EN BANC
[G.R. No. 135521.
April 11, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO M. JUDAVAR, defendant-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
This case is on automatic
review of the decision dated August 21, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 34, Iriga City in Criminal Case No. IR-3802 which sentenced
accused-appellant Francisco M. Judavar to death for the crime of murder.
In an Information dated
May 31, 1995, accused-appellant was charged with murder for the death of
Arnel Dato committed as follows:
“That on or about the 15th day of February 1995 at about 2:30 in the morning in Caranday, Baao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Arnel C. Dato from behind, while the latter was standing and witnessing the dance being held at the Caranday Public Market, thereby inflicting upon the said victim mortal wounds, which directly caused his death, to the latter’s damage and prejudice in such amount as may be proven in court.
All acts contrary to law.”[1]
Accused-appellant was
arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, namely:
(1) Dr. Ruperto Alfelor, (2) Roberto Robosa, (3) Nardito Dato, (4) Margie
Malazarte, (5) Francisco Cabalquinto, and (6) Nonito Dato. Their testimonies established the following
facts: In the evening of February 14, 1995, a public dance in
celebration of Valentine’s Day was sponsored by the Senior Citizens of Caranday
and held at the market site of Carandang, Baao, Camarines Sur. Sweethearts Arnel Dato and Margie Malazarte
attended the dance and enjoyed the evening together. At about 2:00 in the early morning of February 15, Margie
momentarily left Arnel. As he waited
for his sweetheart, Arnel stood on one side of the hall and watched the people
dancing on the floor. Accused-appellant
appeared and approached Arnel from behind.
Suddenly, accused-appellant swung his right hand and, with a ten-inch
knife, stabbed Arnel, hitting his right chest.
Arnel fell to the ground bleeding.
Margie Malazarte ran to him, crying and shouting out accused-appellant’s
name as the attacker of her beloved.
Appellant fled clutching the knife in his hand. People scampered in different
directions. Francisco Cabalquinto, a
barangay tanod, saw the stabbing and ran toward the victim. As he approached Arnel, Francisco was
stabbed in the back twice by Brigido Bustarda, a friend of
accused-appellant. Francisco was about
to be stabbed again by Brigido and a certain Nicolas Saniel when Nardito Dato,
the chief barangay tanod, who was dancing with his wife when he saw the
stabbing, sprayed tear gas on the assailants.
Nardito Dato then chased accused-appellant but was unable to catch
him. He later reported the incident to
the police.[2]
Margie Malazarte and
Arnel’s relatives brought Arnel to the hospital but he was declared dead. Dr. Ruperto Alfelor, Municipal Health
Officer of Baao found:
“ABDOMEN
1. Stabbed [sic] wound at the right hypochondrium 2 cm away from the right lateral plane of epigastrium.
Cause of Death: HEMORRHAGIC
SHOCK secondary to stabbed [sic] wound.”[3]
It was alleged that the
killing of Arnel Dato was motivated by jealousy. Two years earlier, in 1993, the victim and accused-appellant were
rivals for the love of Margie, their high school classmate. Margie accepted Arnel because he was kind
and thoughtful, very much unlike appellant who was easy-go-lucky and “cruel.”[4] This incurred appellant’s ire. On September 24, 1994, the sweethearts
attended a novena at the barangay chapel in del Pilar, Baao when appellant
appeared and punched Arnel. Margie
pulled her boyfriend away and tried to pacify appellant. Fuming mad, appellant warned Arnel that if
he would not part from Margie, he would kill him.[5] The following month, on October 12, 1994, at the
barangay fiesta, Margie and Arnel went to a dance and saw appellant at the
entrance of the dance hall. Appellant
approached Arnel and, suddenly, appellant punched and tried to stab his
rival. Margie screamed at appellant,
telling him not to hurt her beloved.
Appellant fled.[6] Finally, four
months later, on that fateful Valentine ball, appellant killed Arnel.
The victim’s body was
brought down from the mountains of Caranday and his wake was held for fifteen
days in his uncle’s house in San Vicente in the same municipality. The deceased’s father, Nonito, spent P70,000.00
for the wake and funeral of his son.[7] His son’s death was
a big loss to the family. The deceased,
who was eighteen years of age, was very kind and of great help to his father in
their farm. He wanted to finish his
studies and was a high school graduating student at the time of his demise.[8]
As a result of the
victim’s death, the Chief of Police of Baao charged accused-appellant with the
crime of murder. On March 10, 1995, a
warrant for appellant’s arrest was issued by the Judge of the Municipal Trial
Court of Baao, Carmarines Sur.[9] No bail was recommended. The warrant of arrest, however, could not be served since
appellant could not be located in the municipality. There was information that he was in Taguig, Metro Manila. On March 13, 1996, two sets of alias
warrants of arrest were issued-one for Taguig, Metro Manila and the other for
Camarines Sur.[10] On August 9, 1997, accused-appellant was arrested in
Iriga City, Camarines Sur.
