FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
*SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus -
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated:
DOMINADOR
D. SURONGON,
Accused-Appellant. July
12, 2007
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
D
E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Under consideration is this appeal by Dominador D. Surongon
from the decision[1]
dated January 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00372, affirming, with modification, an earlier decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, which found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder for the death
of one Allan Viduya y Cabidog and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The case
On
That on or
about March 22, 1998 at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of
Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, while armed with a double bladed weapon, with intent to
kill, acting with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Allan Viduya
y Cabidog with said bladed weapon on his back, thereby inflicting upon the
latter mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law.
Arraigned on
For its part, the
defense rested its case with the lone testimony of appellant himself.
The evidence
It is disputed that at
the time of his violent death on
The prosecution’s
evidence tend to establish that at about
Allan’s mother,
Guadalupe Viduya, declared that for Allan’s wake and burial, the family spent
about P69,000.00
but could not present the receipts therefor because she threw them away. In
tears, she stated that for the death of her 15-year old son who was her
youngest, she suffered extreme mental anguish and sleepless nights.
Denial and alibi are
appellant’s main pleas in exculpation. Thus, testifying in his own behalf, appellant
vehemently denied the accusation against him and claimed that on
He admitted having a
common-law wife in Sitio Gumamela, Barangay Sta. Cruz,
The trial court's
decision
In a decision[5]
dated
WHEREFORE, accused DOMINADOR
SURONGAN is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
Therefrom, Surongon went on appeal to the CA on the lone
assigned error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the herein assailed decision dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed July 1, 2004
Decision of the RTC of Antipolo City, Branch 73, is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION
that accused-appellant Dominador Surongon y Del Valio is ordered to pay
the heirs of the victim, Allan Viduya, P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,0000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages.
Pursuant
to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended
by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on
October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of
Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
In view of the Notice of Appeal[6]
interposed by appellant from the aforementioned decision of the appellate
court, the entire record of the case was forwarded to this Court. In its Resolution[7]
of
We thus take it that appellant’s
present recourse is anchored on his same submission a quo that his guilt for the
crime of murder for the death of Allan Viduya on that fateful afternoon of
We AFFIRM with modification.
After a meticulous
review of the evidence on record, the Court cannot see its way clear on how it
could differ from the findings of both the trial and the appellate courts as to
appellant’s guilt for the offense charged against him.
As it were, appellant
was positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime by two (2) prosecution
witnesses who were with the victim at the time of the stabbing and who both witnessed
how it happened. Sonny Campita and Ernie Manatlao, both of whom are even
friends of appellant, testified that they recognized appellant as the latter
walked in front of them and even sat beside the victim for awhile before going
behind them and stabbing Allan twice at the latter’s back. We quote Campita's testimony in this
respect:
Q While viewing the basketball game at
that time, do you recall any unusual
incident that happened?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please inform this Court what
was that unusual incident?
A Allan Viduya was suddenly stabbed by
this Dominador Surongon.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How many times was Allan Viduya
stabbed?
A Two.
Q What kind of weapon was used to stab
Allan Viduya?
A Knife.
Q What kind of knife?
A Thin knife but the length is about one
ruler, including the handle.
Q Which hand of the accused was used to
stab Allan Viduya?
A Right hand.[8]
Confronted with an intense cross-examination, this witness
did not waiver in his narration that it was appellant who stabbed Allan,
Q In fact, you did not see Dominador
Surongon approach Allan Viduya, is that
correct?
A I saw him, he
passed in front of us.
xxx xxx xxx
DEFENSE
COUNSEL:
After Dominador Surongon passed in
front of you, where did he go?
A He proceeded at our back.
Q And he was just walking, is that
correct?
A After he passed by in front of us, he
sat beside us and rested for awhile
and after that he stabbed Allan.[9]
Ernie Manatlao, whose
presence at the scene of the incident was not at all disputed, corroborated Campita’s
account on all its material points. He testified, thus:
Q Will you please inform the Honorable
Court what was that unusual incident.
