EN
BANC
|
ARNALDO Petitioner,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
|
G.R. NO.
173551 Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR.,*
NACHURA,**
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: October 4, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
For
review is the Decision[1] and
Resolution[2]
dated
On
That on or about the 1st
day of September, 1998, at about 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Lumanglipa, Municipality
of Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with unlicensed short firearms and M-16 rifle,
conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation
and grave abuse of superior strength and without any justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
with the said firearms suddenly and without warning one Ernesto Velasquez y Ciruelas, thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds
on the different parts of his body, which directly caused his death.
After
evading arrest for around four years, petitioner surrendered to the authorities,
while his co-accused Manolito, Glenn and Ruperto remained at large. When arraigned on
Gathered
from the records are the following facts:
Petitioner
is Manolito’s brother-in-law, while the latter is
Glenn’s father. Ruperto
is Manolito’s cousin.[7]
On
On
At
about
At
Petitioner
denied any involvement in the killing of Ernesto. He alleged that on
Later,
he went out of the car and decided to go to the house of “Pareng
Digo.” But before he could go farther, he heard
gunshots and saw some persons scampering. He went back inside the car and
started the engine. When he maneuvered the car towards the road back to Barangay II, Mataasnakahoy, Manolito, Glenn and Ruperto
suddenly appeared and boarded the car. The three, who were nervous and jittery, told him to speed up the
car. He then asked them, “Bakit, bakit ano bang nangyari?” One of the three whom he could no longer
recall told him, “Basta
idiretso mo at saka na kami magpapaliwanag
sayo” After
traveling for a few minutes, one of the three whom he could not also remember
directed him to pull over on the side of the road because they will just talk
to somebody. He told the three that he
will go ahead and that he was leaving the car to them. He immediately went out of the car and boarded
a jeepney bound for
Subsequently,
he boarded a bus bound for
After
trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds the accused, ARNALDO MENDOZA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
co-principal by direct participation, of the crime of murder, as defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659, with one (1) aggravating circumstance, and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Arnaldo Mendoza is also ordered
to pay the heirs of Ernesto Velasquez the sums of P50,000.00,
as indemnification for his death, P35,000.00, as actual damages, P100,000.00
as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay his
proportionate share of the costs. For insufficiency and unreliability of the
evidence of loss of earning capacity, no award for the same is made.[16]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
Undaunted,
petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. On
WHEREFORE, the decision of the P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
However, pursuant to
Section 13, Rule 124 of the Amended Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalty
Cases, We refrain from entering judgment and, instead, forthwith certify the
case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for further review.[19]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
Before
us, petitioner assigns in his Petition,[21]
Supplemental Petition for Review[22] and
Supplemental Brief [23] the
following errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
ARE CREDIBLE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTS AND THAT AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND ABUSE OF
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE TOTALLY DENIED
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF HIS DAY IN COURT.