For his defense,
accused-appellant presented two (2) witnesses:
Juansus Botor and himself.
According to appellant, in the evening of February 14, 1995, he, Juansus
Botor and three of his friends were at the dance hall in Caranday. At 2:00 in the morning of the following day,
they noticed a commotion. Sensing some
trouble, appellant and his friends decided to leave the hall at once. As they were leaving, Juansus Botor saw a
man clutching an icepick. The man swung
his right hand and, with the icepick, stabbed the person in front of him. Juansus did not recognize the man because
he, appellant and their friends left hurriedly. It was only later that they learned that the victim was Arnel
Dato. Accused-appellant denied having
courted Margie Malazarte but admitted they were high school classmates. He claims he had no personal grudge against
Margie and the Dato family.
In a decision dated
August 21, 1998, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty as
charged. The court sentenced appellant
to death and pay the victim’s heirs civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral
damages of P20,000.00 and actual damages of P60,358.30 and the
costs, viz:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this court
finds the accused FRANCISCO JUDAVAR, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, and hereby sentences him to suffer the maximum penalty of
DEATH. He is likewise directed to
indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
for the victim’s death, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as moral
damages, Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Eight Pesos 30/100 (P60,358.30)
as actual damages, and to pay the costs of the suit. Let the record of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
automatic review.”[11]
On December 2, 1998,
appellant filed before this court a motion for new trial.[12] The Solicitor General filed his Comment[13] to which appellant
replied.[14]
In a Resolution dated
July 6, 1999, we denied the motion for new trial for lack of merit.[15]
In this appeal,
accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
“I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DEATH.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF ARNEL DATO WAS ATTENDED WITH TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PAY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED P50,000.00
AS INDEMNITY, P20,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES, P60,358.30 AS ACTUAL
DAMAGES AND THE COST OF THIS SUIT.”[16]
Accused-appellant claims
that the killing of Arnel Dato was not murder but death in a tumultuous affray. He alleges that before the victim’s death,
several people were creating trouble at the dance hall and, in the course of
the commotion, the victim was stabbed to death by an unidentified person.
Reviewing the evidence,
the killing of Arnel Dato was not made in the course of a tumultuous
affray. Three witnesses, namely,
Roberto Robosa, Nardito Dato and Francisco Cabalquinto testified that they saw
accused-appellant approach Arnel Dato from behind and, with his right hand,
swing a ten-inch knife into Arnel, hitting the latter’s right chest. When this occurred, Roberto Robosa was five
meters away from the victim;[17] Nardito Dato was ten meters away[18] while Francisco
Cabalquinto was more than a meter from Arnel.[19] The dance hall was lit by fluorescent lamps and the
area where appellant stood was lit by light from the electric post.[20] The three witnesses directly saw and positively
identified accused-appellant as the victim’s assailant. Their testimonies are credible, candid,
straightforward and free from any material or significant inconsistency. The fact that Nardito Dato and Francisco
Cabalquinto were uncles of the deceased[21] does not ipso
facto render their testimonies biased.[22] There is no evidence of ill-motive on their part to
testify falsely against appellant.[23] Moreover, their testimonies are corroborated by
Roberto Robosa who is not a relative of the victim.
The evidence is clear
that the victim’s death was not caused in the heat of a tumultuous and
rambunctious melee. It was the stabbing
that caused the commotion.[24] When Arnel fell to the ground, people scampered in
different directions. The situation
grew worse when Francisco Cabalquinto was also stabbed.[25] The commotion subsided only after the chief barangay
tanod, Nardito Dato, and his men were able to pacify the crowd.
Dr. Ruperto Alfelor, the
municipal health officer who conducted the post-mortem examination on the
victim’s body, testified that the direction of the stab wound was upward, from
the lower ribs towards the liver.[26] He theorized that if the victim was struck from
behind, the wound was most probably caused by a right-handed person.[27] Appellant takes issue that he is left-handed and
claims that it was impossible for him to have stabbed the victim because the
fatal blow could have only been delivered by a right-handed person. At a demonstration before the trial court,
appellant, with his left hand, caught a ball pen thrown at him and, with the
same hand, wrote his name three times on a sheet of paper.[28] Appellant claims he was able to establish his
left-handedness and it became the duty of the prosecution to rebut this
presumption. Since the prosecution
failed to do so, the presumption stands.[29]
The fact that appellant
is left-handed does not rule out the possibility that he is also right-handed. If indeed he is left-handed, he should have
presented proof that he could not perform manual work with his right hand or
that he has lost the use of his right hand.
