SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126932. November 19, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PASCUA GALLADAN Y BUNAY, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:
On 12 June 1995 at around
11:00 o'clock in the evening Sgt. Moreno R. Bernardo, SPO4 Donato M. Legasi,
Sgt. Apolinario Galladan and SPO3 Ramirez Era attended a wake at Lok Street, Zone
18, Staff Housing Area, Pembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City. Upon learning that SPO4 Pascua Galladan was
in the vicinity, the group of Sgt. Bernardo (with SPO4 Legasi, Sgt. Galladan
and SPO3 Ramirez) hurriedly left to avoid any confrontation with SPO4 Pascua
Galladan as there was bad blood between SPO4 Pascua Galladan and Sgt. Galladan
dating as far back as 1991.
On leaving the wake, Sgt.
Bernardo walked side by side with Sgt. Galladan while SPO4 Legasi and SPO3
Ramirez walked behind. After traversing
twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) meters, SPO4 Pascua Galladan suddenly appeared
and shot Sgt. Galladan hitting him on the forehead. Sgt. Bernardo and SPO4 Legasi immediately dropped to the ground
and after a few moments ran for safety.
Three (3) more successive shots were heard with a bullet piercing the
thigh of Sgt. Bernardo.
SPO2 Reynaldo Arcibal of
the Makati Police Station investigated the incident. He went to the crime scene and there he saw the body of Sgt.
Galladan lying face down; it was lifeless.
Lerma Galladan, widow of
Sgt. Apolinario Galladan, went to the Makati Police Station in the afternoon of
16 June 1995 and informed the police authorities that SPO4 Pascua Galladan and
his nephew Limbert Bagay were the possible suspects in the killing of her
husband because of their long-standing grudge.
Testifying in his
defense, accused SPO4 Pascua Galladan alleged that at the time of the incident
he was in the rented house of his daughter in Cavalry Hills, Pembo, Makati
City, and left for Baguio early the following morning; alibi, in other words.
But the trial court
sustained the prosecution and ruled -
Here, the controlling fact is that Sgt. Moreno R. Bernardo and SPO4
Donato Legasi clearly and consistently testified that they saw accused SPO4
Pascua Galladan, a person already well-known to them as the one who shot
Apolinario R. Galladan. The unwavering
identification negates accused's alibi[1]
x x x x Another point that discredits
accused's alibi is, Cavalry Hills, West Rembo, the place where the accused
claimed he was at the time of the shooting and Lok Street, Rembo, Makati City
are neighboring barangays. It is not
impossible for accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the
commission thereof x x x x[2]
The court a quo
found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing. The victim, together with his three (3)
companions, were hurriedly walking away from the wake after having been
informed of the presence of SPO4 Pascua Galladan. They were fleeing from the place in the hope of avoiding any kind
of confrontation with SPO4 Pascua Galladan.
They were totally unaware of the fact that accused-appellant was waiting
in ambush for them. Although some of
them were likewise armed, they were utterly unprepared for the suddenness of
the attack. Without uttering a word,
SPO4 Pascua Galladan suddenly shot Sgt. Apolinario Galladan hitting him
mortally on the head.
Consequently, the trial
court convicted SPO4 Pascua Galladan of murder after having ascertained that
treachery qualified the killing.
Correspondingly, SPO4 Pascua Galladan was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Sgt. Apolinario Galladan P14,500.00
as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
As regards accused
Limbert Bagay who has remained at large, the court a quo set aside the
warrant of arrest after finding that no probable cause existed against him and
returned the Information to the Office of the City Prosecutor for further
investigation.
SPO4 Pascua Galladan
appeals his conviction. He assails the
decision of the court a quo arguing that "a great portion of the
appealed decision dwelt on the rationalization of the trial court in discrediting
the evidence for the defense. Not much
was said about the reasons why it gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses."[3] He concludes that
"the trial court did not subject the prosecution's evidence to the rigid
test of reason although said yardstick was strictly applied in appreciating
that of the defense."[4]
We cannot agree with
accused-appellant's appraisal of the decision of the trial court. The assessment of factual matters lies
within the province and expertise of trial courts. We, more often than not, accord due respect to their findings
absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. In the instant case, we find nothing amiss in the factual
assessment by the court below. That it
dwelt lengthily criticizing the evidence presented by the defense is its own
way of presenting its reasons why it chose to give credence to the version of
the prosecution. Aside from general
statements and conclusions bereft of any basis, the defense did not offer any
satisfactory proof that the lower court gravely abused its discretion.
Contrary to the
allegation of the defense, the evidence presented by the prosecution is far
from weak. Two (2) prosecution
witnesses categorically and positively identified accused-appellant as the
person who shot Sgt. Apolinario Galladan on the head at close range. Placed side by side with the alibi of
accused-appellant, positive identification must certainly prevail.
Significantly, the alibi
of accused-appellant cannot prosper.
For alibi to be validly invoked, not only must he prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must also satisfactorily
establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at
the time of commission. In the instant
case, accused-appellant only attempted to prove that he was at a different
place when Sgt. Galladan was gunned down.
He did not even attempt to establish that it was impossible for him to
be at the locus criminis when the offense was committed. For this fact alone, his alibi must fail.
Likewise, the defense
endeavors to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by
implying that their testimonies are tainted with glaring inconsistences. In particular, it points to the seemingly
conflicting versions of the prosecution as to how the supposed grudge between
SPO4 Pascua Galladan and Sgt. Galladan started. It likewise cited the inconsistency between the narrations of
Sgt. Bernardo and SPO4 Legasi. Supposedly,
Sgt. Bernardo remarked that there was moonlight at the time of the
incident. On the other hand, SPO4
Legasi testified that it was dark.
Plainly, the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses referred only
to minor matters and not to those crucial to the case. Assuming there were indeed inconsistencies
regarding the incident from which stemmed the bad blood between
accused-appellant and Sgt. Galladan, and, on the other hand, whether there was
moonlight or not, the fact remains that there was indeed a long-standing feud
between SPO4 Pascua Galladan and Sgt. Apolinario Galladan and that the latter
was shot point blank on the night of 12 June 1995. Those supposed contradictions do not detract from the fact that
accused-appellant was positively identified as the assailant of Sgt.
Galladan. Under the facts, there can be
no other conclusion than that accused-appellant SPO4 Pascua Galladan
treacherously shot Sgt. Apolinario Galladan to death at around 11:00 o'clock in
the evening of 12 June 1995.
There seems to be no
dispute as regards the award by the trial court of P14,500.00 for actual
damages and P50,000.00 for moral damages to the heirs of Sgt.
Galladan. However, the trial court
failed to award civil indemnity, which is separate and distinct from moral
damages. Article 2206 of the Civil Code
provides that when death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the
deceased are entitled to be indemnified for the death of the victim without
need of any evidence or proof thereof.
Consequently, and conformably with People v. Espaņola,[5] we should award P50,000.00
more as civil indemnity for the death of the victim.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo
finding accused-appellant SPO4 Pascua Galladan guilty of murder and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to PAY the heirs of
Sgt. Apolinario Galladan P14,500.00 for actual damages and P50,000.00
for moral damages is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant
is further ordered to PAY another P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for
death conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, and the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Buena, and De Leon, JJ., concur.