Anent
the first issue, petitioner maintains that the prosecution failed to establish
the true identity of the person who shot to death Ernesto; that the prosecution’s
alleged eyewitness Dante Ciruelas (Ciruelas) did not mention in his affidavit that he saw
petitioner shoot Ernesto after the latter was shot by Glenn, whereas during the
trial, Ciruelas testified that he saw petitioner shoot
Ernesto right after Glenn shot Ernesto; that such is a material and substantial
inconsistency which adversely affects the credibility of Ciruelas
as an eyewitness; and that Ciruelas’s testimony was
not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.[24]
Petitioner
also asserts that there is a material discrepancy between the testimonies of Ciruelas and the doctor who autopsied the body of Ernesto,
namely, Dr. Antonio S. Vertido (Dr. Vertido). According
to petitioner, Ciruelas testified that during the incident,
Glenn positioned himself at a distance of one meter in front of Ernesto, who
was then seated on a chair and playing tongits, and shot the latter for the first time. Thus, if Ernesto was sitting and facing Glenn
at the time he was allegedly shot by the latter, the bullet that hit Ernesto
should have been located somewhere in his chest or in any upper portion of his
body and that the gunshot wound should have a point of entry somewhere in the
anterior or front portion of Ernesto’s body and not at his back or in the
posterior portion of his body. On the
contrary, Dr. Vertido testified that, except for the gunshot
wound in the right thigh of Ernesto, the entry points of the three other gunshot
wounds were located at Ernesto’s back or in the posterior part thereby
indicating that the assailant was at Ernesto’s back at the time the latter was
shot.[25]
Petitioner
further avers that Dr. Vertido’s testimony that the
three gunshot wounds sustained by Ernesto were caused by an armalite
bullet and that the fourth gunshot wound was caused by a .22 caliber bullet is
very inconsistent with his other statement that all of the four gunshot wounds
sustained by Ernesto have the same diameter; that no bullets and empty shells
from the armalite allegedly used by Manolito were found in the body of Ernesto and in the crime
scene; and that the deformed slug and empty shells presented by the prosecution
were not subjected to ballistic examination.[26]
As
testimonial evidence, the prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely:
Reynaldo Velasquez (Reynaldo), Ciruelas, Maximino Guiterrez (Gutierrez),
SPO1 Dominador Castillo (SPO1 Castillo), Dr. Vertido, Police Chief Inspector Ruben S. Castillo (Police
Chief Castillo) and Mrs. Marquez.
Reynaldo, brother of Ernesto and
a resident of Barangay Lumanglipa,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas,
testified that he knows petitioner because petitioner and the latter’s wife are
natives of Barangay Lumanglipa,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. He also knows Glenn, Manolito
and Ruperto because they are all residents also of Barangay Lumanglipa, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. He narrated that on
The
next day,
Ciruelas, uncle
of Ernesto and a resident of Barangay Lumanglipa, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, testified that he knows petitioner because the
latter’s wife was his former classmate and that he also knows Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto for they are
all residents of Barangay Lumanglipa,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. He declared that on
Glenn
fired more shots at Ernesto, while the latter was lying on the ground. Thereafter, at a distance of more or less two
meters from petitioner, Glenn saw petitioner shoot Ernesto once with a short
firearm. When petitioner was about to
board the car, he noticed that Ernesto was still breathing. Petitioner then
informed Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto
that Ernesto was still alive. Within a
distance of more or less four meters, Glenn saw Ruperto,
who was then at the backseat of the car, take an armalite
and give it to Manolito who was then seated beside
the driver’s seat. Manolito
took the armalite, sat in the driver’s seat, and shot
Ernesto several times with the armalite. Ruperto, who was in the backseat of the car, also drew a
short firearm and shot Ernesto. Petitioner
then looked around and shouted, “Sino pa sa inyo?” Subsequently,
petitioner boarded the car while Manolito sat beside
him and Glenn moved to the backseat. Petitioner
drove the car and proceeded to the direction of the town proper. Afterwards, he and several others immediately
approached Ernesto and loaded the latter into a jeepney.
They brought Ernesto to Dr. Faller
Hospital where he was pronounced dead.[28]
Gutierrez, Barangay
Captain of Barangay Lumanglipa,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas
from 1998 up to 2002, testified that he knows petitioner, Glenn, Manolito, Ruperto and their
respective families because they are all natives/residents of Barangay Lumanglipa, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas.
He told the court that on
Later,
he heard petitioner utter, “Sino pa sa inyo?” Petitioner, Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto thereafter
left the scene. He then approached the
bloodied Ernesto who was sprawled on the ground in front of his house. He and several persons brought Ernesto to Dr.
Faller Hospital. Since Ernesto was
already pronounced dead, he and some companions brought Ernesto’s body to the Mataasnakahoy Police Station to report the incident. Upon the advice of Police Chief Castillo, he
instructed Ciruelas to bring Ernesto’s body to
SPO1 Castillo, a
member of the Philippine National Police since 1985, testified that in
September 1998, he was assigned at the Police Station of Mataasnakahoy,
Batangas. On
SPO1
Castillo personally prepared the criminal complaint and listed as one of the
exhibits attached thereto one empty shell of an M-16 armalite
rifle since this was recovered by Police Chief Ruben Castillo from a maroon
Nissan Sentra Super Saloon with plate number UBU-674.
