FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 120170. May 31, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RESTITUTO
DIMAILIG y CARAIG, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is an
appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City, Branch
123 convicting Restituto Dimailig y Caraig of murder, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, and to pay the heirs of the victim, Arlene Guavez, the amount of
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity, fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
as moral damages, twenty six thousand eight hundred pesos (P26,800.00)
as actual damages and three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) as
payment for loss of earning capacity.
On October 5, 1993,
Second Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio C. Mananquil, Jr. of Kalookan City
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 123, Kalookan City an information
charging Restituto Dimailig y Caraig with murder, committed as follows:
"That on or
about the 3rd day of October 1993 in Kalookan City, Metro-Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
and stab with a bladed weapon (balisong) on the chest of one ARLENE GUAVES Y
SEVILLANA, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries which
caused her death (DOA) at the MCU Hospital, this city.
"Contrary to
law."[2]
At the arraignment on
March 10, 1995, accused Restituto Dimailig pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.[3] Trial ensued.
The record reveals
that Arlene Guaves,[4] 22 years old, worked as a saleslady at the Bagallon
General Merchandising and Gift Shop on the 2nd floor of the LRT Northmall in
Kalookan City. According to Josephine Sevillana, sister of the victim, accused
Restituto Dimailig courted Arlene for a year, but she was uncertain if the two
became sweethearts.[5]
At around 3:45 in
the afternoon of October 3, 1993, Josephine Sevillana called up Arlene, who was
on duty as a saleslady, to confirm their agreement to meet that afternoon.
Arlene, sounding fearful, asked Josephine to go to Northmall, revealing that
accused Dimailig had previously threatened to kill her.
At around 5:00 in
the afternoon, Josephine arrived at the Northmall. As she made her way to the
gift shop, she noticed accused Dimailig standing in front of the Fuji Film
Store beside the shop. Josephine entered the gift shop and found Arlene alone
inside. She did not see Arlene talk to accused Dimailig outside.
At around 5:30
p.m., Arlene and Josephine prepared to close the gift shop. Then, Arlene asked
Josephine to accompany her to the comfort room which was around five to six
meters from the shop. They were walking towards the comfort room when,
suddenly, accused Dimailig appeared. He pulled Arlene away from Josephine.
Then, he stabbed Arlene’s chest with a balisong several times. Arlene
fell to the ground.
People milling
around the mall started gathering around accused Dimailig. Moments later,
several persons began to maul him.
Josephine and some
salesladies brought Arlene to the Manila Central University Hospital (MCU), but
Arlene was pronounced dead on arrival.[6]
PO3 Rogelio Avila
and PO3 Conrado Tuazon were directing traffic along Rizal Avenue at the LRT
Grand Central station when a commotion across the street at the Northmall
caught their attention. PO3 Avila saw a man being mauled by several persons on
the island of the street. PO3 Avila and PO3 Tuazon pacified the crowd and
learned that the man had stabbed a woman. Some persons shouted, "Nakasaksak
ng babae!" PO3 Avila handcuffed the man and apprised him of his
constitutional rights. The man who sustained injuries was silent. PO3 Avila
invited bystanders to the police station to give their statements regarding the
incident but nobody obliged. Acting upon information that the victim was inside
the mall, PO3 Tuazon entered Northmall but discovered that bystanders had
brought the victim to the hospital. He went outside and, together with PO3
Avila, hailed a passenger jeepney. They took the man, identified as accused
Dimailig, to the hospital.[7]
The body of Arlene
Guaves was brought to the morgue of the Dulce Funeral Parlor. Feliñito
Sevillana, the victim’s father, identified it as the body of his daughter
Arlene. He consented to the conduct of an autopsy.[8]
Dr. Florante F.
Baltazar, Chief Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted the
autopsy and found that the victim sustained twelve (12) stab wounds on the
chest, an abrasion, and an incise wound.[9] He indicated in Medico-Legal Report No. M-1710-93
that multiple stab wounds caused Arlene’s death. He opined that a pointed and
bladed instrument, such as a balisong, could have caused the injuries
and that the victim could have been attacked frontally.[10]
Meanwhile, SPO1
Cesar Antonio received a call regarding a victim of violence brought to MCU
Hospital.[11] Upon arrival at the hospital, he realized that the
victim had died. However, he found the victim’s sister, Josephine Sevillana, at
the hospital and instructed her to proceed to the police headquarters to give a
statement concerning the incident.
At the police
headquarters, traffic officers Tuazon and Avila turned over accused Dimailig to
SPO1 Cesar Antonio. When SPO1 Antonio summoned Josephine Sevillana, she pointed
to accused Dimailig as the person who stabbed her sister. Accused maintained
his silence. When SPO1 Antonio asked accused Dimailig why he killed Arlene, he
stated, "Bata ko siya, niloko niya ako kaya sinaksak ko siya."[12]
Josephine Sevillana
executed a written statement the following day, October 4, 1993, positively
identifying accused Dimailig as the one who stabbed her sister Arlene. Her
mother, Sonia Sevillana y Garchitorena, also executed a statement that day.
