THIRD DIVISION
|
JULITO
OPERIANO, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No. 156521 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated: |
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING,
J.:
For review on certiorari is the Decision[1]
dated July 5, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21547, which affirmed
the decision[2]
of Regional Trial Court of Bohol convicting petitioner Julito Operiano of homicide. Also assailed is the appellate court’s Resolution[3]
dated
Petitioner
Julito Operiano and his
father, Justino Operiano, were
charged with homicide under an Information which reads:
That, on or about the 8th day of December, 1995, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another with force and violence and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the intent to kill, attack, assault and box one Alberto Penales, thereby inflicting upon him SEVERE HEAD INJURIES, which injuries directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs, in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case.
Acts
committed contrary to the provisions of Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.[4]
On arraignment, both father and son pleaded not guilty.
Both the trial court and the
appellate court agree on the following factual findings:
At
Another
eyewitness, Alberto’s brother, Fortunato Penales, Jr.,
corroborated Felix’s testimony.[8] Fortunato, Jr. testified that he saw petitioner
and his father immediately left on board their Ford Fierra.[9] The witness Fortunato,
Jr. said he brought Alberto to the provincial hospital.[10]
Dr. Rolando Po[11]
of
Two days later, Alberto was
re-admitted to the same hospital. At
For his defense, petitioner testified
that a person unknown to him, carried and left the drunken Alberto near their
passenger vehicle.[20]
The
back of Alberto’s head had hit the cemented road.[21]
Moments later, Alberto got up and started
clawing Justino.[22]
When he told Alberto to stop, Alberto turned
against him.[23]
Irritated, he kicked Alberto’s left leg.[24]
Petitioner added that they left because
some of their passengers had started to alight.[25]
On
WHEREFORE,
in Criminal Case No. 9571, the Court finds accused Justino Operiano and Julito
Operiano, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, defined and
penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as embraced in the
aforequoted information. Appreciating in
favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong, the said circumstance not having been offset by any aggravating
circumstance adduced and proven during the trial, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences both accused to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
Prision Mayor, as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor, as maximum, with
the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the victim,
damages in the sum of P50,000.00; funeral expenses in the amount of P20,000.00;
attorney’s fees in the sum of P10,000.00 and to pay the costs.
The
accused are hereby credited in full of the period of their preventive
imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
SO
ORDERED.[26]
Petitioner
and his father appealed. The Court of
Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction but modified the maximum penalty of
imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The appellate court found that petitioner’s
father was guilty of slight physical injuries only. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, the Court affirms the appealed decision with modifications. Accused-appellant Julito Operiano is found
guilty of the crime of Homicide and is sentenced, after appreciating in his
favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, as minimum, to
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the
accessory penalties of the law. He is
further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alberto Penales the sum
of P50,000.00, funeral expenses in the amount of P3,180.00, attorney’s fees of
P10,000.00 and the costs.
Accused-appellant
Justino Operiano is found guilty of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries and
is sentenced to pay a fine of P200.00.
SO
ORDERED.[27]
After
the appellate court denied his motion for reconsideration on
I
WHETHER OR NOT
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT THE
KICK DELIVERED BY PETITIONER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM
ALBERTO PENALES AND IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER FOR HOMICIDE.
II
WHETHER OR NOT
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATE, AS THE TRIAL
COURT LIKEWISE FAILED TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATE, THE EVIDENCE OF EVENTS THAT
OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN VICTIM ALBERTO PENALES AND JUSTINO
OPERIANO.
III
WHETHER OR NOT
APPELLATE COURTS CAN OVERTURN THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY
Simply put, the issues submitted for resolution are: (1) Did the trial and appellate courts err in
ruling that petitioner’s kick was the proximate cause of Alberto’s death? (2) Did
they err in their appreciation of the events prior to the confrontation between
petitioner and Alberto? (3) Did they err in convicting petitioner of homicide?
Petitioner
asks us to overturn the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts for
alleged misapprehension of the evidence.
He contends that there is no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt his
culpability for Alberto’s head injury and subsequent death. He insists that Alberto already suffered
physical injuries before clawing Justino, but the trial
court disregarded the testimonies of defense witnesses. Petitioner further contends that the
testimonies of Felix and Fortunato lack credibility.
The Office of the Solicitor General
counters that no compelling reason has been shown by petitioner to disturb the
factual findings of the trial and appellate courts that it was petitioner who
inflicted Alberto’s fatal head injury.