On
Dr. Vertido,
Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, Batangas Regional Office, testified that he conducted an autopsy
on the body of Ernesto on the evening of
POST
MORTEM FINDINGS
Pallor, lips and nailbeds.
Abrasions, anterior
chest wall, midline, 6.5 x 2.5 cm., hand, left, dorso-lateral aspect, 0.5 x 0.5 cm.
Grazing wounds, anterior
chest wall, left, 12.0 x 6.0 cm., mammary area, left,
5.0 x 1.0 cm.
GUNSHOT WOUNDS:
I ENTRANCE, 0.5 x 0.6 cm., ovaloid, edges inverted, located at the back, left side,
8.5 cm. form the posterior median line, 110.0 cm. above the left heel, directed
forward, upward and laterally, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues,
blasting lower lobe of the left lung and making an EXIT wound, 1.0 x 1.5
cm., ovaloid, edges everted,
located at the left anterior chest wall, 17.0 cm. from the posterior median
line, 116.5 cm. above the left heel.
II ENTRANCE, 0.5 x 0.6 cm., ovaloid, edges inverted, located at the left lumbar area,
4.5. cm. from the posterior median line, 104.0 cm. above the left heel,
directed forward, upward and from left to right, involving the skin and soft
tissues, perforating omentum, intestine, blasting
liver, diaphragm and lower lobe of the left lung, then finally making an EXIT
wound, 1.0 x 1.2 cm., ovaloid, edges everted, located at the right antero-lateral
chest wall, 20.0 cm. from the anterior median line, 116.0 cm. above the left
heel.
III ENTRANCE, 0.5 x 0.7 cm., ovaloid, edges inverted, located at the left arm, posterior
aspect, middle third, 10.0 cm. above the left elbow, directed forward, and
downwards, involving the skin and soft tissues, fracturing the left humerus, middle third, severing the corresponding blood
vessels then making an EXIT, 17.0 x 14.0 cm. irregular, located at the middle
and lower third of the left arm, 5.0 cm. above the left elbow.
IV. ENTRANCE, 0.5 x 0.6 cm., ovaloid, edges inverted, located at the right thigh,
anterior aspect, upper third, 33.0 cm. above the right knee, directed
backwards, upwards and medially, involving the skin and underlying soft
tissues, grazing the right femur, cutting the right femoral artery and making
an EXIT at the anal opening.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hemorrgage, severe, secondary to Gunshot
wounds.[31]
He also
found during the autopsy that Ernesto’s brain was pale implying severe blood
loss. He concluded then that Ernesto’s death was caused by hemorrhage secondary
to gunshot wounds. He reduced his findings in writing and issued the
corresponding Death Certificate[32]
of Ernesto.
