EN BANC
[G.R. No. 131808.
THE PEOPLE OF THE
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
For automatic review is the decision of the
The information charging appellants reads as follows:
That on or about the 21st day of August, 1996, in Cabanatuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused conspiring, confabulating and confederating with each other with evident premeditation and treachery, without any just cause and with intent to kill Jose Sta. Romana Sarmenta, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot said Jose Sta. Romana Sarmenta with a rifle in the head thereby inflicting upon the latter a fatal wound which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Originally charged with appellants was Rogelio Felipe, who was later discharged to be a state witness.
Upon arraignment on
Six (6) witnesses testified for the prosecution.
State witness Rogelio C. Felipe, 18, testified[2] that he and appellants worked as helpers at
Atty. Jose Sarmenta’s poultry farm located in Macatbong,
On August 19, 2001, or two days prior to the incident in question, Rogelio heard Dodong Cabillan ask Atty. Sarmenta if he could borrow his radio. Atty. Sarmenta refused, and told Dodong that he would give him money instead so Dodong could buy his own radio. Atty. Sarmenta never did, however. When Atty. Sarmenta arrived later in the afternoon, he discovered that, contrary to his explicit instructions, Dodong was using his radio. Atty. Sarmenta berated Dodong. The lawyer’s brother Juvaldo joined in the fray and boxed Dodong. Dodong asked permission to leave Atty. Sarmenta’s employ but the lawyer refused.
At around
In the early morning of
The next day,
Rogelio had just finished cleaning the toilet when he suddenly heard a gunshot. Rogelio saw Atty. Sarmenta fall, his head bleeding. He rushed to their sleeping quarters, turned on the light and saw Dodong holding a .22 caliber gun, equipped with a telescope. Dodong was standing and aiming through the screen separating their sleeping quarters from the room where Atty. Sarmenta previously stood, just three meters away. Dodong had inserted the muzzle of the gun in a hole on the screen. The gun was still pointed towards Atty. Sarmenta.
Melvin pushed Rogelio to their bed and pointed a gun at him. Afraid, Rogelio did not dare run.
The killing of Atty. Sarmenta
accomplished, appellants went to the victim’s room and pulled the body near the
bed. They took the money from his pocket, and his clothes and other personal
belongings from the cabinet. Rogelio would later learn from appellants’ friend
that they had taken P12,000.00 in cash from the deceased.
Melvin warned Rogelio that they would kill him if he did not go with them. Appellants then hid the shotgun they got from the room and left the caliber .22 rifle with the telescope in the poultry house.
Dodong, Melvin and Rogelio then rode in
Atty. Sarmenta’s car, with Dodong
driving. In their haste, the car hit a house post, causing a big dent on the
right passenger side. The car later bogged down and had to be abandoned
somewhere near a bridge in Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. Appellants pushed the car to a fertilizer store
nearby. Rogelio, who had remained inside the car, was then ordered to alight. Dodong called a tricycle driver and gave him P100 to watch
over the car until their return. Dodong hailed a taxi
and asked that they be taken to Pier 14 at the
At the pier, Dodong bought three
tickets and they all took the boat to Cagayan de Oro City, Dodong’s hometown.
Rogelio, Dodong and Melvin stayed at the house of Dodong’s relatives. Two weeks after their arrival, Dodong’s aunt gave Rogelio P 1,500.00 and was ordered to
leave immediately. Sensing that appellants were going to kill him, Rogelio
departed at once. Rogelio bought a
ticket for
After arriving in
Rogelio denied that Dodong promised him a portion of the loot and that he was testifying against appellants for not fulfilling said promise.
