THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - NICOLAS
GUZMAN y BOCBOSILA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 169246 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x
Man is
subject to innumerable pains and sorrows by the very condition of humanity, and
yet, as if nature had not sown evils enough in life, we are adding grief to
grief and aggravating the common calamity by our cruel treatment of one another. – Joseph Addison.
The passage depicts the tragic fate
of the deceased victim in the case at bar. His ultimate dream was to become a
pilot so that he would have enough money to shoulder the schooling and
education expenses of his younger siblings. Sadly, however, this dream will never become a
reality as his young life was brutally snuffed out by certain violent
individuals. He was a minor at the time of his death. Now his family is seeking
justice for his untimely and senseless killing.
For review is the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 00095, dated P35,470.00 as actual
damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.
On
That on or about the 25th day of November
1999 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating with two other persons, whose true
names/identities and whereabouts are still unknown, and mutually helping one
another with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ
personal violence upon the person of one MICHAEL ANGELO BALBER Y CASTILLON, a
minor, 17 years of age, by then and there stabbing him on the trunk with the
use of a bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon him serious and grave wound
which was the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of Michael Angelo Balber y
Castillon.
When arraigned on
In building its case against
appellant, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of its witnesses, namely:
Ronald Santiago (Ronald), Edgardo Bauto
(Edgardo), Danilo Balber (Danilo), Police Inspector
Alberto Malaza (Inspector Malaza),
SPO3 Samuel Quinto (SPO3 Quinto),
and Dr. Francisco Supe, Jr. (Dr. Supe).
Their testimonies are summarized as
follows:
Ronald is a jeepney
driver and resident of
Afraid and confused, he immediately
went home. The next day, however, he
went to the house of Michael’s family and narrated the incident to Michael’s
father, Danilo. Subsequently, he was accompanied by Danilo to the Batasan Hills
Police Station 6 where he gave a statement about the incident.[6]
Edgardo Bauto (Edgardo) is also a tricycle driver and resident of Brgy. Commonwealth,
Thereafter, he immediately ran and
proceeded to the house of Michael’s family and informed Michael’s parents about
the incident. Michael’s parents rushed to the crime scene and took Michael to a
hospital. The next day, he was accompanied by Danilo
and a certain Ramiro Alfaro to Batasan Hills Police
Station 6 where he gave a statement about the incident.[8]
Danilo, Michael’s father, testified that on
The next day, he went to Batasan Hills Police Station 6 and gave a statement about
the incident. In an effort to settle the
instant case, appellant’s wife and daughter told Danilo
that they would sell a bus which they owned and would turn over to him the
proceeds thereof. He also stated that
Michael wanted to become a pilot so that, as the eldest of the children, he
would be the one to shoulder the education of his siblings.[10]
Inspector Malaza
is a member of the police force assigned at Police Community Precinct No. 1, Batasan Hills,
SPO3 Quinto
is a police investigator at the Batasan Hills Police
Station 6. He was the one who investigated
the incident. After the incident was
reported to his station on
Dr. Supe is
a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory,
“POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished male cadaver in
rigor mortis with postmortem lividity at the dependent
portions of the body. Conjunctivae are pale. Lips and nail beds are cyanotic.
Needle puncture mark is noted on the dorsum of the right hand. There is fungal
infection covering the entire groin and extending to the buttocks.
“HEAD AND NECK:
1.)
Abrasion, left
superior orbital region, measuring 0.2 x 0.7 cm, 3.7 cm, from the anterior
midline.
2.) Lacerated
wound, left lateral orbital region, measuring 0.5 x 0.8 cm, 5 cm from the
anterior midline.
3.) Abrasion,
right inferior orbital region, measuring 0.6 x 2 cm, 1 cm from the anterior
midline.
“CHEST
AND ABDOMEN:
1.)
Abrasion, left
inferior or mammary region, measuring 0.5 x 8.5 cm. along the anterior midline.
2.)
Stab wound, thru
and thru, point of entry, left coastal region, measuring 1 x 4 cm, 8 cm from
the anterior midline, directed posteriorwards and medialwards making a point of exit at the left inferior
mammary region, measuring 0.7 x 2.5 cm, 5 cm from the anterior midline,
superficial.