Since Arlene Guaves
was separated from her husband, her family took care of her wake and burial.
For the 7-day wake, the Sevillanas spent P1,000 a night. As shown by an
agreement with Dulce Memorial Service, the family spent P10,239.40 for
funeral services.[13] They paid fees to the city treasury in the amount of
P52.00[14] and to the La Loma Catholic Cemetery for the grave
and niche, P600.00.[15] They spent P5,000.00 for the tomb but no
receipt was issued by the person who constructed it. For the funeral, they
hired seven (7) passenger jeeps at P600.00 each but no receipt was
issued for that amount.
According to Sonia
Sevillana, Arlene was employed as a saleslady at the Bagallon Gift Shop earning
one thousand three hundred pesos (P1,300.00) a month. Sonia came to know
of that fact from Arlene herself and her employer, Mrs. Bagallon, who
voluntarily gave Sonia a certification on April 13, 1994 that before her death,
Arlene was in her employ.[16] Sonia testified that the pain caused by the death of
her daughter Arlene could not be compensated and that Arlene left a child whom
Sonia has to care for.[17]
Testifying as the
sole defense witness, accused Dimailig, 27 years old, asserted that Arlene was
his girlfriend. They first met on November 21, 1991 when she bought pandesal
from the bakery owned by accused Dimailig, located in Novaliches. Accused
Dimailig asked her address, intending to write to her when he leaves for
Kuwait. Arlene obliged him but did not inform him that she was married and a
mother to a child.
Accused Dimailig,
still unmarried, started courting Arlene. According to him, they became
sweethearts on January 22, 1992. They dated regularly and Arlene often visited
him at home. He called her "Mama" or "Sweetheart" and she
sent him letters, pictures, and cards.[18]
Accused Dimailig
went to Kuwait, stayed there for a year, and returned to the country on July 9,
1993. At this time, he discovered that Arlene was married but separated from
her husband, and had a child with her husband. He was uncertain if Arlene and
her husband had the intention of reconciling with each other. However, he knew
that Arlene often talked to her husband and that she met with him several
times.
At around 4:00 in
the afternoon of October 3, 1993, he was at the office of Exponent in Buendia,
applying for work abroad. He left at 4:30 p.m. and proceeded directly to the
Northmall Shopping Center to tell Arlene that he would be leaving for Jeddah.
When he disembarked at the LRT station, he saw a crowd milling around the mall.
Curious, he elbowed his way to the object of the crowd’s attention and saw
Arlene soaked in blood. He approached her and embraced her. Suddenly, he found
himself being engulfed by the crowd. Around twenty (20) people hit his face and
chest, making him lose consciousness. He regained consciousness at the Kalookan
General Hospital, where two policemen brought him. Afterwards, he was taken to
the police station. He claimed that the policemen failed to inform him of his
constitutional rights. He said that he did not give any statement to the police
admitting to the crime. He also denied being identified by Josephine Sevillana
at the police headquarters. He declared his love for Arlene Guaves and
reiterated that he could never commit the murder for which he was charged with.
On March 30, 1995,
the trial court rendered a decision finding accused Dimailig guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by taking advantage of superior strength
and aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation. The trial court decreed
as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
this Court finds the accused, Restituto Dimailig y Caraig guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
and to pay the heirs of Arlene Guavez (sic) the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity;
pay moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00; pay actual damages in the sum of
P26,800.00 and the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased
in the amount of P300,000.00.
"SO
ORDERED."[19]
Hence, this appeal.
In his brief,
accused-appellant Dimailig questioned the credibility of witness Josephine
Sevillana, and stated that her testimony was replete with inconsistencies.
He pointed out that
Josephine first declared that Arlene and accused-appellant had a relationship
but later changed her answer to the effect that she did not know if indeed they
had a relationship. Thereafter, she testified that she did not know anything
about it.
Accused-appellant
also imputed doubt as to whether Josephine was actually present at the
Northmall on the day of the stabbing and witnessed the attack against the
victim. He alleged that Josephine was inconsistent in describing the manner in
which the deceased Arlene was stabbed for she initially declared that accused
blocked their way and pulled Arlene before stabbing her, then later testified
that accused-appellant attacked them from behind.
Such attempts to
discredit the witness must fail.