Juvaldo Sarmenta,
the victim’s brother, corroborated Rogelio’s testimony that in the afternoon of
Atty. Virgilio Mendez, Supervising
Senior Agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) based in Cagayan de Oro City, was in
charge of the surveillance of this particular criminal investigation and led
the team that effected the arrest of appellants. Sometime in the first week of
October 1996, one of his informants reported that a group of armed men in Initao, Misamis Oriental, were
bragging about having killed a lawyer somewhere in
Atty. Mendez made inquiries regarding the matter. As he awaited
further information, a certain Joel Sarmenta, son of
Jose Sarmenta, went to his office to seek his
assistance in the arrest of the persons responsible for the killing of his
father. Atty. Mendez then instructed his informant to gather intelligence on
the whereabouts of the group. Atty. Mendez was subsequently informed that Dodong had been spotted somewhere in
Dr. Jun Concepcion, Senior Medico-legal
Officer of the Cabanatuan City Health Office,
conducted the autopsy on the victim’s body. His findings are contained in an
Autopsy Report[7] dated
FINDINGS (pertinent only)
Height: 175 cm. in length
Body was rigid state with several insect (ants) bites all through out.
(+) Lacerated wound, linear, inverted V-shape on the mid-parietal area.
(+) Gunshot wound on the right parieto-temporal area, 3-fingerbreath above the right ear as point of entry with trajectory towards the opposite side left superior portion of the left ear, 4-fingerbreath as point of exit, (through-through), brain substance coming-out from the point of exit.
(+) Ecchymosis (L) peri-orbital area.
INTERNALLY
(+) Multiple skull fracture with different directions occupying the entire skull.
(+) Hematoma under the scalp.
CAUSE OF DEATH
Intracranial injuries, severe secondary to extracranial multiple injuries.
Approximate date and time of death:
Negative for any other evidence of external physical injuries.
The doctor concluded that the assailant must have fired the fatal
shot at close range from the victim. The absence of powder burns on the body
indicates that the shot was fired at least 24 inches from the muzzle of the gun
to the bullet’s point of entry. From a sketch he drew, it was indicated that
the bullet entered above the right ear and exited at the left superior portion
of the left ear.[8]
Samuel and Joel Sarmenta, Sons of the
deceased, testified on matters relating to appellants’ civil liability. Samuel
testified that their father was 63 years of age at the time of his death. His
untimely demise caused the family grief and anger.[9]
The victim earned during his lifetime annual income consisting of
P220,000.00 from the practice of law, and a gross of P380,000.00
from his poultry farm. Their father’s wake, which lasted about 7 or 8 days, was
held at the Funeraria Ilagan
in P10,000.00. For that in P16,000.00 covered the expenses. “Incidental expenses” amounted to P40,000.00.
Finally, it was discovered that P30,000.00 in cash and a caliber .22
Magnum worth P20,000.00 were missing from the residence after the
incident transpired.[10]
Appellants testified on their own behalf. Both pointed to Rogelio Felipe as the killer of Atty. Sarmenta.
According to Dodong, 21, he had been working with Melvin and Rogelio at the farm of Atty. Sarmenta for only four (4) days when the latter was shot. He claimed that on that fateful day he was ordered by Rogelio to turn off the light in their room. Atty. Sarmenta was then standing in front of the kitchen sink, washing dishes. Thereafter, he saw Rogelio shoot Atty. Sarmenta with a caliber .22 rifle. Rogelio threatened him and Melvin with the same rifle. He ordered Dodong to go to the kitchen and get the victim’s money. Rogelio then pulled the dead body of Atty. Sarmenta into the latter’s room. He instructed Melvin to enter the room and get their employer’s clothes from the cabinet. Next, he ordered the two to board the car and directed Melvin to drive. When Dodong told his companions he wanted to go home, Rogelio and Melvin said they would come with him. Rogelio said that Cagayan de Oro City was a faraway place and that they will not be arrested there. Rogelio thus purchased tickets for the boat to Cagayan de Oro City with the money taken from the body of Atty. Sarmenta.
Dodong claimed that he wanted to
surrender to the authorities but his uncle reminded him that he could be
killed. One week after their arrival in Cagayan de Oro City, Rogelio left them. Another week later, Dodong and Melvin parted ways. Dodong
proceeded to Misamis Oriental and then to
Melvin Garcia, 24, had been working at the poultry farm for about
two months when Atty. Sarmenta was killed. On the
evening of
Melvin denied that he ever talked about killing Atty. Sarmenta. He said that the latter was a kind employer. He
was not aware of any problems between Dodong and
Atty. Sarmenta prior to the incident. Neither did he
harbor any grudge against the latter. He claimed that he did not report
Rogelio’s participation in the killing because he was afraid of him.[12]
On
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Roberto Cabillan alias “Dodong” and Melvin M. Garcia alias “Rommel Garcia” alias “Robin Garcia” alias “Junior” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, punishable under [Art] 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Further, the accused are further ordered to pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased offended party in the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages; P40,000, representing burial and actual expenses; and P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[13]
The Court affirms the decision of the trial court finding appellants guilty for the killing of Atty. Sarmenta.