3.)
Stab wound, left subcostal region, measuring 0.7 x 2.3 cm, 14.2 cm from the
anterior midline, 9 cm deep, directed posteriorwards,
slightly upwards and medialwards, lacerating the
mesentery, small intestine, left hemidiaphragm.
4.)
Lacerated wound,
thru and thru, point of entry, left inferior clavicular
region, measuring 2 x 7 cm, 4.5 cm from the posterior midline, extending to the
right inferior clavicular region and making a point
of exit thereat, measuring 1 x 3 cm, superficial.
5.)
Two and a half
liters of blood and blood clots were evacuated from the abdominal cavity.
6.)
The stomach is
250 ml full of billous fluid.
“Extremity:
1.)
Lacerated wound,
distal third of the right arm, measuring 0.4 x 1 cm, 2.5 cm lateral to its
anterior midline.
“CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is hemorrhage and shock secondary to
multiple stab wounds of the trunk.”[14]
On the other hand, the defense
presented the testimonies of appellant and Antonio Sulficiencia
(Antonio) to disprove the foregoing charges.
Appellant testified that on
Appellant went outside his house to
observe the situation. Five minutes
later, the group of Danilo, together with two
policemen, proceeded to appellant’s house. The policemen forcibly entered appellant’s
house and pushed the latter against the wall. They inquired as to the whereabouts of Lemuel and Jesus, who happened to be appellant’s bus
conductor and driver, respectively. When
they could not find the two, the policemen invited him to the police station. Appellant told them “Bakit ninyo ako dadalhin? wala
naman akong kinalaman diyan.” From then on, the policemen held appellant in
custody.[16]
Antonio was a former bus driver of
appellant and a resident of
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused
Nicolas Guzman Y Bocbosila guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Accordingly, he is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and further ordered to pay the
heirs of the late Michael Angelo Balber the sum of
Thirty-Five Thousand Four hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00), Philippine
Currency, as actual damages, excluding the Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00)
Bagbag Cemetery as there was no evidence to justify
the award of the same; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as moral damages
and the additional civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 89, in Criminal Case No.
Q-99-88737 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects except that the sentence be
RECLUSION PERPETUA only.
On automatic review before us,
appellant assigned the following errors of the lower court:
I.
THE
II.
THE
III.
THE
IV.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO
THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM,
THE
Anent the first issue, appellant
claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should not be given any
weight as the same are filled with discrepancies and inconsistencies. According to him, Ronald and Edgardo testified that appellant and his two companions
used only one knife in stabbing Michael. Inspector Malaza,
however, declared that appellant and his two companions were armed with
separate knives during the stabbing incident. He also avers that Inspector Malaza gave contradicting versions of how the latter
apprehended him after the incident. Further,
Edgardo testified that after the incident, he
immediately went to the house of Michael and informed Danilo
of what he witnessed. Danilo, however, declared that
while he was on his way home, he saw Michael lying at the corner of Sto.
Appellant’s contention is bereft of
merit.
A witness testifying about the same
nerve-wracking incident can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail
and consistent with other witnesses in every respect, considering the inevitability
of differences in perception, recollection, viewpoint, or impressions, as well
as in their physical, mental, emotional, and psychological states at the time
of the reception and recall of such impressions.[22] Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with
human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial
matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy the credibility of a witness,
especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.[23]
The inconsistencies cited by
appellant refer to minor and unimportant details which do not adversely affect
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Although the testimony of Ronald and Edgardo as to the number of knives used in the stabbing
incident differs with that of Inspector Malaza, all
of them declared under oath during the trial that appellant stabbed Michael.
Thus, as aptly stated by the Court of
Appeals, such inconsistency should not be considered as a “fatal error,” since
what is important and decisive is that they had seen appellant stab Michael and
that they testified on the fact during the trial.
Besides, their testimonies on
material and relevant points are substantially consistent with each other. They testified that three persons, among whom
was the appellant, had stabbed Michael. Their
descriptions of the faces, physical attributes, and respective positions of
appellant and his two companions during the attack are compatible. They also stated that appellant was the last
person who stabbed Michael.
