EN BANC
[G. R. No. 130658. May 4, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ORLITO GADIN, JR. alias
"Ay-Ay", accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.: Scsä daad
The case is before the Court on automatic
review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch
28 convicting Orlito Gadin, Jr. alias "Ay-Ay" of murder and
sentencing him to death, to indemnify the heirs of the victim Elito Pajanustan
in the amount of Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P32,400.00) as actual
damages and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as exemplary and moral
damages, and to pay the costs.[1]
On June 6, 1995, Samar Provincial Prosecutor
Juan C. Latorre, Jr. filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28,
Catbalogan, Samar an information charging Orlito Gadin, Jr. alias
"Ay-Ay" with homicide. However, after reinvestigation of the case, on
February 6, 1996, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wayne M. Villarin of Samar
filed an amended information charging the accused with murder, committed as
follows: SupÓ
rema
"That on or
about the 13th day of March 1995 at nighttime which was purposely sought, at
Purok 1, Barangay Muñoz, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one Elito Pajanustan with a knife with which the said accused
had conveniently provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said
Elito Pajanustan a stab wound on his chest, which wound directly caused his
death."[2]
Thus, on March 13, 1996, accused Orlito
Gadin, Jr. was arraigned under the amended information. He pleaded not guilty
to the murder charge.[3] Accordingly, trial ensued.
The facts, as found by the trial court, are
as follows:
On March 13, 1995, at around 10:00 in the
evening, Rowena Dacut, Jessie Mabini and Elito Pajanustan were drinking Tanduay
mixed with beer while sitting on benches along the roadside of Purok I,
Barangay Muñoz, Catbalogan, Samar. Orlito Gadin, Jr. arrived and stood in front
of Elito Pajanustan. Rowena Dacut offered him a drink but Gadin merely stared
at them. Suddenly, Orlito Gadin drew a knife from the left backpocket of his
pants. He thrust the knife into the chest of Pajanustan, causing the latter to
fall down.[4]
Then, Orlito Gadin ran away, still holding
the knife. Rowena chased after him, asking him why he stabbed Pajanustan.
Orlito did not answer and kept running about half a meter more towards his
uncle’s house. He entered the house and hid the knife used to stab Pajanustan.
Subsequently, he ran out of the house and disappeared. After a few minutes of
futile search for Orlito, Rowena returned to the place where Pajanustan was
stabbed and found that Jessie Mabini had left the scene. Rowena saw Pajanustan
wounded and sprawled on the ground. She told her mother to inform the mother of
Elito Pajanustan as to what had just occurred and brought the wounded Elito to
Samar Provincial Hospital. Scä juris
At the hospital, Nelia Redito arrived and
found her son, Elito Pajanustan, in the operating room. She approached him and
asked him what happened. He replied, "Ma’, Ma’, Orlito Gadin Ma’, abugho ‘Ma
guin buno ako." ("Mama, Mama, I was stabbed by Orlito Gadin because
of jealousy.").[5] Shortly thereafter, Elito Pajanustan expired.
Dr. Senecia Q. Yong, Municipal Health
Officer, conducted a post mortem examination of the body of deceased
Elito Pajanustan and concluded that the cause of death was shock, irreversible,
due to profuse external and internal hemorrhage from a stab wound. The wound,
measuring 2 cm. in length, 0.5 cm. in width and 17 cm. in depth located along
the right sternal border and at the level of the 2nd ICS, was directed
laterally hitting the right lung parenchyma.[6] There were no other marks or contusions on the body
of the deceased.[7]
Accused Orlito Gadin, Jr., however, narrated
a different version of the events.[8] At around 9:30 in the evening of March 13, 1995,
Orlito went to Barangay Muñoz to buy barbecue. While at the barbecue stand,
Rowena Dacut, from across the street, called Orlito. He knew Rowena, since she
was his godsister.[9] He saw her sitting with two other persons, drinking
Tanduay with beer. He approached them but refused their offer to drink with
them. He conversed with Rowena for approximately thirty minutes. In the course
of the conversation, he noticed that one of the drinking companions of Rowena
kept interrupting them and insulting him. This person was Elito Pajanustan. Jurisä
Orlito then requested permission to leave.
Suddenly, Elito Pajanustan grabbed a glass and banged it on the table. Then, he
stood up and punched Orlito on his left chest. Orlito returned the punch given
him. Elito saw a knife on top of the table which was used to crack ice. He took
the knife and tried to stab Orlito with it. Using both of his hands, Orlito
grasped the hand of Elito and tried to twist his arm. In the course of the
struggle, Orlito managed to take hold of the knife. Elito grabbed a bottle of
beer and tried to hit Orlito with it. The latter moved backward to avoid the
advancing Elito, but realized that a bench obstructed his path. He pushed Elito
using both his hands in order to avoid tripping backward over the bench,
unmindful that he was still holding the knife. Orlito thrust the bladed
instrument into Elito’s chest. Elito fell on his back towards the adjacent
table. Orlito stood his ground, not knowing what happened, until he heard someone
declare that Elito had been wounded. Orlito ran from the scene, accidentally
dropping the knife. He ran until he reached his house, located in the same
barangay. He hid behind his house, fearful of the persons chasing him.
