THIRD DIVISION
|
SERGIO MARZONIA, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No. 153794 Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga,
and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated: June 26, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review on certiorari is the Decision[1]
dated
Petitioner Sergio Marzonia and his brother
Mabini[2]
Marzonia were charged with murder before the RTC of Romblon,
Romblon, Branch 81, under an
Information which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of January,
1993, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, in barangay IV-Poblacion,
Romblon, Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping each other, [did then] and there, by means of treachery and
with evident premeditation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab with a small bolo, one ELISEO “ELY” MALLA, inflicting upon the
latter, mortal wounds in different parts of his body which were the cause of
his death.
Contrary to law.[3]
On arraignment, the brothers pleaded not guilty. Trial soon after ensued.
The prosecution presented eyewitness Diosdado de Jesus. He testified that at about
Diosdado further testified that Sergio’s brother, Mabini
Marzonia, and one Danilo Bisnar also came out of Sergio’s house and approached them.[9] While restraining Eliseo,[10]
Diosdado told Danilo to also pacify Sergio.[11] But Eliseo freed himself from Diosdado’s
hold.[12] Eliseo ran towards Sergio, who then and there
stabbed Eliseo.[13]
The autopsy report[14]
showed that Eliseo sustained three external
wounds. It also showed that his lung, diaphragm and
liver were wounded.[15]
At the trial, Sergio claimed self-defense. He testified that his brother Mabini, Danilo
and he were drinking gin inside his house when he heard someone shouting.[16] He opened his kitchen door and shouted at the
noisy fellow (Eliseo) to keep quiet.[17] Annoyed, Eliseo cursed. He approached Eliseo.[18] When he saw Eliseo’s companion Diosdado, he
greeted Diosdado and Sergio said he retreated to his own home.[19] Glancing back, he saw Diosdado embracing
Eliseo who was trying to free himself.[20]
When Eliseo had freed himself, Eliseo ran towards Sergio and pushed him.[21] When he fell, Eliseo pummeled him with fist
blows on his chest.[22] Sergio said he pushed Eliseo
away. Sergio got up and thinking that
Eliseo was pulling a weapon from his right back pocket to stab him, Sergio
grabbed a knife from the sink and stabbed Eliseo.[23] Sergio testified he could not remember how
many times he stabbed Eliseo.[24]
On
WHEREFORE, this Court finds co-accused SERGIO MARZONIA
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and imposes upon him
the penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law; to
indemnify (1) Mrs. Sylvia Malla, the widow of the deceased ELISEO “ELY” MALLA,
actual damages in the amount of P18,000.00; (2) the heirs of the deceased,
death indemnity in the sum of P50,000.00; and (3) to pay the costs.
The preventive
imprisonment he may have undergone shall be credited in his favor in accordance
with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Co-accused BENNY
MARZONIA is entitled to acquittal, as he is hereby ACQUITTED x x x
x x x x
Co-accused SERGIO
MARZONIA is allowed to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail
bonds during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the bondsmen x x x
SO
ORDERED.[25]
Sergio appealed
but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict, rejecting Sergio’s
theory of self-defense.
The appellate court noted that Mabini and Danilo, who were near the
kitchen where, according to Sergio, the killing took place, did not corroborate
Sergio’s claim of self-defense. Both of
them did not witness the alleged scuffle between Sergio and Eliseo. Both said they merely heard the sounds of the
scuffle. The appellate court also held
that the physical evidence did not support Sergio’s claim that he was boxed
several times on the chest by Eliseo, for Sergio
neither sustained hematoma nor contusion, based on the medical certificate[26]
issued by Dr. Jocelyn I. Ilagan. Sergio sustained the fracture on his first
rib two to three weeks prior to the first x-ray done on
In the instant
petition, Sergio seeks a reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision and he raises
for resolution a single issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REJECTING PETITIONER’S
THEORY OF SELF DEFENSE.[27]
We
shall now resolve whether both trial and appellate courts erred in rejecting
Sergio’s theory of self-defense and in convicting him?
Petitioner argues that he had
sufficiently established by clear and convincing evidence the three requisites
to prove his claim of self-defense.
Sergio contends that before he stabbed Eliseo, Eliseo attacked him by
pushing him, causing him to fall, and by kneeling on his abdomen and by
pummeling him with fist blows. These, he
contends, all constituted unlawful aggression on the part of Eliseo. He adds that in stabbing Eliseo, he merely
acted on his instinct of self-preservation, thinking that Eliseo was pulling a
knife from his pants’ back pocket. Thus,
there was reasonable necessity of the means he employed to prevent or repel
Eliseo’s unlawful aggression. Lastly, petitioner
claims that it was Eliseo who initiated the trouble
by challenging him to a fight, calling him stupid and going after him. There was no provocation on his part,
according to petitioner.
The State, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), counters that Sergio failed to prove self-defense by
credible, clear and convincing evidence.
Sergio’s plea of self-defense, the OSG adds, is uncorroborated and
extremely doubtful, and cannot overcome the prosecution’s version supported by
an eyewitness’ testimony.
Considering the submission of the
parties and the testimonies of witnesses, we are unable to accept petitioner’s
plea. Self-defense cannot be justifiably
appreciated, especially when uncorroborated by independent and competent
evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.[28] We agree with the appellate court that
Sergio’s plea of self-defense is uncorroborated. Neither Mabini nor Danilo nor Rosemarie Mayor,
all defense witnesses, corroborated Sergio’s account of the alleged scuffle and
stabbing. None of them saw any of the
following acts: that Eliseo pushed Sergio, causing
Sergio to fall; that Eliseo knelt on Sergio’s abdomen and pummeled Sergio with
fist blows; that Eliseo gestured as if to pull a hidden weapon from his back
pocket; and that Sergio stabbed Eliseo in self-defense. All that they testified to was that they
heard the noise generated by the alleged scuffle.[29] Moreover, it must be noted that Mabini was then in the sala of Sergio’s house;[30]
Sergio merely informed Mabini that he stabbed Eliseo in self-defense.[31] Danilo was in front of the store[32]
and Rosemarie was inside the store,[33]
during the crucial moments of the struggle.