A While I was seated beside Allan Viduya,
I saw a person, who went around and
when I turned my head, I saw that there was a knife protruding at the back of Allan Viduya.
Q Were you able to know the name of that
person whom you saw went
around?
A Yes.
Q What is the name?
A Dominador
Surongon alias Bopi.
Q When you said he went around, what
happened next?
A He stabbed the victim Allan Viduya.
Q How many times if you can recall this
Dominador Surongon stabbed Allan
Viduya?
A Twice.
xxx xxx
xxx
Q You said Allan Viduya was stabbed
twice. Which part of the body was hit?
A His
back.[10]
Given appellant’s
positive identification by eyewitnesses Campita and Manatlao, both of whom had
no motive to falsely testify against the former, appellant's defense of bare denial
and alibi must simply collapse. His claim that during the time material he was
at his cousin’s house in Sitio Tabing Ilog and was having a drinking spree with
his cousin Oscar and a certain Nonoy fails to impress. For alibi to prosper, appellant must show that
he was at such place for such period of time that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its
commission.[11] As admitted by appellant himself, Sitio Gumamela, where the incident happened, is only a 30-minute drive away from Sitio
Tabing Ilog. Hence, it is not at all physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. We may add that neither his
cousin Oscar nor Nonoy with whom he allegedly had a drinking spree was ever
called upon by appellant to corroborate his tale. Already a weak defense, alibi
becomes even weaker by reason of the failure of the defense to present any
corroboration.[12]
Worse still is
appellant’s flee to the province after learning that
he was being accused of having killed Allan.
If appellant was truly innocent, as he professed himself to be, he could
have surrendered to the police to clear his name. He did not. To our mind, his flight to the province where
he was arrested two (2) years after that fateful afternoon of
After
resolving the issue of appellant's culpability, we now determine whether or not
the commission of the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator
of the crime, depriving him of the chance to defend himself or repel the
aggression, thus ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and
without any provocation on the part of the victim.[13] Here, at the time of the fatal attack, Allan was
watching a basketball game, evidently fully unaware that someone from behind
him would thrust a knife at his back. By all indications, Allan was without
opportunity to evade the thrust, much less defend himself,
or, worse still, retaliate. For sure, the testimony of the medico-legal officer
to the effect that she found no defense wound on the body of Allan could only mean that the latter
was completely defenseless when attacked.
In fine, we are in full accord with the
findings of the two courts below that the
killing of Allan was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, which calls for the imposition upon
appellant of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, as provided for in Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal Code.
This brings us to appellant’s civil liability about which
the trial court completely ignored. In addition to the CA’s award of moral and
exemplary damages and civil indemnity, we find it proper that temperate damages
must also be awarded to the heirs of Allan.
The victim’s mother testified that the family incurred P69,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses, but she was not
able to present receipts. Under Article
2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages
may be recovered
as it cannot
be denied that
the heirs of
the victim suffered some pecuniary loss although
the exact amount was not proved with certainty.[14] In People
v. Abrazaldo,[15] we held that where, as in this case, the amount of actual damages
cannot be determined
because no receipts were presented
to prove the
same but it is shown
that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate
damages may be awarded, fixed at P25,000.00. Considering that funeral expenses were obviously incurred by
the victim’s heirs, an
award of P25,000.00 as temperate
damages is proper.
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision dated January 19, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00372 is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, in
addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages, P25,000.00 exemplary
damages and P50,000.00 civil indemnity, the amount of P25,000.00
as temperate damages.
Cost de officio.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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
* On leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (now ret.) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.; rollo, pp. 2-15.
[2] CA Record, pp. 8-10.
[3] RTC Record, pp. 1-2.
[4]
[5] CA Records, pp. 30-34.
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 16.
[8] TSN dated
[9]
[10] TSN dated
[11] People
v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 158797,
[12] People v. Fuertes, G.R. No. 126285,
[13] People
v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 137610-11,
[14] People
v. Ronas, G.R. Nos. 128088 & 146639,
[15] G.R. No. 124392,