Afterwards, he hid beneath the swamps of
Barangay Muñoz until policemen arrived and surrounded the area. Orlito, after
ascertaining that the companions of Elito were not within the vicinity, came
out and surrendered to the police. The policemen never found the knife used to
stab Elito Pajanustan.
Orlito testified that he never met Elito
Pajanustan before the incident. He also alleged that Rowena Dacut was his
godsister and that he did not know any reason why she would testify falsely
against him.[10]
On April 23, 1997, the trial court rendered
decision,[11] the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it appearing that the prosecution had adequately proven
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to the crime of murder which
is a capital offense, there being presence of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation, the accused Orlito Gadin, Jr. is hereby
sentenced to suffer a penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Elito Pajanustan, represented by his mother, Nelia C. Redito in the amount of
Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred (P32,400.00) Pesos for actual damages and Two
Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos for exemplary and moral damages. No
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency on the part of the accused; and to
pay the cost."[12]
Hence, this automatic review.
In his brief, accused-appellant Orlito
Gadin, Jr. claimed that he merely acted in self-defense. He alleged that the
killing was accidental since he was parrying the blows of the deceased Elito
Pajanustan, who insulted and punched him without provocation. Jurisä sc
We have consistently held that in invoking
the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted
to accused to prove all the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing
evidence, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[13] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence,
and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution.[14]
After a review of the record, we find
accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense untenable.
Accused-appellant failed to prove satisfactorily
that Elito Pajanustan was the unlawful aggressor. He presented no other witness
to corroborate his testimony. On the contrary, positive testimony of eyewitness
Rowena Dacut pointed to accused-appellant as the one who stabbed Elito
Pajanustan, unexpectedly and without provocation.
She declared in a straightforward and candid
manner that accused-appellant delivered the fatal blow on Elito Pajanustan.
Dacut was in the best position to witness the event, since she was sitting
beside the victim and was only about two meters away from accused-appellant. No
motive was given for her to testify falsely against accused-appellant. Notably,
Dacut was in congenial terms with accused-appellant, and even engaged in
conversation with him prior to the stabbing incident. 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.[15]
The trial court gave credence to the
testimony of Rowena Dacut. We find no reason to overturn such assessment of
credibility.[16]
Contradicting accused-appellant’s narration
of events is the medico-legal report stating that no other marks or contusions
on the body of the deceased had been detected except for the single fatal stab
wound. Such findings belie the testimony of accused-appellant that he grappled
for possession of the knife and that there was an exchange of blows and punches
prior to the stabbing.
Accused-appellant fled from the scene of the
stabbing after realizing that he had wounded the victim and admitted that he
hid beneath the swamps, refusing to come out until he was certain that the
friends of Elito were not looking for him. Flight is evidence of consciousness
of guilt and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience.[17] MisjÓ uris
Regarding the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, clear and convincing evidence must be given to show that the
following elements existed: (a) the accused employed means of execution that
gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and
(b) that the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[18]
In this case, accused-appellant stabbed the
victim when the latter was merely drinking with his friends. The attack was
sudden and unprovoked, giving the victim no opportunity to repel the attack.
Although the stabbing was done frontally, the victim had no chance to offer any
defense. Thus, treachery attended the commission of the crime.[19]
We can not, however, agree with the trial
court that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. For
evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must exist: (a)
the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) an overt act showing
that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (c) the
lapse of a sufficient period of time between the decision and the execution of
the crime, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.[20] In this case, the record is bereft of sufficient
evidence as to the time when accused-appellant decided to commit the crime.
Eyewitness Rowena Dacut could not remember a prior incident which could incite
accused-appellant to attack the victim. There was no proof when the intent to
commit the crime was engendered in the mind of accused-appellant, or when he
meditated and reflected on his intention to kill the victim. Evident
premeditation must be based on external acts which are evident, not merely suspected,
and which indicate deliberate planning.[21] There must be direct evidence showing a plan or
preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his
decision to kill the victim.[22] When there is no showing as to how and when the plan
to kill was decided or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident
premeditation cannot be considered to exist.[23]
It is basic that qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be proven with equal certainty as the commission of the act
charged as criminal offense.[24] Since the commission of the crime is qualified by
treachery, accused-appellant is liable for murder.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion
perpetua to death. Considering the absence of any other aggravating or
modifying circumstance, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, not
death.[25] Jjä lex
As to the amount of actual damages, we find
the amount awarded by the trial court to be unsubstantiated. The mother of the
deceased Elito Pajanustan testified that she spent one thousand four hundred
pesos (P1,400.00) for the seven-day wake, fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00)
for funeral service expenses, and sixteen thousand pesos (P16,000.00) for the
first death anniversary.[26] However, no receipts were ever presented during the
trial to prove the actual damages incurred.