As regards the alleged inconsistent
testimony of Inspector Malaza as to how the latter
apprehended the appellant, it should be borne in mind that the weight of the
eyewitness account should be on the fact that the witness saw the accused
commit the crime and was positive of the latter’s physical identification.[24] Inspector Malaza had
seen appellant stab Michael, and, in fact, apprehended him right after the
incident. Hence, the details on the
manner by which Inspector Malaza apprehended the
appellant would be immaterial and irrelevant.
Appellant asserts that the testimony
of Danilo runs counter to the testimony of the other
prosecution witnesses. Even if we were
to disregard as evidence for the prosecution the testimony of Danilo, the categorical and credible testimonies of the
other prosecution witnesses are sufficient to support the finding of guilt on
the part of appellant. It should be emphasized that the testimony of one
eyewitness would be enough to support a conviction provided it is positive,
credible, clear and straightforward.[25]
Apropos the second issue, appellant
denied any liability and invoked alibi. He
argued that he was inside his store when the stabbing incident occurred, and, that
it was Lemuel who stabbed Michael. He also presented Antonio to corroborate his
testimony.
For alibi to prosper, it is not
enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed. He must likewise prove that
it is physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[26] If appellant was, as he claimed, inside his
store at the time of the incident, then it was not physically impossible for
him to be at the crime scene or in its immediate vicinity. His store is located just beside
Antonio testified that he and appellant,
who was inside his store, were having a conversation when the incident
occurred. A perusal of the records,
however, shows that appellant did not mention anything about such conversation.
In fact, appellant did not even mention
the name of Antonio in his entire testimony. Given the foregoing, the testimony of Antonio
cannot be considered as credible.
In arguing the third issue, appellant
avers that his constitutional rights to produce evidence on his behalf and to
due process were violated when the trial court denied the motion of his counsel
to present substitute witnesses.
In the Pre-Trial Order of the RTC
dated
All parties are informed that witnesses and documents
which were not mentioned in this pre-trial order shall not be entertained
during the trial on the merits.[30]
During the trial, only appellant and
Antonio were able to testify. When the two other witnesses in the pre-trial
order, namely, Lizardo Dedase
and Eduardo Bidia, failed to appear and testify in
court several times, the defense counsel moved to substitute them explaining
that they were hesitant to testify, and, that one of them went home to his
province.[31]
The RTC was correct in denying the
defense counsel’s motion for substitution of witnesses since Section 4, Rule
118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates that the matters agreed
upon in the pre-trial conference and as stated in the pre-trial order shall
bind the parties, to wit:
SEC. 4. Pre-trial
order. – After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order
reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the
trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course of the action during
the trial, unless modified by the
court to prevent manifest injustice (Italics supplied).
The pre-trial order of the RTC dated
This is not to say, however, that
such provision is absolute. It can be
relaxed in the greater interest of justice. Nevertheless, the exception does not apply in
favor of appellant as the RTC had observed that his motion for substitution of
witnesses appears to be a “fishing expedition” of evidence which is clearly
unfair to the case of the prosecution.[32] Moreover, as aptly stated by the Solicitor
General, if the two other witnesses of appellant were indeed afraid or hesitant
to testify, he should have moved the RTC to subpoena the said witnesses to
testify in court[33]
pursuant to his constitutional right to compulsory process to secure the
attendance of his witnesses.[34]
Unfortunately, appellant did not avail himself of this remedy.
As to the fourth issue, appellant
contends that even if he were held liable for the death of Michael, there was
no treachery which will qualify the killing as murder. According to him, there is no evidence to show
that appellant and his two companions had deliberately and consciously adopted
their mode of attack to ensure its execution without risk to themselves. The stabbing incident occurred in a place that
was properly lighted. There were many
people in the area then walking in different directions. He claims that if he and his two companions
wanted to ensure that no risk would come to them, then they could have chosen
another time and place to attack Michael.
Treachery is a sudden and unexpected
attack under the circumstances that renders the victim unable and unprepared to
defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[35] It is an aggravating circumstance that
qualifies the killing of a person to murder. Article 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised
Penal Code states the concept and essential elements of treachery as an
aggravating circumstance, thus:
ART.
14. The following are aggravating circumstances:
x x x x
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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.