It is common knowledge that some people are ambidextrous, meaning, that
they are capable of using both hands with equal ease.[30] Margie Malazarte knew appellant as a right-handed
person.[31] And even assuming that appellant had suddenly lost
the use of his right hand after the stabbing, he was directly and positively
seen to have struck the victim with a knife, hitting him on the right chest,
thereby causing his death. Regardless
of whether appellant is left-handed or right-handed, what is important is that
he was positively identified as the victim’s assailant by no less than three
credible witnesses.
Appellant’s flight after
the stabbing incident and his unexplained absence from Caranday indicates that
he had a hand in the killing of Arnel Dato.[32] Since Grade I, appellant continuously resided in
Caranday[33] and studied there.[34] Surprisingly, after the stabbing, he could no longer
be found in Caranday and the warrant of arrest could not be served on him in
Baao. He was allegedly spotted in Metro
Manila but was eventually located in Iriga City. He was arrested in August 1997, more than two (2) years after
that fateful Valentine celebration in 1995.
The trial court found
that the death of Arnel Dato was attended by both treachery and evident
premeditation. We agree that there was
treachery. Arnel was standing by his
lonesome, watching the dancers on the floor, when appellant came upon him from
behind, and without any warning, stabbed him.
There was no opportunity for the victim to defend himself or retaliate
against his attacker. The suddenness
and unexpectedness of the attack ensured Arnel’s death without any risk to
accused-appellant. The presence of this
aggravating circumstance qualified the killing of the victim to murder.
As to whether there was
evident premeditation, it is necessary that the evidence shows: (a) the time
when the offender determined or conceived to commit the crime; (b) an overt act
of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and
(c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow
the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[35] The essence of evident premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[36] Evident premeditation must be clearly proven,
established beyond reasonable doubt and must be based on external facts which
are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate planning.[37]
Margie Malazarte’s
testimony that, on at least two occasions before her boyfriend’s death,
appellant punched and threatened to kill him, is not sufficient to establish
evident premeditation. These two
instances do not necessarily indicate that his death was coolly thought of and
reflected upon by appellant and that he deliberately prepared in advance the
means to execute such plan. The
physical and verbal assault on Arnel may have been made in a blind fit of
jealousy by a spurned lover against a rival who won the hand of the fair
maiden. In the absence of clear and
positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation
are insufficient.[38]
The civil indemnity of P50,000.00
for the death of the victim is in keeping with existing jurisprudence.[39] For the award of moral damages, Nonito Dato, Arnel’s
father, testified that his son’s death was a great loss to the family because
Arnel was of great help to him on the farm.
With respect to actual damages, the record shows that only four (4) of
the nine (9) receipts submitted by Nonito Dato are official while the rest are
mere scraps of paper. Of the four
receipts, P17,500 was spent for the funeral services[40] and P22,433.30
for food and drink at the victim’s wake.[41] Actual damages therefore totalled P39,933.30,
not P60,358.30 as awarded by the trial court.
As a final point,
appellant “beseeches” the court to take a second look and reconsider his motion
for new trial filed earlier on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.[42] This newly-discovered evidence consists of
additional testimony by appellant himself and the proposed testimonies of three
new witnesses, namely, Roberto Judavar, Mario Tampoco and Amado Oraye. Their purported testimonies will show that
it was not him but one Nicolas Saniel who stabbed the victim. Appellant did not reveal this fact earlier
because Nicolas was his best friend and he hoped that other witnesses would
step forward and identify Nicolas as the real culprit.[43] Appellant was, however, unable to produce other
witnesses at his trial because he was a detention prisoner.[44]
In their affidavits
attached to the motion for new trial, Mario Tampoco and Amado Oraye explained
that they were unable to come forward because they learned of appellant’s
involvement in Arnel’s death only after his conviction.[45] Roberto Judavar, on the other hand, mistakenly
believed that even without his testimony, appellant would be acquitted. Roberto thought that appellant, who
supposedly saw Nicolas stab Arnel, would tell the truth instead of acting the
martyr for his friend, Nicolas.[46]
A motion for new trial
based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted if the following requisites
are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely
cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such
weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.[47]
The evidence sought to be
admitted by accused-appellant do not qualify as newly-discovered. First, the alleged fact that Nicolas Saniel
killed Arnel Dato was not discovered by appellant after the trial. Appellant supposedly knew the identity of
the real culprit because he claims that he saw the stabbing of the victim by
Saniel. Second, the reason that he was
a detention prisoner is not sufficient for appellant’s failure to locate
possible witnesses for him. There is no
evidence, much less any allegation, that during his detention appellant was
deprived of legal counsel and the assistance of relatives and friends to
prepare his defense. There is also
nothing in the records to show that appellant invoked the power of the court to
summon unwilling witnesses, to no avail.