To justify an award of actual damages, it is
necessary "to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon
competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the
actual amount of loss."[27] The award of actual damages can not be sustained
without any tangible document to support such claim.[28] Thus, we delete the amount of actual damages, for
lack of supporting evidence.[29]
Moral damages awarded by the trial court are
proper. Moral damages are recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in
physical injuries, or the victim’s death.[30] No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary; however,
there must be satisfactory showing of factual basis for the moral injury.[31] Nelia Redito, mother of deceased Elito Pajanustan,
has testified having suffered pain and sorrow from the loss of her son.[32] Thus, we find the award of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages to be reasonable and adequate.
Exemplary damages given by the trial court
must be deleted, considering the absence of aggravating circumstances which
would justify such an award.[33]
However, civil indemnity is automatically
awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact of
commission of the crime.[34] Thus, we award the amount of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for the death of Elito Pajanustan, in line with
current jurisprudence.[35] NewÓ miso
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the appealed decision
convicting accused-appellant Orlito Gadin, Jr. of murder, with the MODIFICATION
that the death penalty imposed by the court a quo is reduced to reclusion
perpetua. The Court further orders accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the
victim Elito Pajanustan the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as
civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. The
award of actual and exemplary damages is deleted. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno,
Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Melo, Kapunan, and Purisima, JJ., on leave. 6/5/00 3:16 PM
[1] Decision denoted as "Sentence", Criminal Case No. 4053, Original Record, pp. 78-84. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, presiding.
[2] Original Record, p. 38.
[3] Certificate of Arraignment, Original Record, p. 43.
[4] TSN, July 2, 1996, pp. 3-4 and p. 11.
[5] Testimony of Nelia Redito, TSN, August 21, 1996, p. 14.
[6] Post-Mortem Examination Report, Original Record, p. 58.
[7] TSN, January 17, 1997, p. 8.
[8] TSN, February 16, 1997, pp. 2-18; TSN, February 17, 1997, pp. 2-8.
[9] TSN, February 17, 1997, p. 7.
[10] TSN, February 18, 1997, pp. 6-8.
[11] Denoted as "Sentence", Original Record, pp. 78-84.
[12] Original Record, p. 84.
[13] People vs. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 130608, August 26, 1999; People vs. Bitoon, G. R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999; People vs. Villamor, 292 SCRA 384 (1998)
[14] People vs. Tan, G. R. No. 132324, September 28, 1999; People vs. Tomolin, G. R. No. 126650, July 28, 1999; People vs. Carpio, 282 SCRA 23 (1997)
[15] People vs. Nava, G. R. No. 123148, April 20, 1999; People vs. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352 (1998)
[16] People vs. Perez, G. R. No. 130501, September 2, 1999.
[17] People vs. Borreros, G. R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999.
[18] People vs. Emberga, G. R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999; People vs. Caisip, 290 SCRA 451 (1998)
[19] People vs. Dando, G. R. No. 120646, February 14, 2000; People vs. Suelto, G. R. No. 126097, February 8, 2000.
[20] People vs. Virtucio, Jr., G. R. No. 130667, February 22, 2000; People vs. Pinca, G. R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999; People vs. Padama, Jr., G. R. No. 132137, October 1, 1999; People vs. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495 (1997)
[21] People vs. Sison, G. R. No. 119307, August 20, 1999.
[22] People vs. Asto, 277 SCRA 697 (1997)
[23] People vs. Sambulan, 289 SCRA 500 (1998)
[24] People vs. Piamonte, G. R. No. 91999, February 25, 1999.
[25] People vs. Yam-Id, G. R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999.
[26] TSN, August 21, 1996, pp. 9-10.
[27] People vs. Rosario, 246 SCRA 658 (1995)
[28] People vs. Sanchez, G. R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999, citing David vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 727 (1998)
[29] People vs. Silvestre, G. R. No. 127573, May 12, 1999; People vs. Nialda, 289 SCRA 521 (1998)
[30] People vs. Bromo, G. R. No. 97914, November 22, 1999; People vs. Tambis, G. R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999.
[31] People vs. Villamor, 284 SCRA 184 (1998)
[32] TSN, August 21, 1996, pp. 9-10.
[33] People vs. Bergante, 286 SCRA 629 (1998); People vs. Reyes, 287 SCRA 229 (1998)
[34] People vs. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 (1998)
[35] People vs. Catampongan, G. R. No. 131732, November 19, 1999; People vs. Cayago, G. R. No. 128827, August 18, 1999; People vs. Heredia, G. R. No. 110001, July 28, 1999.