THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, [Formerly G.R.
No. 158387]
Present:
- versus
- QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
EUGENIO
PILIIN y GARCIA, TINGA, and
Appellant.
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
For
automatic review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
On
That
on or about 7:20 in the evening of November 19, 1997 at Jose Rizal St.,
Municipality of Siniloan, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused EUGENIO PILIIN, while conveniently armed with a Cal.
38 Revolver (paltic) handgun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
with the other accused, Alex A. Yu and Giovanni E. Caballes, who acted as
lookouts, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and the
commission of the crime was committed during nighttime, in consideration of a
price, reward and promise and in disregard of the respect due to the offended
party/victim, being an Assisstant Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and hit RODRIGO B. ZAYENIS on
the head, thereby inflicting upon the victim fatal gunshot wou[n]d which caused
his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his surviving heirs.
That
the [qualifying] and aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation,
and the crime was committed during [nighttime], were all present.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
The three accused pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter, upon motion of the
prosecution, this Court ordered a change of venue and the case was transferred
to Branch 275 of RTC Las Piñas.[4]
During the trial that ensued, the prosecution
sought to establish the following facts.
On
The
police received a tip from an informant that three persons were involved in the
shooting incident, two of whom acted as lookouts. Appellant was invited for questioning in
connection with a carnapped tricycle. He
later confessed to the killing of Rodrigo and implicated Yu and Caballes as his
co-perpetrators. He also identified the
house at Libis ng Nayon Resort, Bgy. Paagahan, Mabitac, Laguna where the
firearm used was kept. The police proceeded to the resort and found Yu and
Caballes sleeping inside a room. They were apprehended. The police also recovered the firearm, a .38 caliber
Smith and Wesson, on the bedside.[7]
A
paraffin test was conducted and appellant was found positive for gun powder
nitrates.[8]
During the custodial investigation, the three
(3) accused executed three (3) separate extra-judicial confessions,[9]
admitting their complicity in the killing of Rodrigo.
On
The
evidence of the defense consisted of the testimonies of the three (3) accused
who denied knowing the victim Rodrigo, much less their involvement in the
crime. They each interposed alibi as their
defense.
Appellant
claimed that he was at the “peryahan”
in Bgy. San Miguel, Mabitac, Laguna in the evening of
An hour later, his grandfather asked
him to go to the Barangay Hall and answer questions about a missing
tricycle. When he returned home, the
police went to his house at
Yu
was allegedly on duty as a lifeguard of a resort owned by Tirso dela Cruz on
Caballes
narrated that he and his brother, Alvin, were sleeping at Yu’s house at around
officers for questioning. He then volunteered to accompany
After trial, appellant was found
guilty for murder. The two other
accused, Yu and Caballes were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court considered the extrajudicial
confessions of the three accused as inadmissible on the ground that they were
not adequately informed of their constitutional right to engage a counsel of
their own choice.[15] The court a
quo nevertheless found that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to
convict appellant. It relied on the
testimony of the widow, Norma, who positively identified appellant as the one
who shot her husband. The trial court
appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and nighttime in sentencing appellant to the penalty of death for
the crime of murder.
The records of this case were
originally transmitted to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to
the ruling in People v. Mateo,[16]
this Court issued a Resolution[17]
dated
On appeal, the appellate court
rendered judgment affirming the RTC decision, with modification that the death
penalty be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The fallo
of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City (Branch 275) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
that (i) the death penalty imposed on accused-appellant Eugenio Piliin is
lowered to reclusion perpetual; (ii)
the award of moral damages and civil indemnity is reduced to P50,000.00 each;
and (iii) accused-appellant Eugenio Piliin is ordered to pay to the heirs of
the deceased Rodrigo B. Zayenis the sum of P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.[18]
The appellate court ruled out the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime when it modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua in accordance with
Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The two issues presented before us
are: (1) whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of murder and
(2) whether the trial court erred in disregarding appellant’s defense of alibi. The Office of the Solicitor General, in
behalf of the People, did not contest before this Court the non-appreciation of
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
Appellant
argues that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of treachery. According
to appellant, the witness failed to
see the inception of the attack
because she was in the act of opening the gate for her husband when the latter
was shot. She lacked knowledge of the
attending circumstances prior to the shooting incident. Hence, the trial court’s finding of treachery
becomes speculative.[19]
The
conviction of appellant, as well as the appreciation of treachery, was based on
the testimony of Norma, an eyewitness to the shooting of her husband. We reiterate the rule that factual findings
of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are
binding on us. The trial court’s
evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is accorded great respect because it
had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses on the
stand.[20]
The trial court properly appreciated
the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended
party might make.[21] To establish treachery, two elements must
concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means of attack employed.[22] The essence of treachery is the unexpected
and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared
to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[23] Appellant’s wife witnessed the incident from
its inception up to its consummation. She testified:
Q-
Madam Witness, at about
A- I was inside our house and I went out
of the house to open our gate, Sir.