Considerable weight must be accorded to the testimony of state
witness Rogelio Felipe, who positively identified Dodong
as the assailant of Atty. Sarmenta. Rogelio
established Dodong’s motives for killing the victim,
who scolded him for the unauthorized use of the radio. He also saw Dodong, aided by Melvin, get the gun from the victim’s
room. He caught Dodong immediately after the shooting
still pointing the gun at where the victim previously stood. The trial court
described Rogelio’s testimony as “unrehearsed, straight-forward, truthful and
unembellished [by] any exaggerations.[14] During the trial, the court remarked that
the witness was “testifying casually but intelligently.[15]
By contrast, the trial court did not give credence to the testimony of appellant Dodong Cabillan:
x x x Dodong failed to hurdle the test of sincerity, having told one thing as the truth and only to retract the same and substitute the same as the real truth. It is difficult to tell, therefore, when he is telling the truth and when he is not. x x x His capacity for prevarications has rendered his testimony unbelievable and untrustworthy. On at least three occasions, Dodong has been proved to his face as telling a lie: once, when he was berated and scolded by the victim in the presence of [the victims] brother Ubaldo Sarmenta when he lied about how he got hold of the radio earlier refused him by the victim; then, when asked by Atty. Mendez, he pointed to Melvin Garcia alias “Junior.” as the perpetrator of the heinous killing; and, then, again, when in open court he declared under oath, that it was the witness Rogelio who was the lone perpetrator of the crime.
It is difficult to believe for the 18-year-old Rogelio to have
masterminded this killing. Here were Dodong and
Melvin, six years the senior of Rogelio, xxx would they allow themselves to be
just ordered around by the budding 18-year-old? Towards this end, the two
accused failed to show convincing proof of Rogelio’s capability to boss them
around. On the contrary, Dodong has been pictured by
prosecution witness Ubaldo Sarmenta
as bossing the two[,] of [sic] Rogelio and Felipe.[16]
The evaluation of testimonial evidence by the trial court is
accorded great respect precisely for its chance to observe first hand the
demeanor of the witness on the stand, a matter which is important in
determining whether what has been said should be taken to the truth or
falsehood.[17] Their findings are generally sustained by
the appellate courts unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or ubstance
which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[18]
Special credence is also accorded to the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers,[19] such as District Agent-in-Charge of the NBI
at Iligan City Atty. Mendez. The sworn statements of
arresting officers in open court, who have no motive or reason to falsely
testify in regard to a serious charge against the accused, are worthy of
credit.[20] Atty. Mendez’s testimony corroborates that
of Rogelio Felipe, thereby, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Like the trial court, this Court rejects appellants’ defense pointing to Rogelio Felipe as the lone perpetrator of the killing of Atty. Sarmenta. The trial court correctly observed that:
They merely presented the lame, uncorroborated and illogical defense of accusing the lone eyewitness as the perpetrator of this crime.
Neither did any of them narrate in detail the act of Rogelio in
supposedly killing the victim. No motive for Rogelio to kill the victim was
advanced by the defense. How easy for the two of them to gang up on Rogelio at
anytime during and after the commission of the crime. In Cagayan
de Oro City, how easy for, say Dodong,
to inform on Rogelio and point him to the police as the author of the killing
of their patron. xxx[21]
The fact that the three fled to Dodong’s
hometown and stayed with his aunt in Cagayan de Oro City buttresses the finding that it was Dodong, not Felipe, who was calling the shots. As pointed
out by the trial court, “if indeed Rogelio was the aggressive one and applying
the pressure upon the two accused, surely, Rogelio[,] who is a complete
stranger to
Conspiracy between Dodong and Melvin
was sufficiently established. The testimony of Rogelio shows that Melvin’s
participation included destroying the lawanit
where the gun was hidden, pulling the lifeless body of Atty. Sarmenta into his room, and hiding the guns. Melvin also
poked a gun at Rogelio and threatened to kill him if he refused to join them.