The
prosecution dispensed with the testimony of Police Chief Castillo when
petitioner, through counsel, admitted that he was the one who recovered one
empty shell of an M-16 armalite rifle under the seat
of the maroon Nissan Sentra Super Saloon with plate
number UBU-674 which was found abandoned in Barangay Magape, Balete, Batangas.[33]
Mrs. Velasquez, wife
of Ernesto, testified that on
The
prosecution also presented documentary and object evidence to buttress the
foregoing testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, to wit: (1) sworn statement
of Ciruelas;[34]
(2) sworn statement of Ariola;[35]
(3) pictures of the maroon Nissan Sentra Super Saloon
with plate number UBU-674;[36]
(4) sworn statement of Gutierrez;[37]
(5) sworn statement of Mrs. Velasquez;[38]
(6) one live ammunition of Super Caliber .38;[39]
(7) four empty shells of Super Caliber .38;[40]
(8) one deformed slug of Super Caliber .38;[41]
(9) one empty shell of an M-16 armalite rifle;[42]
(10) sketch of the crime scene drawn and prepared by SPO1 Castillo;[43]
(11) certification issued by the Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Division
of the Philippine National Police, Camp Crame
verifying, among other things, that petitioner was a licensed/registered holder
of a Pistol Colt Caliber .38, and that the license was issued on 15 June 1995
and expired on November 1997 and has not been renewed since then;[44]
(12) letter-request for autopsy dated 2 September 1998;[45]
(13) certification identifying the body of Ernesto signed by the sister of
Ernesto and Dr. Vertido;[46]
(14) findings/autopsy report on the body of Ernesto signed by Dr. Vertido;[47]
(15) anatomical sketch indicating the wounds mentioned in the autopsy report of
Dr. Vertido;[48]
(16) death certificate of Ernesto issued and signed by Dr. Vertido;[49]
(17) lists of expenses and receipts for the funeral, coffin, autopsy and food
during the burial of Ernesto;[50]
and (18) overseas employment certificate of Ernesto.[51]
For its
part, the defense presented Ariola and petitioner as
its witnesses.
Ariola was
introduced by the defense as an adverse witness to repudiate prosecution’s theory
that petitioner was allegedly outside the car when the latter shot Ernesto. He testified that he executed a sworn
statement dated
T – Ang sabi mo ay malapit ka lamang ng maganap ang
pagbaril kay Ernesto, saan naman siya
tinamaan, maari mo bang isalaysay?
S – Ang una pong bumaril
ay si Glenn Gonzales at tinamaan
sa katawan itong si Ernesto kaya ako po
ay tumakbong palayo pero kita ko
pa po ng barilin ulit siya
nitong si Glenn hanggang sa tumumba
itong si Ernesto at nang nakatumba na siya ay doon
siya pinagbabaril ng mga nasa kotse na sina Manolito
Gonzales, Ruperto de Villa at si
“Boy” Arnaldo
Mendoza.[52]
He confirmed
before the court such statement and maintained that petitioner was inside the
car with Manolito and Ruperto
when petitioner shot Ernesto during the incident.[53]
Petitioner, a
businessman residing at
Subsequently,
he boarded a bus bound for
In support
of the foregoing testimonies, the defense presented the respective sworn
statements of Ariola and petitioner[55]
as its documentary evidence.
Prosecution
witness Ciruelas clearly stated in paragraph 8 of his
Affidavit dated
08 – T : Sino naman ang
unang bumaril dito kay Ernesto Velasquez kung iyong nakita?
S : Ang una pong bumaril ay si Glenn Gonzales na may armas na
maigsing pistola at sumunod na bumaril
ay si Arnaldo Boy Mendoza na may armas na maigsing
pistola, na sumunod naman ay si Manoling Gonzales na may hawak na
armalite at ito namang si Ruperto
de Villa ay may armas din na
maigsing pistola na bumaril din kay Ernesto Velasquez.
Ciruelas reiterated
and confirmed his foregoing statement in his testimony during the trial. Hence, contrary to petitioner’s assertion,
there is no omission or inconsistency in the sworn statement and court
testimony of Ciruelas as regards the said fact.
The
fact that none of the other prosecution witnesses corroborated Ciruelas’s testimony that petitioner shot Ernesto is
inconsequential. It
should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and
credible, as in the case of Ciruelas, is sufficient
to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.[56]
The
testimonies of Ciruelas and Dr. Vertido
are substantially consistent with each other on material points. Ciruelas testified that Glenn went in front of Ernesto, who
was then seated and playing tongits, and shot
the latter once. This is compatible with
Dr. Vertido’s testimony and findings that Ernesto
sustained a gunshot wound in the right thigh, the entry point of which was on the front portion of Ernesto’s right thigh. Ciruelas
also testified that when Ernesto fell
and lay down with his face on the ground, Glenn fired more shots at the
former, and that thereafter petitioner, Manolito and Ruperto also shot Ernesto while the victim was lying on the ground. Again, this is in
harmony with Dr. Vertido’s testimony that Ernesto
also sustained gunshot wounds, the entry points of which were on the back portion of Ernesto’s body.
