FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 137671.
April 18, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISTOBAL GALLARDE, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
The new year of 1996
never dawned on Melchor Decosto, Jr. as his life was snuffed by alone bullet a
few minutes before midnight of December 31, 1995.
On January 22, 1996, an
Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Barili, Cebu, Branch
60, charging Cristobal Gallarde, alias “Tobal”, with the crime of Murder,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 31st day of December 1995, at 11:50 o’clock in the evening, more or less, at Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Moalboal, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, armed with a firearm of unknown caliber, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any provocation, ATTACK, ASSAULT AND SHOOT one MELCHOR DECOSTO, JR., hitting the latter on the head, thereby causing his death shortly thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
On July 23, 1996,
Gallarde pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[2] Trial ensued thereafter.
On December 31, 1995, at
around 11:50 p.m., Edilfredo Decosto, his cousin Melchor Decosto, Jr., and
several others were wandering around the wharf in Moalboal, Cebu, waiting for
the New Year’s Eve mass.[3] Cristobal Gallarde
suddenly appeared and shot Melchor at close range at the back of the neck.[4] Melchor instantly
fell to the ground and died. Gallarde quickly ran away without saying a word.
Edilfredo asked one of their companions to inform Melchor’s parents and the
police of the shooting incident.
Dr. Necitas Navarro,
Municipal Health Officer of Moalboal, Cebu, who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased,[5] found the cause of death as cardiorespiratory arrest
and hemorrhage due to the bullet wound on the head.[6]
In his defense,
accused-appellant Cristobal Gallarde averred that around 11:50 p.m. on the eve
of December 3 1995, he met Melchor Decosto, Jr: and his companions who were
having a drinking spree. The group invited accused-appellant to drink. He
initially refused, but finally acceded. Melchor jokingly pointed a gun at
accused-appellant and asked him why he had earlier refused to drink with the
group.[7] Accused-appellant wrestled the pistol from Melchor.
At that point, the other companions of Melchor kicked accused-appellant on the
back. A struggle to gain possession of the gun ensued, in the course of which
the gun went off and hit Melchor.[8] Accused-appellant claims that the shooting was
accidental and that it was Melchor who pulled the trigger.[9] After that, accused-appellant got the gun and ran
away. He threw the gun into the sea.[10]
Armando Caramonte
corroborated accused-appellant’s version of the events. He testified that on
the date and time in question, he was waiting for his girlfriend in front of
the Municipal Building of Moalboal. He saw several people on the wharf and
overheard an altercation concerning an invitation to drink liquor.[11] Thereafter, the two persons involved in the
altercation began wrestling with each other. Soon, he heard a gunshot and saw
several people scamper away.[12]
The defense also
presented Genovevo Gallarde, father of accused-appellant. Genovevo testified
that at around 11:50 p.m. of December 31, 1995, his son came home and told him
that he met an accident with Melchor Decosto, Jr.[13] Upon hearing his son’s story, Genovevo decided to
talk to the deceased’s parents in an attempt to have an amicable settlement of
the controversy, inasmuch as the shooting was an accident. He alleged that
Melchor’s parents agreed to settle the case for twenty thousand pesos.[14] However, Genovevo Gallarde was only able to raise
fifteen thousand pesos and tendered the same as partial payment, but the
Decosto family refused to accept it.[15] Thus, the case was filed against accused-appellant.
On July 9, 1998, the
trial court rendered the appealed decision,[16] the decretal
portion of which reads:
Judgment is therefore rendered finding accused Cristobal Gallarde GUILTY of the crime of MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[17]
In this appeal,
accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
I.
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER NOT WITHSTANDING THAT THE PROSECUTUION FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THE INCULPATORY FACTS CAN BE EXPLAINED IN SUCH A MANNER WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT ACCORDING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO TUE CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM WAS PURELY ACCIDENTAL ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS CORROBORATED.
III.
THE COURT A QUO LIKEWISE ERRED IN. FINDING THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EDILFREDO DECOSTO CREDIBLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS PREGNANT WITH FLAWS AND IS BIASED.
IV.
FINALLY, THE COURT A QUO ALSO ERRED IN
FINDING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE KILLING ALTHOUGH NO CREDIBLE AND COMPETENT
EVIDENCE ON RECORD ESTABLISHES THIS.[18]
We are not persuaded.
