EN BANC
[G.R. No. 142905.
March 18, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIL GUTIERREZ @ “AMIL” and ROBERTO ESPAÑA @ “BETH”, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Accused-appellants Ramil
Gutierrez @ Amil and Roberto España @ Beth were charged with
Murder for the brutal killing of Lopito Fernandez in an Information which
alleges:
That on the 28th day of February 1994, at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening, at Sitio Dipacpac, Barangay Reserva, Municipality of Baler, Province of Aurora, Philippines, said accused conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one LOPITO FERNANDEZ by then and there suddenly hitting him with fist blow on his face, and stabbing him several times with bladed weapons and also hitting him with pieces of stones and with bottles of coke at the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
The case was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 1870 at the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 96.
At the arraignment, both accused-appellants pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.[2] The case
thereafter proceeded to trial.
After trial, the court a
quo rendered judgment convicting both accused of the felony thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Roberto España GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH.
LIKEWISE, this Court finds accused Ramil Gutierrez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Each of the accused shall indemnify the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The case is now before us
on automatic review, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659. In their Appellant’s Brief,
accused-appellants argue:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE SAID ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY.[4]
It appears from the
record that in the evening of February 28, 1994, Ramil Gutierrez, Roberto España,
Roberto Santiago and Dominador Ramos attended a party at the house of Dante
Bautista and Aning Morada at Sitio Gabgab, Barangay Buhangin, Baler, Aurora.
While they were drinking gin, España brought out a knife and laid it on the
table. Gutierrez picked up the knife. España got it back, impaled it on the
wall and said, “Whoever crosses me will be killed!”[5]
After the party, España
drove Gutierrez home on board his Kubota hand tractor. Santiago and
Lerry Matunan rode with them. On the way to Gutierrez’s house at Barangay
Reserva, Baler, Aurora, the hand tractor ran out of fuel. Santiago left to buy
fuel a kilometer away.[6] While the others
waited, the tricycle driven by Lopito Fernandez suddenly rammed into the hand
tractor. The headlight of the tricycle was off and the road was only
illuminated by moonlight.[7]
España suddenly alighted
from the hand tractor and beat up Fernandez.[8] He then repeatedly
stabbed Fernandez while the latter pleaded, “Ka Beth, huwag magkabarangay
tayo,"[9] As Fernandez lay
prostrate on the ground, Gutierrez hit him twice on the head with an empty
bottle.[10] Thereafter, they
left the victim and went home.[11]
Fernandez sustained
numerous stab wounds, a fractured skull and gunshot wounds.[12] The probable cause
of his death was brain damage secondary to mauling of the forehead and
hypovolemic shock due to multiple stab wounds in the chest.[13]
In his defense,
accused-appellant España testified that he was waiting in the hand tractor when
the tricycle rammed into it, as a result of which he suffered a wound on his
forehead. He immediately alighted from the tractor and punched the tricycle
driver. The tricycle driver, Fernandez, recognized him and said, “Ikaw
langyan Ka Beth?” (It’s just you, Ka Beth?). Accused-appellant asked him, “Bakit
mo kami binangga?” (Why did you bump us?). Fernandez replied, “Pasensiya
ka na Ka Beth dahil walang ilaw ... saka na lang...” (I’m sorry Ka Beth
because I didn’t have lights . . .next time..). Feeling dizzy from his head
injury, accused-appellant España walked back to the tractor and told Fernandez
that they would talk things over the next morning.[14]
As accused-appellant
España was leaning on the handle of the hand tractor, he heard Fernandez trying
start the engine of his tricycle. Then he heard a moan. When he turned around
he saw Fernandez being stabbed. At that juncture, Santiago returned and filled
the tractor with fuel. España started the engine of the tractor and told his
companions to board.[15]
España overheard
accused-appellant Gutierrez asking Santiago where are the bottles containing
the gasoline. Santiago replied that he put them in the trolley of the hand
tractor. Later, España heard gnashing of teeth and glass striking something.
Thereafter, Gutierrez asked Santiago to help him carry somebody. España started
to drive. His companions then boarded the tractor. When they reached
Gutierrez’s place, the latter alighted and told España, “Ako na ang bahala
doon” (I’ll take care of what happened).[16]
On the other hand,
accused-appellant Gutierrez alleged that it was España who stabbed Fernandez
and he only talked Gutierrez into admitting to the crime because he had a
family to feed. Gutierrez testified that he was seated on the left side of the
trailer when the tricycle collided with it. España alighted from the tractor and
punched the tricycle driver. The tricycle driver exclaimed, “Ka Beth, huwag,
magkabarangay tayo” (Ka Beth, don’t, we come from the same barangay).