As can be
gleaned from the foregoing, two essential elements/conditions are required in
order that treachery may be appreciated: (1) The employment of means, methods
or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity
for self-defense or retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means,
methods or manner of execution. Further,
it must always be alleged in the information and proved in trial in order that
it may be validly considered.[36]
In the
instant case, treachery was alleged in the Information against appellant.[37] Moreover, all the essential
elements/conditions of treachery were established and proven during the trial.
After attending a worship service at
the Iglesia ni Kristo church in his barangay,
Michael proceeded home. While Michael
was casually walking along the corner of Sto.
As viewed from the foregoing, the
suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two companions
rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape. It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone
at the time of the attack. Further, he
was merely seventeen years of age then.[38] In such a helpless situation, it was
absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself against the
assault of appellant and his two companions. Being young and weak, Michael is certainly no
match against adult persons like appellant and his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had
three assailants, and, was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two companions took
advantage of their size, number, and weapon in killing Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and
methods in exacting the cruel death of Michael by first surrounding him, then
grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him. Afterwards, each of them repeatedly stabbed
Michael with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the
ground. The stab wounds sustained by Michael
proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter’s large intestine.[39]
The fact that the place where the
incident occurred was lighted and many people were walking then in different
directions does not negate treachery. It
should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[40] This is even more true if the assailant is an
adult and the victim is a minor. Minor
children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
defense. Thus, when an adult person
illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.[41] As we earlier found, Michael was peacefully
walking and not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to death by
appellant and his two companions. Further,
Michael was a minor at the time of his death while appellant and his two
companions were adult persons.
With regard to the allegation in the
Information that the killing of Michael was attended by an aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were
correct in disregarding the same against appellant. The essence of evident
premeditation as an aggravating circumstance is that the execution of the
criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to
carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment.[42] It
implies a deliberate planning of the crime before executing it. It must also be
shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it
was carried out.[43]
Further, there must be proof that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention
between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was
actually perpetrated.[44] In
the case at bar, there is no evidence to show that appellant and his two
companions had previously planned and reflected in killing Michael. When appellant
and his two companions saw Michael on that fateful night, they immediately
pounced on him. The thought of killing Michael came into the minds of appellant
and his two companions only when they saw Michael walking on the road. Indeed,
the killing of Michael was sudden and unplanned.
On another point, we agree with the penalty
imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states
that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides
that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant
case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser
penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance in the present case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an
aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance,
the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages
awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum of P35,470.00 as
actual damages should be reduced to P25,670.00 since the receipts on
record amounts only to P25,670.00.[45] It is well-settled that only expenses
supported by receipts will be allowed for actual damages.[46] Furthermore, exemplary damages should also be
awarded to the heirs of Michael since the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating
circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those
guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 00095 dated P25,670.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral
damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for Michael’s death; and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
|
|
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third 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 were 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] Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-15.
[2] Penned by Judge Elsa I. De Guzman; CA rollo, pp. 29-40.
[3] CA rollo, p. 13.
[4] Records, pp. 14-15.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Records, pp. 172-172-A.
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17]
[18] Supra note 2 at 39.
[19] Records, p. 161.
[20] Supra note 1 at 14.
[21] CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
[22] People
v. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786,
[23] People
v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 157669,
[24] People
v. Alicnas, G.R. No. 142855,
[25] People
v. Jubail, G.R. No. 143718,
[26] People
v. Abes, G.R. No. 138937,
[27] TSN,
[28]
[29] Records, pp. 18-19.
[30]
[31] TSN,
[32] Supra note 29.
[33] CA rollo, p. 110.
[34] Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution.
[35] People
v.
[36] Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
[37] Supra note 3.
[38] Records, p. 164 (Exh. C).
[39] Supra notes 13 and 14.
[40] People
v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347,
[41]
[42] People
v. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027,
[43] People
v. Penones, G.R. No. 71153,
[44] People
v. Lacao, No. L-32078,
[45] Records, pp. 165-A (Exh. E) and 166 (Exh. F).
[46] People
v.
[47] People
v. Manambay, G.R. No. 130684,
[48] People
v. Simon, G.R. No. 130531,
[49] People
v. Orilla, GR. Nos. 148939-40,