Petitioner’s arguments raise issues
on factual matters, thereby entailing a review of the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies. However, these
matters are improper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. As a rule, only questions of law
should be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.[29] Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
affirming those of the trial court bind this Court, unless the findings of the
trial and appellate courts are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record
or unless the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.[30]
Besides, petitioner himself admitted
that he kicked Alberto when he lost his patience after Alberto clawed him also. Petitioner’s father and Johnny Cemini,[31]
a defense witness, also testified that petitioner kicked Alberto. That petitioner’s kick was the proximate and
immediate cause of Alberto’s head injury, causing his death is beyond
cavil. The kicking of the victim by
petitioner is the first and immediate act that produced the injury and set the
other events in motion, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor,[32]
in a continuous chain of events leading to Alberto’s death.
Felix’s
and Fortunato’s eyewitness accounts corroborated each
other’s testimonies. The transcript of
stenographic notes are instructive, to wit:
[Felix’s
testimony]
Q Now, after you saw Tino Operiano boxed and hitting the right face of the person of Alberto Penales, what happened next?
A Julito Operiano also used his right foot and [and] made a front kick at Alberto.
Q In Judo or martial arts terminology, how do you call that?
A Flying kick.
x x x x
Q Where, in what part of the body of Alberto Penales was hit by the flying kick of Julito Operiano?
A In front of his body.
x x x x
COURT:
The proper term should be … in the abdominal region. Proceed.
ATTY. MARAPAO:
Q After Alberto Penales was hit in the abdom[i]nal region … what happened to Alberto Penales?
A He fell down.
Q What was the position of Alberto Penales when he fell?
A When he fell down he was facing upwards.
Q And did a part of the body of Alberto Penales hit the road?
A Yes, sir.
Q This Marapao street what is the terrain?
A It is an asphalt road.
Q What portion of his body … hit the asphalt road? …
A The back of his head.[33]
[Fortunato’s testimony]
Q Now, after your brother Alberto Penales was hit on the right eye by the right fist of Tino Operiano what happened next?
A His son, Julie Operiano made a flying kick.
Q To whom was the flying kick of Julie Operiano directed?
A The flying kick was directed towards above the abdomen.
Q Of whom, mention the name?
A My brother, Alberto Penales.
x x x x
Q Now, when your brother was hit at the upper portion of his abdomen by the flying kick … what happened next?
A Alberto fell down and his head hit on the street.
Q What part or portion of his head hit the street?
A Back of his head.[34]
On
cross-examination by defense counsel as well as by the trial judge, Felix and Fortunato remained steadfast in their testimonies.
The eyewitness
testimonies of Felix and Alberto’s brother, Fortunato,
conclusively support the finding that petitioner’s kick caused Alberto to fall and
hit the back of his head on the asphalt road. This is validated by the medico-legal
certificate which identified Alberto’s injury as “linear fracture occipital
bone left” or “fracture at the back of the head.” Beyond a shadow of doubt, Alberto’s head
injury was the underlying cause of his death 11 days later. Alberto’s death certificate reads:
CAUSES OF DEATH
Immediate cause: a. CP Arrest 2o to Uncal Herniation
Antecedent cause: b. Intracranial Hemorrhage Chronic
Underlying cause: c. Head Injury[35]
On the witness
stand, Dr. Rosali Ray Atup,
the attending physician of Alberto at the provincial hospital, ably presented
his medical findings. No contradictory evidence
has been presented to overturn his medical conclusions in this case.
Moreover,
the defense presentation of its case contains gaps and inconsistencies. For instance, defense witness Ben Cantina[36]
testified that it was Oming Olmillo who punched Alberto. Ben Cantina came to know Oming Olmillo’s name
three days after the
Lastly, we agree
with the trial and appellate courts that the circumstance of having no
intention to commit so grave a wrong serves to mitigate Julito’s
liability.[43]
Thus, the appellate court did not err in
modifying petitioner’s sentence and civil liabilities.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for
lack of merit. The Court of Appeals’ Decision
dated
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 63-76. Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Rebecca De
Guia-Salvador concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA Rollo, p. 30.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp. 23, 64; TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp.
23, 65; TSN,
[11] Also referred to as “Go” in other parts of the records.
[12] Exhibit “C”, records, p. 3; Rollo, pp. 23, 66.
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15] Also referred to as “Dr. Rosali Rey Atup” in other parts of the records.
[16] TSN,
[17] Exhibit “D”, records, p. 4.
[18] TSN,
[19] Exhibit “D”, records, p. 4; Rollo, p. 24.
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Rule 45, Section 1.
[30] Pangonorom v. People, G.R. No.
143380,
[31] Cimini, Cemine, Cimene in other parts of the record.
[32] Quinto
v. Andres, G.R. No. 155791,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] Exhibit “D”, records, p. 4.
[36] Cantena in other parts of the record.
[37] TSN,
[38] Exhibit “G”, records, p. 9; Exhibit “1-translation”, records, p. 14.
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] TSN,
[42] Exhibit “H”, records, p. 10; “Exhibit 3-translation”, records, p. 17.
[43] Revised Penal Code, ART. 13, par. 3.