Josephine’s
testimony on the relationship between accused-appellant and the victim Arlene
Guaves is credible. She knew accused-appellant was courting her sister but she
did not know if the two became sweethearts. Indeed, Josephine could be expected
only to testify on matters that were evident to her; she could not be expected
to testify on a relationship that she was not privy to. A witness can testify
only on facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge.[20]
Furthermore, a
witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of
minute details; even the most truthful witnesses often err and issue confused
statements.[21] By the suddenness of the assault, Josephine could
not be expected to remember the details of the attack. What was important was
her unequivocal declaration that the attack was sudden and unexpected,
depriving the victim of opportunity to put up a defense. She remembered that
her sister was pulled away from her. She was shocked at the suddenness of the
attack. She also did not falter in identifying accused-appellant as the
attacker. Contrary to accused-appellant’s assertion, inconsistencies and
contradictions in the declarations of a witness do not necessarily destroy the
witness’ credibility. They may even enhance their truthfulness as they erase
any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[22]
Furthermore, the
witness was the sister of the victim, without any motive to testify falsely. In
fact, being a relative of the victim of the crime, she is propelled by greater
motive to see to it that the real culprit of the crime be punished. "The
natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the
conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than
the true culprits."[23]
Josephine Sevillana
knew accused-appellant, since he courted her sister for a year. No motive was
given for her to falsely impute a heinous crime against accused-appellant.
"Where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution
was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so
actuated and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit."[24]
Accused-appellant
likewise assailed the trial court’s conclusion that he was "positively
identified not only by Josephine Sevillana but by the crowd where the accused
found himself to be a victim of mob violence as narrated by PO3 Rogelio Avila."[25] He alleged that the testimony of PO3 Avila
identifying him as the killer of the victim as pointed out by the crowd that
gathered at the mall constituted hearsay evidence and hence, inadmissible.
Indeed, the
testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if
intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is
hearsay evidence; it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in
the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the
tenor of such statement.[26]
In this case, the
responding police officers testified that they saw bystanders enraged over the
stabbing of a woman and who identified accused-appellant as the person
responsible therefor. However, none of the bystanders testified in court. The
policemen themselves were not able to personally witness the stabbing incident.
Although the statements made by the crowd to the police officers may be
considered as averments for the purpose of showing the fact of such assertion,
they do not establish the truth of the facts asserted therein.[27] Thus, such statements of the bystanders, as reported
by the policemen, which aim to point culpability to accused-appellant for the
crime are hearsay and have no probative value.
However, Josephine Sevillana
positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. The testimony of a
single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction if positive and
credible as in this case.[28]
Accused-appellant
assails the finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the
commission of the crime.
There is treachery
"when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make."[29] The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected
attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latter’s
part.[30]
The wounds
sustained by the victim were located on the chest, thus indicating a frontal
attack. However, eyewitness Josephine Sevillana testified that
accused-appellant, armed with a knife, attacked the victim when she was unarmed
and without any opportunity to defend herself. Hence, although the attack may
have been frontal, the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving no opportunity
for the victim to put up an adequate defense.[31] Thus, treachery attended the commission of the
crime.
Aside from
treachery, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation against accused-appellant. In evident premeditation, there must
be proof of the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time, between the
determination and execution, to allow the offender to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.[32] Evident premeditation is based on overt acts. There
must be a demonstration by overt acts of a criminal intent that is notorious
and manifest.[33]
In this case, the
trial court found accused-appellant’s threat to the victim as an overt act
manifesting evident premeditation. However, Josephine Sevillana admitted in
court that she was not able to confirm the threat made by accused-appellant as
she did not hear any word uttered by him when she arrived at the Northmall and
her sister did not tell her anything when she arrived at the gift shop. An
expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime;
there must be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is
notorious and manifest.[34] Evident premeditation must be based on external acts
which are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate
planning.[35] Thus, evident premeditation may not be appreciated
against accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant
also averred that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength against him.
A qualifying circumstance
must be alleged in the information.[36] Otherwise, it may be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance if proven during the trial that such circumstance
attended the commission of the crime. In this case, the information did not
allege abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. Thus, although
proven during the trial, such circumstance may be treated only as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance, not one to qualify the crime. However, the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is deemed absorbed in
treachery.[37]
The fatal stabbing
of Arlene Guaves was qualified by treachery. Hence, the crime committed was
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the crime was
committed on October 3, 1993, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659,[38] the penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code
in effect at the time was reclusion temporal maximum to death.
Considering the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty imposable is the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.[39]
The award to the
victim’s heirs of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is proper since civil indemnity is
automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other
than the commission of the crime.[40] The fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) awarded
as moral damages is likewise reasonable for the pain and mental suffering that
the victim’s brutal murder caused her family.[41]
Inasmuch as the
Court can only give credit for expenses supported by receipts,[42] actual damages shall consist only of the duly
documented sums of P10,239.40 for funeral services, P52.00 for
the victim’s burial at the La Loma Cemetery in Kalookan City, and P600.00
for the grave and niche.
