FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 123095.
July 6, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. EFREN MINDANAO y GUMABAO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
This is an
appeal interposed by the accused Efren Mindanao y Gumabao from the consolidated
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 167, Pasig[1] acquitting him of violation of P.
D. 1866, and convicting him of murder and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua "in its medium period or an imprisonment ranging from twenty
six (26) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty three
(33) years and four (4) months, as maximum, to indemnify the offended party in
the aggregate amount of P222,748.22; to suffer all the accessory penalties
provided for by law; and, to pay the costs."
We state the
antecedent facts.
On October 2,
1993, at around twelve o'clock in the morning, Apolonio Hornilla
("Apolonio"), a meat vendor, was weighing meat at his stall in the
Urbano Velasco Public Market in Pasig, Metro Manila. In the area was
prosecution witness Perfecto de Jesus ("Perfecto") who was waiting
for his turn to buy meat.
While Apolonio
was weighing beef, Perfecto saw a man approach Apolonio from Apolonio's left
side. The man pulled out a gun and fired at Apolonio twice, hitting him on the
nape. Apolonio collapsed. The assailant left. Perfecto approached Apolonio and
brought him to the Rizal Medical Center. After taking Apolonio to the hospital,
Perfecto went to buy medicine. Along the way, Perfecto learned that policemen
apprehended Apolonio's assailant. Perfecto proceeded to the police precinct and
identified accused from a line-up of around ten (10) detainees.[2]
On October 2,
1994, Perfecto executed a sworn statement before the police investigators. In
the statement, he identified accused as the person who shot Apolonio.[3]
On October 5,
1993, Third Assistant City Prosecutor Quezon B. Alejandro filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Pasig, an information for frustrated murder and an
information for illegal possession of firearms against accused. The information for frustrated murder reads:[4]
"That on or about the 2nd day
of October 1993 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with Pedro Conte and Leonides Conte who
are still at large and mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with a
gun, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one
Apolonio Hornilla y de Castro with the said gun hitting him on his right neck
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which would ordinarily [have]
caused his death thus performing all acts of execution which would have
produced the crime of murder as a consequence but nevertheless it did not
produce it by reason of cause or causes independent of his will, that is due to
the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Apolonio Hornilla.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On November 4,
1993, accused was arraigned for violation of P. D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of
Firearms) and frustrated murder. He pleaded "not guilty" to both
charges.[5]
Apolonio was
hospitalized in Pasig for a month. He was transferred to the Batangas
Regional Hospital where he stayed for twenty-seven (27) days.[6]
On December 23,
1993, Apolonio died. His death certificate stated the cause of death as
follows:[7]
"Immediate cause: a. Cardiac Arrest
"Antecedent cause: b.
Cardiac Failure
"Other significant
conditions contributing
to death: c.
Cervical Spine
Injury due to
bullet wound"
On February 2,
1994, the prosecution[8] amended the information murder due
to Apolonio's supervening death. As amended, the information reads:[9]
"That on or about the 2nd day
of October 1993 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, armed
with a gun, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot one APOLONIO HORNILLA with the said gun hitting him on the vital parts of
his body thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his
death.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On March 17, 1994, accused entered a plea of
"not guilty" to the amended charge.[10]
At the trial,
accused's defense was alibi and denial. He averred that when the shooting
occurred, he was unloading vegetables from a jeep.[11] His testimony was uncorroborated.
The trial court did not believe him.
On June 26,
1995, the trial court rendered a decision convicting accused of murder and
acquitting him of illegal possession of firearms, to wit:[12]
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
"(a) In Criminal Case No.
101921, on the basis of reasonable doubt, the accused is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged.
"(b) In Criminal Case No.
101922, the accused is found GUILTY beyond peradventure of doubt of the crime
of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and
is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua in its medium period or an
imprisonment ranging from Twenty-Six (26) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1)
Day, as minimum, to Thirty-Three (33) Years and Four (4) Months, as maximum; to
indemnify the offended party in the aggregate amount of P222,748.22; to suffer
all the accessory penalties provided for by law; and to pay the costs.
"SO ORDERED."
On July 26,
1995, accused filed a notice of appeal.[13] However, the notice was erroneously
forwarded to the Court of Appeals.[14]
On November 25,
1996, we resolved to accept the appeal.[15]
Here,
accused-appellant pleads that the judgment of the trial court be modified to a
conviction for homicide, alleging that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was not proven.[16]
We do not agree.
There was
treachery. In crimes against persons, treachery exists when the accused employs
means, methods and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.[17]
Apolonio was
attending to his trade, weighing meat, when he was shot by appellant on the
nape. At that moment, he was unaware of the fatal attack to befall him. He was
not given an opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate.