Q-
When was that?
A- More or less
Q-
What was the reason why you went
outside to open the gate?
A-
Because my husband will enter our
gate and park his jeep inside.
Q-
Who is your husband?
A-
Fiscal Rodrigo B. Zayenis, Sir.
Q-
And while you were then opening
your gate, do you remember what happened next, if any?
A-
My husband was on the act of
parking his jeepney when one person suddenly arrived holding a gun.
Q-
What happened next when you noticed
one person suddenly appeared?
A-
That person, Sir, who appeared
approached my husband and poked his gun and fired at him.
Q-
What happened to your husband when
this person shot your husband?
A-
He lost consciousness, and I ran
towards him to help him.
Q-
Do you know where was your husband
hit? What part of his body, if you
remember?
A-
On the left side. (Witness pointing
on her left neck).
Q-
How many times did this man shot
[sic] your husband?
A-
As far as I can remember, one (1)
shot.
Q-
After this man shot your husband,
what did this man do?
A- He ran away.[24]
In this case, the victim was about to
park his car when appellant suddenly appeared and shot him without any
warning. The attack was so sudden that
the latter had no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. It can readily be inferred that the manner of
the attack adopted by appellant manifested treachery. Furthermore, as correctly observed by the
Solicitor General, the weapon used and the nature of the injury inflicted,
which pertained to the lone gunshot fatally wounding appellant, established
that appellant deliberately and consciously adopted the particular mode of
attack to ensure the commission of the offense with impunity.
Appellant
insists that he was in Barangay San Miguel, Mabitac, Laguna from
The appellate court correctly
rejected the defense of alibi set up by appellant. For alibi to be credible,
the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of
the commission of the offense but must also demonstrate that it would be physically
impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[25] In the case at bar, appellant claims that he
was in Mabitac, which was seven (7) kilometers away from the locus criminis. The appellate court
noted that it was not impossible for appellant to traverse this distance. Moreover,
his alibi is uncorroborated. Alibi is a
weak defense in light of the positive identification by an eyewitness to the
offense.[26] Norma categorically identified appellant as
the man who shot her husband. She
testified, thus:
FISCAL MANGROBANG:
Q- Madam Witness, did you recognize who
was the man who shot your husband during that particular date and time?
A-
Yes, sir. I was able to recognize the face of the man.
Q-
Would you describe the lighting
condition at that time when this man shot your husband?
A-
It was properly lighted because
there was light from the bakery and from the post.
Q-
How far were you from this man who
shot your husband?
A-
More or less two (2) meters.
Q-
Would you describe this man which you
saw who shot your husband?
A-
He is fair complexion[ed] with
short hair and with [a] moustache.
Q-
If you see again this man who shot
your husband, would you be able to recognize him?
A-
Yes, sir.
Q-
Will you please look around and
point to him?
A-
He is Eugenio Piliin. (Witness
points to a man who stands up and identified himself to be Eugenio Piliin).[27]
There is no showing that she has ill motive to testify falsely against
appellant. On the contrary, her relationship to the victim strengthens her
credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse
someone other than the actual culprit. Their natural interest in securing the
conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating a person other than
the true offender.[28]
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals affirming the
conviction of EUGENIO PILIIN y GARCIA of the crime of murder and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua, as well as
ordering him to pay to the heirs of
Rodrigo Zayenis P50,000.00 as
indemnity for death, P50,000.00
for moral damages, and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages, is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice 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,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified 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]Rollo, pp. 3-13; CA rollo, pp. 123-133; Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Sesinando E. Villon.
[20]People v. Bulan, G.R. No. 143404,
[22]People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271,
31 August 2006; People v. Dagani,
G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006, citing People
v. Caratao, 451 Phil. 588, 606-607 (2003); People v. Gonzalez, Jr., 411 Phil. 893, 915 (2001); People v. Cabodoc, 331 Phil. 491, 510-511
(1996); People v. Malabago, 333 Phil.
20, 34 (1996).
[23]Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479,
[25]People v. Mangitngit, G.R. No. 171270,
[26]People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077,