The trial court
properly awarded to the heirs of Arlene Guaves the amount equivalent to her
unearned income based on her annual income of P15,600.00 (P1,300.00
x 12). Since the victim died at the age of 22, her unearned income shall be
computed in accordance with the formula of 2/3 x [80 - age of victim at the
time of death] x a reasonable portion of the net income which would have been
received by her heirs for support.[43] The "reasonable portion of the net income"
shall be arrived at by deducting living expenses which is the equivalent of 50%
of the gross annual income, from the same gross annual income.[44] Thus:
|
x |
= |
2 x (80 - 22) |
x (15,600 - 7,800) |
|
|
= |
38.67 x 7,800 |
|
|
|
= |
|
|
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City, Branch 123 in Criminal Case No. C-45260,
finding accused Restituto Dimailig y Caraig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
Court further sentences accused to pay the heirs of the victim, Arlene Guaves,
the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. The Court MODIFIES
the appealed decision by awarding to the heirs of the victim the amount of
three hundred one thousand six hundred twenty-six pesos (P301,626.00)
for loss of earning capacity and ten thousand eight hundred ninety-one pesos
and forty centavos (P10,891.40) as actual damages. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Acting
Chairman), and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), on official leave.
Ynares-Santiago,
J., no part.
[1] In Crim. Case No. C-45260, Decision promulgated on
March 30, 1995, Judge Pablo P. Inventor, presiding.
[2] Original Record, Criminal Case No. C-45260, p. 1.
[3] Certificate of Arraignment, Original Record, p. 18.
[4] As spelled in the death certificate, Exhibit "A",
Original Record, p. 44.
[5] TSN, April 21, 1994, pp. 4-6.
[6] TSN, April 21, 1994, pp. 11-20; June 15, 1994, pp.
12-20.
[7] TSN, July 21, 1994, pp. 3-14.
[8] Exhibit "I", Original Record, p. 54.
[9] Medico-Legal Report, Original Record, p. 55.
[10] TSN, October 20, 1994, pp. 12 & 18.
[11] TSN, August 25, 1994, pp. 4-22.
[12] Testimony of SPO1 Cesar Antonio, TSN, August 25,
1994, p. 6.
[13] Exhibit "E", Original Record, p. 48.
[14] Exhibit "E-1", Original Record, p. 49.
[15] Exhibit "G", Original Record, p. 52.
[16] Exhibit "F", Original Record, p. 51.
[17] TSN, August 31, 1994, pp. 2-5.
[18] Exhibits "1" to "7", Original
Record, pp. 79-86.
[19] Decision, Original Record, pp. 116-121.
[20] People vs. Manhuyod, Jr., 290 SCRA 257 (1998)
[21] People vs. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 (1998) citing
Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 5189 (1997) and People vs.
Daen, Jr., 314 Phil. 280 (1995)
[22] People vs. Rada, G.R. No. 128181, June 10, 1999.
[23] People vs. Quilang, G. R. Nos. 123265-66, August 12,
1999.
[24] People vs. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352 (1998)
[25] Brief for Accused-Appellant, Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[26] People vs. Cusi, 14 SCRA 944 (1965)
[27] People vs. Franco, 269 SCRA 211 (1997)
[28] People vs. Alagon, G. R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10,
2000.
[29] Art. 14 (16), Revised Penal Code.
[30] People vs. Mante, G. R. No. 129694, August 18, 1999;
People vs. Jaberto, G. R. No. 128147, May 12, 1999.
[31] People vs. Dando, G. R. No. 120646, February 14,
2000; People vs. Suelto, G. R. No. 126097, February 8, 2000.
[32] People vs. Peñaflorida, G. R. No. 130550, September
2, 1999; People vs. Sanchez, G. R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999; People vs.
Sumalpong, 348 Phil. 501, 527 (1998)
[33] People vs. Villamor, 292 SCRA 384 (1998)
[34] People vs. Padama, G. R. No. 132137, October 1, 1999.
[35] People vs. Sison, G. R. No. 119307, August 20, 1999.
[36] People vs. Sambulan, 289 SCRA 500 (1998)
[37] People vs. Villablanca, G. R. No. 89662, October 1,
1999; People vs. Francisco, G. R. No. 110873, September 23, 1999.
[38] Effective December 31, 1993.
[39] People vs. Cleopas, G. R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000; People
vs. Bitoon, G. R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999.
[40] People vs. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 (1998)
[41] People vs. Tambis, G.R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999.
[42] People vs. Silvestre, G.R. No. 127573, May 12, 1999;
People vs. Gutierrez, Jr., 302 SCRA 643 (1999)
[43] People vs. Espanola, 338 Phil. 403, 431 (1997)
[44] People vs. Gutierrez, Jr., supra at p.
667.