There is
treachery even if the crime is perpetrated frontally provided the attack is
sudden and unexpected, and the victim is unarmed.[18] In this case, there was a swift and
unexpected attack against an unarmed victim, who did not give the slightest
provocation.[19]
Given the facts,
we cannot lessen the conviction to one for homicide.
The penalty
imposed by the trial court is erroneous. When the crime was committed, the
penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death.[20] In the absence of aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.[21] Reclusion perpetua as an indivisible penalty is not
divided into periods.[22]
We come to the
damages awarded.
The trial court
awarded damages in the amount of P222,748.22.
This is erroneous.[23]
We grant an
award of civil indemnity, in the amount of P50,000.00, automatically to the
heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact of commission of
the crime.[24]
We also grant
actual damages. For Apolonio's hospitalization from October 2 to November 27,
1993,[25] Lucia spent a total of P78,526.27.
This expense is supported by receipts.[26] Other receipts show that the family
spent P8,000.00 for funeral services,[27] P3,222.00 for the tomb[28] and the amount of P10.00 for the
municipal burial permit.[29] The expenses evidenced by all the
receipts amount to P89,758.27.
The amount of
P15,000.00 for "other expenses", which Apolonio's heirs claimed were
incurred during Apolonio's confinement at the Rizal Medical Center and the
Batangas Provincial Hospital were not covered by receipts and must be
disallowed. Every pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence
before it may be awarded.[30]
The award of
attorney's fees is likewise erroneous. There is no record that victim's family
hired a private prosecutor. All throughout the proceedings public prosecutors
represented them.
In line with
current jurisprudence, we further award moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00. When Apolonio died, he left
his widow Lucia with three children aged five, three and one, hurt and
destitute.[31] The award is therefore adequate and
reasonable, taking the pain and anguish of the victim's family into
consideration.[32]
Damages for loss
of earning capacity cannot be granted.
The prosecution did not present income tax returns or receipts. The
testimony of the victim's wife as to her husband's income is not competent
proof.[33]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 167, Pasig dated June 26, 1995 is AFFIRMED insofar as it finds
accused-appellant Efren Mindanao y Gumabao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder for the killing of Apolonio Hornilla. However, the decision is MODIFIED
as follows: (a) accused-appellant shall suffer the indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law; (b) he is ORDERED to
pay to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity for the death of Apolonio
Hornilla in the amount of P50,000.00, actual damages in the amount of
P89,758.27 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The award of attorney's fees is
DELETED. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] In Criminal Case No.
101921 for Violation of P.D. 1866 and Criminal Case No. 101922 for Murder,
Decision, dated June 26, 1995, Judge Alfredo C. Flores, presiding, Rollo,
pp. 11-21.
[2] TSN, June 1, 1994,
pp. 3-19.
[3] Exhibit “B.”
[4] Original RTC Record,
p. 1.
[5] Rollo, p. 12.
[6] TSN, June 1, 1994,
pp. 26-27.
[7] Exhibit “A”.
[8] Records, pp. 36-37.
[9] Rollo, pp.
5-6.
[10] Records, p. 49.
[11] TSN, November 18,
1994, pp. 3-7.
[12] Rollo, p.
11-21.
[13] Rollo, p. 22.
[14] Records, p. 141.
[15] Rollo, p. 23.
[16] Rollo, pp.
35-49.
[17] Art. 14 (16), Revised
Penal Code; People v. Formanes, G.R. No. 115687, February 17, 2000.
[18] People vs.
Reyes, 350 Phil. 683, 695 (1998).
[19] People vs.
Jaberto, 307 SCRA 93, 103 (1999).
[20] Art. 248, Revised
Penal Code, before its amendment by R.A. No. 7659.
[21] Art. 64 (1), Revised
Penal Code, People v. Cleopas and Pirame, G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000.
[22] People v.
Lucas, 310 Phil. 77, 80 (1995).
[23] Rollo, pp.
19-20.
[24] People vs.
Obello, 348 Phil. 88, 106 (1998).
[25] Exhs. D to D-148.
[26] Exhs. D to D-149.
[27] Exh. E.
[28] Exh. D-149 &
E-1.
[29] Exh. E-2.
[30] People vs.
Sol, 338 Phil. 896, 911 (1997), People v. Canasares, G.R. No. 123102, February
29, 2000, People v. Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, February 28, 2000.
[31] TSN, June 1, 1994,
p. 25.
[32] People v. Ereno, G.R.
No. 124706, February 22, 2000.
[33] Ibid.