Although
Dr. Vertido’s testimony, that the three gunshot
wounds sustained by Ernesto were caused by an M-16 armalite
bullets and that the other gunshot wound was probably caused by a .22 caliber
bullet, appears to be inconsistent with his other statement that all of these
four gunshot wounds have the same diameter, such is only a minor discrepancy
and cannot be automatically considered as a ground for acquittal.
It may
be true that no bullets from the M-16 armalite rifle
used by Manolito were found inside Ernesto’s body. It should be stressed, however, that one empty
shell of an M-16 armalite rifle was recovered inside
the maroon Nissa Sentra
Super Saloon with plate number UBU-674 used by petitioner, Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto before,
during and after the incident. This is
once more consistent with Dr. Vertido’s testimony
that some of the gunshot wounds sustained by Ernesto were caused by M-16 armalite rifle bullets. To our mind, the conduct of ballistic
examination on the deformed slug and empty shells presented as evidence by the
prosecution is not indispensable in proving the crime charged in the face of
other overwhelming evidence presented.
The
foregoing testimonies are in harmony with the documentary and object evidence
submitted by the prosecution. The RTC
and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Ciruelas
and Dr. Vertido to be candid and credible. Both
courts also found no improper motives on the part of the prosecution witnesses
to testify against petitioner.
Likewise
vital are the documentary evidence consisting of the (1) sworn statement of Ciruelas attesting that during the incident, he saw
petitioner shoot Ernesto; (2) sworn statement of Ariola
stating that during the incident, he saw petitioner shoot Ernesto; (3) sworn
statement of Gutierrez declaring that during the incident, he saw petitioner,
Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto
holding firearms while Ernesto was bloodied and lying; (4) sworn statement of Mrs. Velasquez
narrating that on the day of the incident, petitioner and Ruperto
went to her house and sought Ernesto; (5) certification issued by the Chief of the
Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police, Camp Crame verifying, among others, that petitioner was a
licensed/registered holder of a Pistol Colt Caliber .38, and that the license
was issued on 15 June 1995 and expired on November 1997 and has not been
renewed since such expiration; (6) findings/autopsy report on the body of
Ernesto signed by Dr. Vertido stating that the latter
died of severe hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds and had also sustained
grazing wounds, which, according to the court testimony of Dr. Vertido, may have been caused by a bullet from any type of
gun or caliber; (7) anatomical sketch signed by Dr. Vertido
indicating that Ernesto sustained grazing wounds on the chest, gunshot wound in
the front portion of the right thigh, and three gunshot wounds at the upper
back portion of the body; (8) death certificate of Ernesto issued and signed by
Dr. Vertido; and (9) sketch of the crime scene drawn
and prepared by SPO1 Castillo.
It is
also equally important to note the object evidence comprising (1) one live
ammunition of Super Caliber .38; (2) four empty shells of Super Caliber .38;
(3) one deformed slug of Super Caliber .38; (4) one empty shell of an M-16 armalite recovered from a maroon Nissan Sentra
Super Saloon with plate number UBU-674 used by petitioner, Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto before,
during and after the incident; and (5) pictures of the maroon Nissan Sentra Super Saloon with plate number UBU-674 which was
recovered after the incident.
The
rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high
respect if not conclusive effect.[57] This is more true if
such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this
Court.[58]
In
utter contrast, the evidence for the defense comprises mainly denials and
alibi. Petitioner denied having shot
Ernesto. He insisted that on the day of
the incident, he merely brought Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto near the chapel of Barangay
Lumanglipa, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas where the three alighted; that upon hearing a
gunshot, he went inside his car and started the engine; that Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto suddenly
boarded again his car; that when he asked them what happened, the three told
him to just drive away and they will explain later; and that out of fear, he
left his car with the three and went to his house in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Petitioner also posited that the prosecution’s
evidence is unreliable because Ariola, the adverse
witness, stated in his sworn statement that petitioner was inside the car when
the latter shot Ernesto, thereby contradicting Ciruelas’s
testimony that petitioner was outside the car and standing when the latter shot
Ernesto. Aside from these negative and self-serving claims, petitioner did not
adduce any convincing proof to substantiate and corroborate his defense of
denial and alibi.