These acts conclusively show that Melvin shared a community of purpose with Dodong to kill Atty. Sarmenta.
Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the
existence of a common design toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as
principals.[23]
Treachery was also adequately proven as against appellant Dodong Cabillan. There is
treachery when the following conditions concur: (a) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.[24] There is treachery in this case where the
accused obtained the gun from the victim’s room, situated himself in the next
room, waited until the accused turned his back to wash his hands before
suddenly and unexpectedly shooting the victim through a screen window.
Appellant Cabillan deliberately and consciously
adopted the means to ensure his criminal purpose and positioned himself at a
vantage point providing the least risk to himself, before shooting the victim
who had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack. The
suddenness of the attack without the slightest provocation from the victim who
was unarmed and had nary an opportunity to repel the aggression or defend
herself, ineluctably qualifies the crime with alevosia.[25]
The same cannot be said in the case of appellant Melvin Garcia.
The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the
means employed to accomplish it, serves to aggravate the liability only of
those persons who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein.[26] There is no evidence that Melvin knew the
manner by which Dodong was supposed to kill Atty. Sarmenta.
Appellants do not dispute their guilt, the existence of
conspiracy or even the presence of treachery. Indeed, they merely aim to reduce
the penalty of death imposed upon them. In their lone assignment of error, they
contend that “[t]he trial court erred in imposing the maximum penalty of death
where it appears that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is
not present in the commission of the crime charged.”[27] The Court agrees with appellants.
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution
must prove: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an
overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime;
and (3) the lapse of sufficient period between the decision and the execution
of the crime, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[28] It must appear that the accused decided to
commit the crime prior to the moment of execution, and that the decision was
the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.[29] Evident premeditation must be established
with equal certainty and clearness as the criminal act itself, it must be based
on external acts that are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate
deliberate planning.[30]
The Court agrees with appellants that evident premeditation was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the first requisite, i.e., the time when the accused decided to commit the crime, being absent.
Although Rogelio overheard the two planning over a bottle of gin, it is not clear whether Melvin actually agreed to the killing of Atty. Sarmenta. Initially, Rogelio testified:
Q: Insofar (sic) as you know, does Melvin Garcia has (sic) any interest to plan the killing with Dodong?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What made you come into (sic) conclusion?
A: Because I heard them conversing, planning to kill Atty. Sarmenta, sir.
Q: Between the two of them, who initiated the killing of Atty. Sarmenta?
A: Dodong Cabillan, sir.
Q: What is the reaction of Melvin Garcia to that particular proposal?
A: He gave his conformity,
sir.[31]
When further queried on the plot, Rogelio said that the plan involved only the taking of money from, and not the killing of, the victim.
ATTY. DALANGIN
Q: You made mention that the
P2,000,000.00, do you still affirm the statement in your sworn statement
that according to Cabillan, if he gets P2,000,000.00
he will tie one person.
Q: They were planning to
take the amount of P2,000,000.00 from whom?
A: From Atty. Sarmenta, sir.
Q: Are they referring to Atty. Sarmenta to be the person who will be tied?
A: Atty. Sarmenta, sir.
Q: There was nothing in the plan for the killing of the good Atty. Sarmenta?
A: None, sir.
Q: Will you agree if we
say that the real intention of the accused is merely to rob the good Attorney
of the P 2,000.000.00?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did Cabillan
state that he was going to share Melvin Garcia with [sic] the P2,000,000.00?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is the reaction of Melvin Garcia?
A: He said they will be
able to get the P2,000,000.00 they will leave and divide that amount,
sir.[32] [Underscoring ours.]
In addition, Rogelio admitted that he merely inferred the plan to kill Atty. Sarmenta when Dodong obtained the rifle. He clarified that Dodong never said anything about killing the deceased should the latter resist.
Q: According to you, the 2 accused have no intention to kill Atty. Sarmenta, do you know of any reason why they killed Atty. Sarmenta?
