony are understandable considering her age. But the fact is that she was present when the incident occurred and she stood fast in her testimony that Nardo forced her sister to drink the Endrin.

The claim that Linda has ulterior motive in testifying against Nardo is not also believable. Even assuming that the incident concerning the use of irrigation water is true, the same cannot be sufficient motivation for one to testify falsely accusing another of a very serious crime.

So Nardo is indeed guilty of parricide. But his sentence should be reduced to reclusion perpetua, since evident premeditation has not been proven and there is no such aggravating circumstance as immoral motive. (People vs. Villaver, G.R. L-32104, March 28, 1983)

* * *

Email: [email protected]