Third, the proposed testimonies of appellant and his witnesses are
merely cumulative and corroborative, echoing appellant’s defense at the trial
that it was another person, not him, who stabbed Arnel.
Since the crime of murder
is punished by reclusion perpetua to death,[48] and there is no evident premeditation as a generic
aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant is reclusion
perpetua.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial court is affirmed
insofar as accused-appellant Francisco M. Judavar is found guilty of murder for
the death of Arnel Dato. The decision
is modified insofar as the death sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Except for the award of actual damages which
is hereby reduced to P39,933.30, the award of civil indemnity, moral
damages and costs are affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 1.
[2] Exhibit “C” Records,
p. 97.
[3] Exhibit “A,”
Records, p. 6.
[4] TSN of November 19,
1997, pp. 4-5, 11, 21; Decision on trial court, p. 3, Rollo, p. 31.
[5] TSN of November 19,
1997, pp. 5-6.
[6] TSN of November 19,
1997, pp. 7-8.
[7] Exhibits “F,” “F-1”
to “F-8,” Records, pp. 100-108.
[8] TSN of January 7,
1998, pp. 10-11.
[9] Records, p. 17.
[10] Records, pp. 33-35.
[11] Decision, p. 7, Rollo,
p. 35.
[12] Rollo, pp.
25-28.
[13] Rollo, pp.
65-73.
[14] Rollo, pp.
76-79.
[15] Rollo, p. 80.
[16] Accused-Appellant’s
Brief, p. 3, Rollo, p. 106.
[17] TSN of October 16,
1997, pp. 8, 13.
[18] TSN of October 23,
1997, p. 9.
[19] TSN of December 10,
1997, pp. 15, 8.
[20] TSN of October 23,
1997, p. 16.
[21] Nardito Dato and
Nonito Dato, Arnel’s father, are brothers while Francisco Cabalquinto is a
brother of Arnel’s mother-TSN of October 23, 1997, p. 5 and TSN of December
10, 1997, p. 13.
[22] People v.
Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257, 271 [1999]; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 79
[1999].
[23] Id.
[24] TSN of October 16,
1997, pp. 13, 16; TSN of October 23, 1997, p. 16; TSN of December 10, 1997, p.
17.
[25] TSN of October 23,
1997, p. 16. The stabbing of
Cabalquinto became subject of another criminal case for “Direct Assault Upon an
Agent of a Person in Authority” (Records, p. 21). This case was settled amicably (TSN of December 10, 1997, pp.
11-12).
[26] TSN of October 15,
1997, pp. 5-6.
[27] Id., p. 6.
[28] TSN of May 25, 1998,
p. 5.
[29] Reply, pp. 9-10, Rollo,
pp. 168-169.
[30] “Ambidextrous,”
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged [1993].
[31] TSN of November 19,
1997, p. 14.
[32] People v.
Villaruel, 261 SCRA 386, 397 [1996]; People v. Lopez, 246 SCRA 95, 105
[1995].
[33] TSN of December 10,
1997, p. 7.
[34] TSN of March 25,
1998, pp. 9-10.
[35] People v.
Guillermo, supra at 273; People v. Timblor, 285 SCRA 64, 78
[1998]; People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, 490 [1998].
[36] People v.
Bibat, 290 SCRA 27, 40 [1998].
[37] People v.
Pena, 291 SCRA 606, 616 [1998]; People v. Caisip, 290 SCRA 451, 460
[1998].
[38] People v.
Chua, 297 SCRA 229, 242 [1998]; People v. Caisip, supra.
[39] People v.
Timblor, supra at 80.
[40] Exhibit “F-3,”
Records, p. 103.
[41] Exhibits “F,” “F-1,”
“F-2,” Records, pp. 100-102.
[42] Appellant’s Brief,
p. 18, Rollo, p. 121.
[43] Affidavit of
Accused-appellant, Annex “E” to Notice of Appearance with Motion for New Trial,
Rollo, p. 41.
[44] Notice of Appearance
with Motion for New Trial, pp. 3-5, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[45] Affidavits of Mario
Tampoco and Amado Oraye, Annexes “C” and “D” to Notice of Appearance with
Motion for New Trial, Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[46] Affidavit of Roberto
Judavar, Annex “B” to Notice of Appearance with Motion for New Trial, Rollo,
p. 37.
[47] Rule 121, Section 2
(b), 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; also Rule 121, Section 2 (b), Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Tirona, 300 SCRA 431, 440 [1998].
[48] Article 248, Revised
Penal Code.