España stabbed the tricycle driver repeatedly and, after leaving the victim
prostrate on the ground, returned to his seat and impatiently muttered, “Ang
tagal nung bumili ng gasolina!"[17]
Two minutes later,
Santiago and Matunan returned with the gasoline. They saw the body of the
victim sprawled near the tractor and asked, “What is this Kuya Beth?” España
replied, “Never mind,” and told them to pour the gasoline in the tank. España
then handed one of the empty bottles of Coke which contained the gasoline to
Santiago and gave the other to Gutierrez. España then ordered Santiago and
Gutierrez to hit the victim with the bottles. After the two complied, they left
the body on the road and España drove Gutierrez home.[18]
Gutierrez’s mother asked
España what caused the wound on his forehead, but the latter replied that it
was nothing. España told Gutierrez to leave so he will not get involved.
Gutierrez went to Isabela then to Labi, Nueva Ecija where he stayed at his
aunt’s house.[19]
While in Labi, Nueva
Ecija, Gutierrez learned that he was being charged for Fernandez’s murder. He
wrote his father, who then fetched him and surrendered him to one Major
Barrozo. Gutierrez was thereafter detained at the municipal jail of Baler,
Aurora together with España.[20]
Accused-appellants ask
that that they be acquitted or, in the alternative, that they be convicted of
the lesser offense of Homicide. They claim that the deadly assault on the
victim was done at the spur of the moment and that their ire was sparked by the
reckless ramming of the tricycle into the hand tractor. They further argue that
there was no showing of treachery.
We disagree.
Accsued-appellants’
respective versions on how the other supposedly perpetrated the crime hardly
inspire belief. Lopito Fernandez is now dead and, concededly, the prosecution
has not clearly established who delivered’ the fatal wounds on the victim. But Fernandez’s
lifeless body shows how he was attacked by his assailants. The wounds
eloquently speak for themselves. The testimony of Baler Municipal Health
Officer, Dr. Nenita S. Hernandez, who conducted the post-mortem examination on
the cadaver of the victim, as well as the Death Certificate, disclose that the
fatal wounds were inflicted on the same occasion, by more than one instrument
and more than one person.[21] Indeed, numerous wounds on the body of the victim
indicate plurality of assailants.[22] Furthermore, recovered from the scene of the crime
were a colonial knife, shards of softdrink bottles, pieces of
bloodstained stones and empty shells of a .38 caliber revolver.[23] These negate the claims of both accused-appellants
that one or the other is the sole author the crime. In fact, they show that the
malefactors who assaulted the victim acted in concert.
Given the foregoing
circumstances which show that the assailants acted in unison or apparently
conspired with each other to kill the victim, it becomes immaterial who
inflicted the fatal wounds. In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all
the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that
all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination
as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death
of the victim. The act of each conspirator in furtherance of the common purpose
in contemplation of law is the act of all.[24]
There is no question that
the assailants’ conscious intention was to kill, not merely to maim or injure,
judging from the cold-blooded manner and ferocity of the attack as mutely but
eloquently underscored by the number and location of the wounds sustained by
the victim. Based on the Medico Legal Officer’s testimony and as reflected in
the Post Mortem Examination Report,[25] Lopito Fernandez sustained two lacerated wounds on
the forehead. Because of the excessive force used by the attacker, Fernandez’s
skull was fractured causing portions of his brain to protrude, while the other
wound lacerated his left upper eyelid and left a hematoma.
Aside from the foregoing,
the victim sustained fifteen stab wounds. Five of these were inflicted on the
victim’s head. One tore his right lateral eyelid. Three wounds were found on
his chin, one of which was thrust with such force that it displaced the
victim’s gums, two lower canines and upper incisors. The fifth wound was caused
by a knife thrust in the middle of his lower neck. The remaining stab wounds
were found on the victim’s chest, several of which were directed upward. Two of
these are deep parallel wounds, located in the middle of the victim’s chest,
“vertically oriented” and fatal.[26] In addition, the
victim sustained two superficial gunshot wounds on the right scapular area and
right middle chest. The probable cause of death of the victim was “brain damage
secondary to the mauling of the forehead and hypovolemic shock due to multiple
stab wounds on the chest.”[27]
It strains credulity to
attribute all the above-mentioned injuries to only one malefactor. Moreover, a
supposedly scared and unwilling accomplice is not likely to bash the head of a
victim with such force as to crack the latter’s skull and cause portions of the
brain to protrude therefrom. Curiously too, both accounts of accused-appellants
are absolutely silent on how the victim sustained two gunshot wounds.