A: There is, sir.
Q: What?
A: Because they got the firearm from the room of Atty. Sarmenta, sir.
Q: Under the circumstances
prevailing in that place, can they get the P2,000,000.00 or can they get
the money without killing Atty. Sarmenta?
A: No, sir.
Q: So you want the court to
understand that Atty. Sarmenta was killed because
they want to get the P2,000,000.00 or any other amount?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, you merely relied on that particular conclusion when you saw Cabillan got the rifle, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But Cabillan never said that they will [sic] going to kill Atty. Sarmenta if the good attorney will resist?
A: No. sir.[33] [Underscoring ours.]
Thus, while the prosecution may have established the time when appellants decided to commit a crime - perhaps, robbery - it failed to prove the time when appellants decided to commit the crime of murder of which they are charged.
Accordingly, appellant Dodong Cabillan is liable for Murder, having performed the killing
by means of treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
prescribes for said crime the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death. Under Article 63 of the same Code, where the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and where there are neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied
-in this case, reclusion perpetua.
On the other hand, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is absent in the case of appellant Melvin Garcia. He can, therefore, be held liable only for Homicide, for which Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal. Article 64 of the same Code provides that where the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods and where there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the court shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. Applying said provision, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period or 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months should be imposed upon appellant Garcia. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said penalty shall constitute the maximum term, while the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense, i.e., prision mayor or 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
Turning now to appellants’ civil liability, jurisprudence
provides that appellants are liable to the heirs of the deceased for indemnity
in the amount of P50,000.00,[34] as well as P50,000.00 in moral
damages.[35] The award of P40,000.00 in actual
expenses should be reduced. Records reveal that the prosecution was able to
produce only two receipts to establish their claim: the Statement of Account[36] representing payments made to the Provident
Memorial Plan the gross price of which is P16,200.00, and a receipt[37] from the Funeraria
Ilagan in P10,000.00,
or a total of P26,200.00 only. Neither was the actual value of the loss
of earning capacity sufficiently established. The victim’s son merely provided
estimations of the deceased’s annual income and no other evidence was offered
to corroborate the same. Finally, the award of exemplary damages must be
deleted, as there are no aggravating circumstances that attended the commission
of the crime.[38]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Appellant Roberto Cabillan alias “Dodong” is found guilty of Murder, as defined and punished by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Melvin M. Garcia alias Rommel Garcia alias Robin Gamboa alias “Jr.,” is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide, as defined and punished by Article 249 of the same Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum.
Appellants severally are ordered to pay the heirs of Atty. Jose
Sta. Romana Sarmenta
indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, actual damages in the amount of P26,200.00,
and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De
Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p.1.
[2] TSN, February 19,
1997, pp. 2-10; TSN, February, 20, 1997, pp. 1-19; TSN, February 26, 1997, pp.
3-6; TSN, March 5, 1997, pp. 2-6; TSN, March 18, 1997, pp. 3-9.
[3] Exhibit “E.”
[4] Exhibit “F.”
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] Exhibits “A” and
“B.”
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] Rollo,
p.41.
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16] Rollo,
p. 37.
[17] People vs. Lopez, 302 SCRA 669
(1999).
[18] People vs. Banela,
301 SCRA 84 (1999).
[19] People vs. Atad,
266 SCRA 262 (1997).
[20] People vs. Doro, 282 SCRA
1(1997).
[21] Rollo,
p. 38.
[22]
[23] People vs. Antonio, 303 SCRA 414
(1999).
[24] People vs. Valles,
267 SCRA 103 (1997).
[25] 270 SCRA 713 (1997).
[26] REVISED PENAL CODE,
ART. 62.4.
[27] Rollo,
p. 81.
[28] People vs. Toradio
Silvano, G.R. 125923,
[29] People vs. Eribal,
305 SCRA 341 (1999).
[30] People vs. Sison,
312 SCRA 792 (1999).
[31] TSN,
[32]
[33] Id, at 4.
[34] People vs. Carino,
G.R. No. 129960,
[35] Ibid.
[36] Exhibit “N.”
[37] Exhibit “O.”
[38] CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE
2230.