Denial
is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving. Corollarily, alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is
easy to contrive and difficult to prove. 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 was physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity
at the time of its commission.[59]
Petitioner
claims he was inside his car which was parked in front of the chapel at the
time of the incident. The chapel was
merely four meters away from the crime scene.[60] Being very near the crime scene, it was not
physically impossible for him to be there during the incident.
Petitioner’s
asseveration that the prosecution’s evidence is fabricated, by reason of Ariola’s testimony being inconsistent with Ciruelas’s testimony, will not help his cause because Ariola also mentioned in his sworn statement and during the
trial that petitioner was among those who shot Ernesto with a short firearm
during the incident. What is certain is
the fact that petitioner shot Ernesto.
It is a
well-entrenched doctrine in criminal law that, as between denials or alibi and
positive testimony on affirmative matters, the latter is accorded greater evidentiary
weight.[61]
Apropos the second issue,
petitioner argued that he never conspired with Glenn, Manolito
and Ruperto in killing Ernesto; that his being with
Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto
inside a car and fleeing after the incident does not imply conspiracy; that
there was no evident premeditation in the killing of Ernesto because he had no
ill feelings or prior animosity towards Ernesto or any of the latter’s
relatives and as such, he had no reason to plan on how to kill Ernesto; and
that no abuse of superior strength can be appreciated in the killing of
Ernesto.[62]
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is
conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. The presence of conspiracy
among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the
commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other,
evincing a common purpose or design.[63]
As can
be gleaned from the testimonies and sworn statements of the prosecution
witnesses, petitioner was seen together with Glenn, Manolito
and Ruperto on board a car and was inquiring on Ernesto’s
whereabouts before the incident. Petitioner
was also seen shooting Ernesto right after Glenn shot the latter, and
subsequently fled with Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto on board a car. Clearly, the
foregoing acts of petitioner before, during and after the incident demonstrate
that he was a co-conspirator of Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto.
Evident
premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the following
elements are present: (1) the time when the offender was determined to commit
the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
resolve; and (3) a sufficient interval of time between the determination or
conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning.[64]
All of
the foregoing elements and requisites of evident premeditation were
satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
First, at
about
Second,
after
being told by Mrs. Velasquez on that same day that Ernesto was in the Mataasnakahoy, petitioner together with Glenn, Manolito and Ruperto proceeded to
said place. Upon arriving at
Finally,
petitioner and his cohorts manifested their determination to kill Ernesto at
the time they went to the house of Ernesto’s parents and asked about his
whereabouts at
Taking
advantage of superior strength also qualifies the killing to murder if the
offender purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked.[65] The evidence for the prosecution had
sufficiently proven the existence of this qualifying circumstance. Petitioner, Glenn, Manolito
and Ruperto were all armed with pistols and armalite and used the same in shooting Ernesto, whereas the
latter was unarmed and in a sitting position playing tongits at the time of the
shooting. Verily, petitioner and his
cohorts took advantage of their number and weapons against Ernesto.