In convicting
accused-appellant, the trial court lent credence to the prosecution’s evidence
over that of the defense. Once more, we reiterate that we will generally not
interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility
of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence which have been overlooked and if considered would affect the
outcome of the case.[19] After all, trial courts are in a better position to
gauge the reliability and trustworthiness of witnesses on the stand by numerous
manifestations no longer capable of being revealed by mute case records
elevated to an appellate court.
Accused-appellant’s
theory that the gun accidentally fired during the struggle does not inspire
belief. In this connection, we share the observation of the Solicitor General,
thus:
Based on the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Navarro, Rural Health Officer of Moalboal, Cebu, it was ascertained that Melchor suffered a gunshot wound with entry point at the left occipital region of the head. When he testified in court, Dr. Navarro demonstrated that the “left occipital region” pertains to the left dorsal portion of the skull.
The above finding contradicts the claim of appellant that the gun went off while he was grappling possession thereof with Melchor.
Proceeding from appellant’s version of the incident, appellant and
Melchor must have been facing each other while struggling for control of the
gun. In the ordinary course of things, the frontal portions of their bodies
must have been the ones exposed to the barrel of the gun during the struggle.
It is, therefore, inconceivable how the muzzle of the gun found its direction
at the left dorsal part of the head of Melchor.[20]
Moreover, the records
show that accused-appellant’s narration itself is replete with material
inconsistencies which render his testimony unreliable. Initially, he averred
that it was the victim’s younger brother, Toto, who pointed a gun at him, thus:
Q: When you were strolling at the bridge on December 31, 1995 at 11:50 o’clock p.m. and seeing the presence of the victim and his barkadas, could you recall what were these people doing during that time?
A: They had a drinking session.
Q: When you saw them having a drinking session, what happened?
A: I was invited to
drink for four times and for the fifth time I was called again and Toto leveled
his gun at me.
Q: By Toto, whom are you referring to?
A: I am referring to his
younger brother.
Q: Younger
brother of whom?
A: Of Melchor Decosto,
Jr. (Emphasis ours)[21]
Yet, later during the
same direct examination, accused-appellant seems to have changed his mind and
asserted that Toto was in fact Melchor Decosto, Jr., not his brother:
Q: Who is bigger, yourself or the victim?
A: Toto is bigger than me.
Q: Are you referring to Toto who was in possession of the gun?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you referring to Toto as the one who was hit by the bullet of the gun?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you referring to
Toto as Melchor Decosto, Jr.?
A: Yes, sir.
(Emphasis ours)[22]
The prosecution, on the
other hand, presented categorical evidence that accused-appellant approached
Melchor from behind and shot him pointblank at the back of the neck. The
witness who testified, Edilfredo Decosto, could not have been mistaken for he
knew accused-appellant since they were children.[23] Moreover, Edifredo
was standing only a meter or less away from accused-appellant when he shot
Melchor.[24] The postmortem
examination results support Edilfredo’ s testimony.
Accused-appellant also
faults the trial court for not finding that the victim’s death was accidental.
The issue of the veracity
of accused-appellant’s claim that the shooting was accidental boils down to a
question of credibility of the witnesses. As we have stated, we find no reason
to differ with the trial court’s factual findings. More specifically, it is not
true that accused-appellant’s version of the incident was corroborated by
Armando Caramonte. A careful reading of Caramonte’s testimony, however, reveals
that he did not see the person who actually pulled the trigger nor witnessed
how the trigger was accidentally pulled. In fact, Caramonte testified that he
was not even sure who originally held the gun.[25]
In the third assignment
of error, accused-appellant claims that the testimony of Edilfredo Decosto was
flawed and biased. Accused-appellant refers to Edilfredo’s admission that he
was talking to a companion named Jun-Jun when he saw the former point a gun at
the victim. Thus, accused-appellant postulates that Edilfredo could not have
witnessed what transpired prior to the shooting as he was then distracted and
engaged in a conversation which renders his testimony unworthy of belief.
We disagree. Edilfredo
Decosto. clearly narrated that he was standing behind Melchor when suddenly
accused-appellant approached the latter from behind,[26] brushed aside
Edilfredo’s hand,[27] and shot Melchor
on the head.
Accused-appellant also
ascribes bias on Edilfredo because he and the victim’s were first cousins.[28] As it has been
consistently held, mere relationship of a witness to a party, without more,
cannot impair the witness’ credibility.[29] On the contrary, a
witness’ relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her
testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is
interested in vindicating the crime to accuse thereof somebody other than the
real culprit.[30] It is settled that
in the absence of a showing of improper motive on the part of the witnesses,
their testimonies are not affected by their relationship with the victim and
must be accorded full faith and credit.[31] Hence, accused-appellant’s imputation of bias
against prosecution witness Edilfredo Decosto must fail.