In contrast, Diosdado’s
testimony as eyewitness to the crime was found credible by both the trial and
appellate courts. Indeed, Diosdado’s
testimony is credible. He remained
steadfast on his account of the incident during cross-examination by defense
counsel, and in answering questions from the trial court. He had no improper motive to pin Sergio for
the crime, which is admitted by Sergio.[34] Diosdado’s positive, clear and credible
testimony suffices to convict the petitioner of homicide. Truth is established not by the number of
witnesses but by the quality of the testimonies.[35]
Sergio’s plea of self-defense appears extremely
doubtful. As aptly pointed out by the
appellate court, the physical evidence disproves Sergio’s account of the
scuffle. Based on the medical
certificate issued by Dr. Ilagan regarding Sergio’s claim of chest pains the
day after the incident,[36]
Sergio neither sustained hematoma nor contusions over the areas where he was
allegedly hit by Eliseo’s fist blows.[37] Even the two x-ray results[38]
showing that Sergio suffered a fractured rib do not support his claim that he
was pummeled with fist blows. For it was
established that Sergio possibly sustained the fracture two to three weeks
before the first x-ray was taken on February 4, 1993, according to the
testimony of Dr. Herminia Leyva.[39] Notably, the alleged scuffle between Sergio
and Eliseo happened on
Significantly, by pleading
self-defense, Sergio admitted killing Eliseo.
To be exonerated of the crime, Sergio must prove the essential
requisites of self-defense.[40] But the defense failed to establish by clear
and convincing testimony that Eliseo had pushed
Sergio and pummeled Sergio with fist blows.
The medical evidence also could not support Eliseo’s
claim of any aggression by Sergio. All
that was established from the testimonies of Danilo
and Rosemarie was that Eliseo ran towards Sergio. Given the occurrence of the prior shouting
match and mutual challenges between Sergio and Eliseo, Eliseo’s alleged action
cannot be considered a sudden and unexpected attack on Sergio as to constitute
unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression
means an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person
or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[41]
In our view, the stabbing of Eliseo
by Sergio when Eliseo ran towards him was not a
reasonably necessary means of repelling Eliseo’s action. More so since it was noted
that Sergio is bigger than Eliseo,[42]
who was unarmed. As the Court
previously held, mortally wounding an assailant with a penknife is not a
reasonably necessary means to repel fist blows.[43]
In sum, we find no reversible error on
the part of the trial and appellate courts in convicting Sergio of homicide for
killing Eliseo. The trial court has also
imposed the proper indeterminate prison term and the P50,000 civil
indemnity. However, the P18,000 award of actual damages must be deleted, in the absence
of competent evidence, such as receipts, to support the award. Nonetheless, we rule that Mrs. Sylvia Malla is entitled to temperate damages of P25,000 for her pecuniary loss, the amount of which cannot be
proved with certainty.[44] She is likewise entitled to moral damages of P50,000 for the mental anguish she suffered because of the death
of Eliseo.[45]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition
is DENIED for lack of merit. The
assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated P18,000 award of actual damages is deleted. Petitioner Sergio Marzonia is also ordered to
pay Mrs. Sylvia Malla P25,000
as temperate damages and P50,000 as moral damages.
Costs against
petitioner.
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. 25-32. Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this Court), and Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong concurring.
[2] Benny in other parts of the records.
[3] CA
rollo, p. 8.
[4] TSN,
June 16, 1994, pp. 2-3 (Diosdado de Jesus).
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Exhibit “C”, folder of exhibits, p. 2 (Post Mortem Report dated January 30, 1993).
[15] The report reads:
FINDINGS
[1] Incised wound, 5 cms. (length) x 3 cms. (width) x 6.5 cms. (depth), Anterior aspect, left upper arm, Directed towards to axilla
[2] Perforating wound, 5 cms. (width) x 9 cms. (depth) 3rd
Right Intercostal Space, 8.5 cms. from the midsternal line just 0.4 cms. above
the Right nipple, directed superolaterally
[3] Perforating wound, 3.5 cms. (width) x 6 cms. (depth), 6th
Right Intercostal Space, 12 cms. from the midsternal line, directed medially
[4] Soft Tissue Hematoma, 3rd to 7th rib, Right Extending
from the Right Parasternal to the (R) Posterior Axillary Line
[5] Comminuted Fracture, 3rd rib, Right
[6] Laceration, 2 cms. in width x 2 cms. in depth, Lung, Right Upper
Lobe
[7] Perforation, 2 cms. Right Dome of Diaphragm
[8] Laceration, 2 cms. in width x 3.5 cms. in depth, Liver,
[9] Hemothorax, (R), 2 liters
CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardio-respiratory
Arrest, Secondary to Massive Hemorrage or Hypovolemia
[16] TSN,
June 6, 1995, pp. 6-8 (Sergio Marzonia).
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[26] Exhibit “F”, folder of exhibits, p. 4.
[27] Rollo, p. 131.
[28] People v. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817,
[29] TSNs,
[30] TSN,
[31]
[32] TSN,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] People v. Gumayao, G.R. No. 138933,
[36] TSN,
[37] Exhibit “F”, supra note 26.
[38] Exhibits “1” and “2”.
[39] TSN,
[40] People v. Gumayao, supra at 548.
[41]
[42] TSN,
[43] People v. Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443, 445 (1931).
[44] Rimano v. People, G.R. No. 156567,
[45]