We
observed that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and use of an
unlicensed firearm were also alleged in the information. We agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals
that treachery cannot be appreciated in the instant case since treachery
presupposes a sudden and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim.[66] In the case at bar, the attack on Ernesto was
not sudden and expected. Prior to the shooting, petitioner repeatedly asked Ernesto
why he slapped Glenn. Ernesto even managed to answer back and replied that he
did not slap Glenn. At this stage,
Ernesto was already forewarned of the dangers that such questioning brought as
well as the presence of petitioner and his cohorts considering that he had a previous
quarrel with Glenn. However, we take
exception to the ruling of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated. The prosecution presented a certification
issued by the Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine
National Police, Camp Crame, verifying, among others,
that petitioner was a licensed/registered holder of a Pistol Colt Caliber .38,
and that the license was issued on 15 June 1995 and expired in November 1997
and has not been renewed since then.[67] The incident occurred on
Regarding the third issue, petitioner
elucidated that it took him a while to surrender because of fear; that he was
never arrested and had instead surrendered to the authorities; and that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his
favor.[69]
For
voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the
following requisites must concur: (1) that the offender had not been actually
arrested; (2) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
and (3) that the surrender was voluntary.[70]
In order
for a surrender to be considered as voluntary, the same must be spontaneous in
such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or
because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
his search and capture.[71]
In the
case at bar, petitioner went into hiding for almost four years before he
submitted himself to the authorities.[72] Upon his surrender, he did not acknowledge
liability for the killing of Ernesto. As
such, his surrender cannot be considered spontaneous.[73] Moreover, his flight after the incident is a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[74]
As
regards the fourth issue, petitioner alleged that his former counsel, Atty.
Reynaldo Q. Marquez (Atty. Marquez), did not defend him to the fullest and was
negligent in handling his case because Atty. Marquez presented as witness Ariola, who, prior to the trial, had executed an affidavit
stating that petitioner was one of those who shot Ernesto during the incident.
Atty. Marquez also admitted the fact that an empty shell of an armalite bullet was found inside the maroon Nissan Sentra Super Saloon with plate number UBU-674. For these reasons, petitioner claims that he
was not able to completely present his defenses and thus he was denied due
process.
Petitioner
further claimed that the Presiding Judge of the RTC which rendered the assailed
decision, Judge Vicente Landicho (Judge Landicho), was partial and biased; that after the assailed
RTC Decision was promulgated, he found out that Judge Landicho’s
cousin, a certain Mayor Celso Landicho
(Mayor Landicho), is a relative of Ernesto; that
Mayor Landicho’s wife introduced his wife to Judge Landicho; that Judge Landicho advised
his wife to tell him not to surrender and to mellow first (“magpalamig muna”); that after three years, Judge Landicho recommended Atty. Marquez to him; and that these
circumstances show that Atty. Marquez was loyal to Judge Landicho
and not to him.[75]
The
essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before an impartial
and disinterested tribunal. Due process
is satisfied as long as a party is given the reasonable opportunity to be heard
and submit any evidence in support of his defense.[76]
The
instant case underwent a full-blown trial before the RTC. Petitioner was
adequately heard and given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his
defense and to refute the evidence for the prosecution. Relevant and material
issues were ventilated before the RTC and the Court of Appeals rendered their
respective decisions. Petitioner filed
all the necessary pleadings in support of his cause before the said courts.
Atty.
Marquez had sufficiently performed his duties in defending petitioner. A perusal of the thick records shows that
Atty. Marquez conducted a lengthy direct examination on petitioner and
exhaustively cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution. He also objected to the admissibility of some
evidence for the prosecution. He even
filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision convicting petitioner.[77]
It also
appears from the records that Atty. Marquez presented the testimony of adverse
witness Ariola for the purpose of proving that there
was inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and thus the
prosecution’s evidence was fabricated, to wit:
Atty. Marquez: We are offering the testimony of this witness,
first: as an adverse party witness; second: to prove that the evidence of the prosecution as against the accused Arnaldo Mendoza is totally fabricated; third: we will
prove that by the testimony of this witness, the prosecution deliberately
suppressed a piece of vital document because had this document been presented
it would not have been adverse to the cause of the prosecution. Finally, we are
offering the testimony of this witness to
prove that the evidence for the prosecution insofar as the alleged
participation of Arnaldo Mendoza is diametrically
inconsistent with each other in the sense that the testimony of this witness is
inconsistent with the testimony of the other eyewitnesses, Your Honor.[78] (Emphases supplied.)