Finally,
accused-appellant contends that there was no treachery involved in the killing
because the victim turned his head and saw him coming prior to the shooting.
The argument is specious.
Contrary to the
contention of accused-appellant, the records show that the victim never turned
his head to look at him before the shooting took place. Rather, Edilfredo
testified that the victim was about to turn and take a seat shortly
before he was shot to death, thus:
Q: And while you were talking, standing, facing to the sea, waiting for the mass, what happened next?
A: Suddenly, Cristobal appeared and shot Decosto, Jr.
Q: How many times did Gallarde shoot the victim, Decosto, Jr.?
A: Once.
Q: What was the position
of Melchor when shot by Gallarde?
A: He was about to turn sir, because
he was about to sit down.
(Emphasis ours)[32]
It is clear from the
aforementioned excerpt of Edilfredo’s testimony that the victim did not see
accused-appellant approach him from behind as he was just about to turn and
sit down at the instant that he was shot.
The manner of attack
indicates that accused-appellant employed treachery in killing Melchor. For
treachery to be appreciated, it must be proved that at the time of the attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself and the offender consciously
adopted the particular means, methods or form of attack employed by him.[33] The elements of treachery are therefore: (1) that
the malefactor employed means of execution that affords the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the said means of execution
was deliberately and consciously adopted.[34]
The evidence --- both
testimonial and physical --- unequivocally shows that accused-appellant
suddenly came from behind and shot the deceased pointblank at the back of the
neck. The victim, at the time of the attack, was evidently oblivious to the
impending danger as he had no reason whatsoever to expect any untoward
incident. The victim was, after all, merely waiting for New Year’s Eve mass and
enjoying the sea breeze on the wharf with his cousins. The assailant, in view
of the position he took and the suddenness of his attack, afforded the victim
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The use of a deadly weapon -
that of gun, and the location of the bullet wound - at the back of the neck,
showed deliberate intent to kill the victim. Hence, the circumstance of
treachery was evident, qualifying the crime to Murder:
As regards the civil
aspect of the case at bar, accused-appellant should be made to pay, in line
with current jurisprudence, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[35] in addition to the
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 already awarded by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Barili, Cebu City, Branch 60, finding
accused-appellant Cristobal Gallarde beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua is
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay moral damages
in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, (Special Member), JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez,
JJ., on
official leave.
[1] Records, p. 1.
[2] Ibid., p.2.
[3] TSN, October 31,
1996, pp. 2-3.
[4] Ibid., pp. 4
and 6.
[5] TSN, October 15.
1998, p. 2.
[6] Records, Exhibit
B-2, p. 92.
[7] TSN, March 17, 1998,
p. 4 and 10.
[8] Ibid., pp.
5-6.
[9] Ibid., pp. 5
and 12.
[10] Ibid., p. 12.
[11] TSN, April 14, 1998,
p.3.
[12] Ibid., p. 4.
[13] TSN, May 21, 1998,
p. 2.
[14] Ibid., p. 3.
[15] Ibid., p.4.
[16] Rollo, pp.
55-61.
[17] Ibid., p. 25:
penned by Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte.
[18] Accused-appellant’s
Brief, pp. 49-50.
[19] People v.
Tahop, 315 SCRA 465, 473 (1999).
[20] Rollo, Brief
for the Appellee, p. 84.
[21] TSN, March 17, 1998,
p. 4.
[22] Ibid., p. 6.
[23] TSN, October 31,
1996, p. 5.
[24] Ibid., p. 4.
[25] TSN, April 14, 1998,
p. 4.
[26] TSN, April 2, 1997,
pp. 6-7.
[27] Records, Sworn
Statement of Edilfredo Decosto, p. 12.
[28] TSN, October 31,
1996, p. 2.
[29] People v.
Antonio, 303 SCRA 414, 424 (1999).
[30] People v.
Villanueva, 302 SCRA 380, 398 (1999).
[31] People v.
Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257, 271 (1999).
[32] TSN, October 31,
1996, p. 4.
[33] People v.
Raquiño, 315 SCRA 670, 683 (1999).
[34] People v.
Barellano, 319 SCRA 567, 588 (1999).
[35] People v.
Dizon, G.R. No. 129236, October 17, 2001.