SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Appellee,
-
versus - ERNESTO
DE GUZMAN Y ELEMENCIO, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 169082 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: August
17, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Appellant Ernesto de Guzman y Elemencio was convicted for Murder by Branch
36 of the
WHEREFORE, having found
guilty of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, accused Ernesto de Guzman is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. And the said accused is further condemned to
indemnify the heirs of Felicito Rodrigo the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00),
for moral damages and another Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for
actual damages.[2]
The accusatory
portion of the Information filed against appellant reads:
x x x x
That
on or about the 14th day of June 1997, at around 1:00 o’clock [sic] in the morning, in Barangay San
Vicente, Municipality of Gapan, Province of Nueva Ecija and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
kill and with treachery and cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim thru repeated stabs after the victim fell down and
the use of superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab Felicito Rodrigo hitting him at the chest
and different parts of his body causing his death, to the damage and prejudice
of his heirs.
x x x x[3]
From the evidence for the prosecution,
the following version is culled:
On June 14, 1997, around 1:00 a.m., while
appellant was conversing with Felicito Rodrigo (the victim), Enrico Garcia
(Garcia), Ferdinand Garces (Garces), Wilson Malgapo (Malgapo) and Orlando
Navarro at Riverside, Barangay San Vicente, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, he told the
victim “Eto, gusto mo bang hiramin ito?”
immediately after which he stabbed him (the victim) with a kitchen knife.
The victim thereupon fled. Appellant
ran after and caught up with the victim, however, and continued stabbing him.
As the victim fell on the ground facing down, appellant stabbed him three
(3) more times at the back. Appellant thereafter
left.
Garcia at once reported to the police.
The policemen immediately proceeded to the crime scene and conducted an
investigation, after which they repaired to the residence of appellant and
arrested him at around
The autopsy conducted on the victim’s body
by Dr. Paquito Alarilla, Medico-Legal Officer and Rural Health Physician of
Gapan, revealed the following findings:
Autopsy
Findings
(1)
Stab wound 1 inch x .2 inch above right nipple
(2)
Stab wound 4 ½ inches x 1 inch anterior chest
hitting the heart, liver and lung
(3)
Stab wound ½ inch below the left scapula
(4)
Stab wound ½ inch level of vertebral column
(5)
Stab wound .1 inch below the right scapula
(6)
Lacerated wound 1 ½ inch in length left forearm.
No other physical
findings noted.
Cause of Death
Shock, stab wound
of the chest, heart, liver and lung.
Severe Hemorrhage[4] (Underscoring supplied)
Dr. Alarilla opined that Stab Wound No. 2, which hit vital organs ¾ the heart, liver and lung, could have caused the
death of the victim in only about five (5) minutes. He opined too that it was possible that the
victim was already dead when he sustained the succeeding stab wounds.[5]
Appellant, denying the accusation and of knowing the victim
and prosecution witnesses Garcia and Garces, interposed alibi. He claimed that on the night of
Catalina
de Guzman, appellant’s mother, corroborated her son’s above-stated claim.
Cecilia
Flores (Cecilia), a resident also of Riverside, declared that on June 14, 1997,
at 1:00 a.m., she passed by the house of
one Ramon Sudla also in Riverside where she saw Garcia, Garces, Malgapo and one
who was not familiar to her but who turned out to be the victim. At that time, she saw the victim and Garcia
having an argument. After about a minute, she heard a commotion and she later learned
that a person had been killed. On going
back home, she did not see the body of the victim.
In
convicting appellant, the trial court observed:
x
x x Since the house of accused Ernesto de Guzman where he claimed he was
sleeping at the time the stabbing was taking place, is only about 15 meters away from the place of the
incident, the alibi of
Ernesto de Guzman must fail.
The
denial, too, of accused Ernesto de Guzman that he did not stab
the victim Felicito Rodrigo was not properly corroborated or supported
by clear and convincing evidence, and the same can not prevail over the positive
assertions of the witnesses for the prosecution who were not moved by improper
motives to falsely testify against the accused. As testified to by Ferdinand
Garces, one of the prosecution witnesses, that he is even closer to Ernesto de
Guzman than to Felicito Rodrigo.
The accused also denied having known
Ferdinand Garces and Enrico Garcia who testified for the prosecution in
this case, his denial does not invite belief. Firstly, these witnesses for the prosecution are his
barangay mates at the
Given the number and nature of the stab
wounds and their location, the trial court found that, the intent to kill on
the part of appellant was manifest. And,
it found too that due to the suddenness of the stabbing by appellant, treachery
attended the killing of the unarmed victim who could not have had a chance to
defend himself, as even while the victim was staggering and helpless after the
first stab wound was inflicted, appellant repeatedly stabbed him.[7]
On appeal, this Court, by Resolution
of
The appellate court affirmed with
modification the trial court’s decision, by Decision[9] of
WHEREFORE,
the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija (Branch
36), dated September 25, 2001, in Criminal Case No. 5084, finding appellant
Ernesto de Guzman y Elemencio guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the actual damages
awarded by the trial court is reduced to Twenty-Eight Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (P28,500.00), and an additional Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) is awarded to the heirs of the victim by way of civil
indemnity. The award of moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.[10] (Underscoring supplied)
In
affirming appellant’s conviction, the appellate court held that since appellant
was positively identified by eyewitnesses Garcia and Garces as
the one who killed the victim, proof of appellant’s motive is no longer
crucial.
Discrediting appellant’s alibi, the appellate court held
that the physical impossibility of his being at the scene of the crime was
never substantiated, and the claim of defense witness Cecilia of not seeing
appellant at the place of the incident assumes no greater probative value than
the positive identification of appellant by witnesses Garcia and Garces.
As reflected in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the
appellate court reduced from P50,000 to P28,500 the award of
actual damages since only the latter amount was substantiated.
Appellant
maintains that no proof of motive on his part was presented by the prosecution for
him to kill the victim. And he maintains
too that he was not at the locus criminis
at the time of the incident.
Appellant goes on to argue that even assuming that he killed
the victim, treachery should not be considered to qualify the offense to Murder.
The appeal fails.
For
alibi, which has been held to be the weakest of all defenses, to prosper, the
accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed but must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime.[11]
Appellant’s
residence where he claims to have been at the time of the commission of the
crime and the locus criminis are both
at
Defense witness Cecilia’s claim of not seeing appellant
when she passed by the scene of the incident may not be seriously considered,
given that she was not present during the actual killing.
Respecting the appreciation by the lower courts of the
presence of treachery to qualify the offense to murder, the same is in order. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the
latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission
without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim.[12]
In the
case at bar, it was established that while the group was conversing, appellant suddenly
stood up and after saying “Eto, gusto mo
bang hiramin ito,” he at once stabbed the unarmed victim and continued
stabbing him even as the latter was already fleeing.
As to appellant’s civil liability, the award by the
appellate court of an additional amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity is
in order, it being mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without
need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[13]
The reduction
by the appellate court of the amount of actual damages to P28,500 representing
funeral expenses is in order too, the same amount having been duly proven.
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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
CERTIFICATION
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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 219-239.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6] Records, pp. 235-236.
[7]
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[9] Court of Appeals (CA) rollo, pp. 114-138; penned by Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[10]
[11] People v. Acosta, Sr., 444 Phil. 385, 414 (2003).
[12] People
v. Botona, G.R. No. 161291,
[13] People
v. Sades, G.R. No. 171087,