Neither has there been any showing of whether the gun tucked in the waistband
of the victim was his, or whether it was ever fired and the spent shells
recovered from the locus criminis came from the firearm.
It is also improbable for
Gutierrez to react the way España described it considering that the latter was
supposedly the wronged party. It is even more incredulous for España to merely
throw one punch at the author of his injury, calmly go back to where he was
seated and to look impassively on as the allegedly infuriated Gutierrez
attacked the victim.
Lerry Matunan, who
testified for the defense, pointed to accused-appellant Gutierrez as the
killer. However, the trial court did not believe him not only because of the
inconsistency of his testimony to the physical evidence but also because of his
silence on the shooting of the victim. The court a quo further pointed
out that Matunan was a biased witness and may have hesitated to divulge the
full particulars of accused-appellant España’s participation in the commission
of the crime, being a nephew of the latter. The trial court also noted that
Matunan could not have witnessed all the details of the killing because he
claimed he ran away immediately after the victim was punched by España and
stabbed by Gutierrez.
Verily, evidence to be
worthy of credit must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but
must also be credible in itself such that common experience and observation of
mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances.[28] Courts are not
required to believe that which they judicially know to be unnatural, unusual
and improbable when tested by rules which govern men of ordinary capacity and
intelligence in a given matter.[29] Indeed, no better test has been found to measure the
value of a witness’s testimony than its conformity to the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.[30]
There is, therefore, no
doubt that both accused-appellants are equally guilty of killing Lopito
Fernandez.
We now come to the nature
of the crime committed. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of any person
when qualified by any of the circumstances listed under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code.[31] Among these qualifying circumstances is alevosia.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
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.[32] The qualifying
circumstance of treachery attended the killing in this case as the two
conditions for the same are present, i.e. that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and that the
offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.[33] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected
attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of
the victim.[34]
In the case at bar, while
seemingly the slaying of Lopito Fernandez was the consequence of a chance
encounter, the manner in which it was perpetrated was treacherous. The fatal
attack on him was so swift and unexpected, and without the slightest
provocation on his part, which are the very earmarks of treachery.[35] That there was no
provocation from the victim is underscored by the fact that Fernandez even
tried to placate accused-appellant España for driving an unlighted tricycle.[36] Neither did he
have any inkling that he would be killed for what is apparently a minor traffic
accident. An unexpected attack under circumstances which render the victim
unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and
severity of the attack, thus insuring the execution of the crime without risk
to the accused-appellants, constitutes alevosia.[37]
The fact that the victim
may have been forewarned of his peril when he was punched by accused-appellant
España will not diminish the suddenness of the attack. Treachery may still be
appreciated even though the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person.[38] In other words, even when the victim is warned of
the danger, if the execution of the attack made it impossible for him to defend
himself or to retaliate, alevosia can still be appreciated.[39] Indeed, we said in
People v. Riglos,[40] that treachery is
to be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger or initially
assaulted frontally, but was attacked again after being rendered helpless and
had no means to defend himself or to retaliate. Furthermore, the number,
location and the circumstances in which the injuries were sustained by the
victim also point to the treacherous attack made by the accused-appellants upon
the deceased.[41]
All told, the Court finds
no reason to reverse the ruling of the court a quo insofar as the nature
of the crime is concerned. What remains to be determined is the propriety of
the penalty imposed on accused-appellants.
The penalty for Murder is
reclusion perpetua to death.[42] There were no
aggravating circumstances; hence the proper imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua,[43] not death as
imposed by the court a quo.
In the case of
accused-appellant Ramil Gutierrez, the trial court appreciated the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority as well as voluntary surrender, as
stipulated during the pre-trial of the case. Gutierrez, at the time of the
commission of the crime, was seventeen years, seven months and three days old;
thus, minority was correctly appreciated in his favor.
It was, however,
erroneous for the trial court to additionally consider the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. For voluntary surrender to mitigate
criminal liability, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender has
not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[44] For the
circumstances of voluntary surrender, it is sufficient that it be spontaneous
and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender
unconditionally, either because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expense which will necessarily he incurred in
searching for and capturing him.[45]
In the case at bar,
Gutierrez fled to Santiago City, Isabela, then to Labi, Nueva Ecija, after the
commission of the crime. It was only later that he decided to turn himself in.
Needless to state, his surrender could hardly be deemed spontaneous.
Hence, the penalty to be
imposed on Gutierrez is the one next lower than that prescribed by law, reclusion
temporal.[46] There being no
further mitigating circumstance, and no aggravating circumstance, the same
shall be imposed in its medium period.[47] He thus becomes
eligible for the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and may enjoy a
minimum term of his penalty to be taken within the range of the penalty next
lower, which is prision mayor. While the trial court was correct as
regards the minimum of the penalty imposed on Gutierrez, it erred in fixing the
maximum thereof at only fourteen years and eight months. Said duration is
within the range of reclusion temporal minimum.
We find the trial court’s
award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim proper.[48] Moral damages in
the amount of P50,000.00 should have been also awarded by the trial court
taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim’s family brought
about by his death.[49]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 96 in Criminal Case No. 1870,
finding accused-appellants Ramil Gutierrez and Roberto España guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant
Ramil Gutierrez is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Accused-appellant Roberto España is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Both accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of Lopito
Fernandez civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
and moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Record, p. 1.
[2] Ibid., pp.
37, 48.
[3] Id., p. 686;
penned by Judge Rebecca R. Mariano.
[4] Rollo, p. 72.
[5] TSN, 7 November
1994, pp. 6-10; 22 September 1999. p. 14.
[6] TSN, 7 November
1994, p. 11.
[7] TSN, 14 December
1994, p. 26-27.
[8] Ibid.
[9] TSN, 24 September
1998, pp. 11-12.
[10] TSN, 14 December
1994, p. 13; 7 November 1994, p. 13; 24 September 1998, p. 14; 16 December
1998, p. 3.
[11] TSN, 7 November 1994,
p. 13.
[12] TSN, 14 December
1994, pp. 9-19, 21.
[13] Ibid., p.17.
[14] TSN, October 16,
1996, p. 7.
[15] Ibid., pp.
7-8.
[16] Id, pp. 8-9.
[17] TSN, 24 September
1998, pp. 11-12.
[18] Ibid., pp.
13-15.
[19] Id., pp.
15-17.
[20] Id, pp.
17-18.
[21] Exhibit C; TSN, 14
December 1994, pp. 14, 17, 21.
[22] People v.
Navales, 266 SCRA 569 [1997]; People v. Caritativo, 256 SCRA 1 [1996];
People v. Laredo, 185 SCRA 383 [1990].
[23] Exhibits E, F &
G; TSN, 15 December 1994, pp. 19-27.
[24] People v.
Givera, 349 SCRA 513, 532 [2001].
[25] Exhibit B; Record,
Vol. I, pp. 8-9.
[26] TSN, 14 December
1994, pp. 14, 20; Exhibit B; Record, Vol. 1, p.8.
[27] TSN, 14 December
1994, p. 17.
[28] People v.
Manambit, 271 SCRA 344 [1997]; People v. Arcilla, 256 SCRA 757 [1996];
People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82, 106 [1996].
[29] People v.
Hernani, 346 SCRA 73, 84 [2000].
[30] Chua v.
People, 349 SCRA 662, 672 [2001].
[31] Reyes, Revised Penal
Code, Book 2, 14th Revised Ed. (1998), p.472.
[32] Revised Penal Code,
Article 14, par. 16.
[33] People v.
Galam, 325 SCRA 489 [2000].
[34] People v.
Garcia, G.R. No. 129216, 20 April 2001.
[35] People v.
Abendan, 341 SCRA 404 420 [2000].
[36] TSN, 16 October
1996, pp. 6-7; 24 September 1994, pp. 11-12.
[37] People v.
Adame, 346 SCRA 373, 380 [2000].
[38] People v.
Timblor, 285 SCRA 64, 77 [1998]; People v. Vilionez, 298 SCRA 566, 583
[1998]; People v. Dela Tongga, 336 SCRA 687, 698 [2000].
[39] People v.
Arizala, 317 SCRA 244, 258 [1999].
[40] 339 SCRA 562, 577
[2000].
[41] See People v.
Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130 [1997].
[42] Revised Penal Code,
Article 248.
[43] Revised Penal Code,
Article 63 (2); People v. Palec, 345 SCRA 654, 672 [2000].
[44] People v.
Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464 [1998].
[45] People v.
Alo, 348 SCRA 702, 712 [2000].
[46] Revised Penal Code,
Article 68 (2).
[47] Revised Penal Code,
Article 64(1).
[48] People v.
Amion, G.R. No. 140511, 1 March 2001; People v. Go-od, 331 SCRA 612
[2000]; People v. Flores, 328 SCRA 461 [2000].
[49] People v.
Pardua, et al., G.R. No. 110813,28 June 2001; People v. Alba, et
al. , G.R. Nos. 130627 & 139477-78,31 May 2001.