If
indeed, as petitioner alleged, Atty. Marquez was still to be considered as negligent
or has committed mistakes in presenting the testimony of Ariola
and in admitting that one empty shell of an M-16 armalite
rifle was found in the car used by petitioner and his cohorts despite the
foregoing consideration, such cannot be considered as serious negligence
because, as we earlier found, there was no total abandonment of petitioner’s
cause.
Mere
imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is not enough since bias and
partiality can never be presumed.[79] There was no evidence showing that the
family/relatives of Ernesto had unduly influenced Judge Landicho
in convicting petitioner. There was also
no proof that Judge Landicho told petitioner not to
surrender or “magpalamig muna” and
that Judge Landicho recommended Atty. Marquez to
petitioner. In the absence of such proofs,
petitioner’s bare assertion cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in
the performance by Judge Landicho of his official
duty.[80]
The
penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua
to death. As we earlier found, there were evident premeditation, taking
advantage of superior strength and use of unlicensed firearm in the killing of
Ernesto. Considering that only one
between evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength is
necessary to qualify the killing to murder, the other one becomes a generic
aggravating circumstance.[81] There being one generic aggravating
circumstance plus the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm, and there being no mitigating circumstance, the penalty, following
Article 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is death. However, with the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death
penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life
imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Notwithstanding
the reduction of the penalty imposed on petitioner, he is not eligible for
parole following Section 3 of said law which provides:
SECTION 3. Persons convicted of
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act,
shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
As
regards the civil liability of petitioner, we find the damages awarded and
their corresponding amounts to be correct. However, we deem it proper to increase the
civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,
000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[82] In addition to the damages awarded, we also
imposed on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from
this date until fully paid.[83]
WHEREFORE, after due
deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 November 2005 in
CA-H.C. No. 0046 is hereby AFFIRMED
with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm is hereby
considered in the killing of Ernesto; (2) the death penalty imposed on
petitioner is hereby reduced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant
to Republic Act No. 9346; (3) the civil indemnity of petitioner is increased from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; and (4) an interest on all the damages
awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid is imposed. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On leave |
No part |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate Justice
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
*
On leave.
**
No part.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo with
Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring; rollo, pp. 52-70.
[2]
[3] CA
rollo,
pp. 8-29.
[4] Records,
p. 389.
[5]
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15]
[16] Records,
p. 29.
[17] Records,
pp. 340-356 and 363-367.
[18]
[19] Rollo, pp. 18-19.
[20] CA
rollo,
pp. 237-247.
[21] Rollo, pp. 10-49.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] Folder of Exhibits, Exh. “M.”
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] TSN,
[54] TSN,
[55] Folder
of Exhibits, pp. 41-42.
[56] People v. Sampaga,
G.R. No. 139823,
[57] People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017,
[58]
[59]
[60] CA
rollo,
pp. 319, 321 and 322.
[61] People v. Comiling,
G.R. No. 140405,
[62] Rollo, pp. 23-34.
[63] People v. Ramos, G.R. No.
135204,
[64] People v. Factao,
464 Phil. 47, 64 (2004).
[65] People v. Cabiling,
G.R. No. L-38091,
[66] People v. PO3 Fallorina, 468 Phil. 817, 840 (2004).
[67] Folder of Exhibits, Exh. “J”.
[68]
[69] Rollo, pp. 43-45.
[70] Estacio v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 75362,
[71] People v. Gervacio,
133 Phil. 805, 824 (1968).
[72] CA
rollo,
p. 317.
[73] People v. dela
Cruz, 146 Phil. 937, 939-940 (1970).
[74] People v. PO3 Fallorina,
supra note 66 at 840-841.
[75] Rollo, pp.
148-153, 204-208.
[76] Mutuc v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 48108,
[77] Records,
pp. 363-368.
[78] TSN,
[79] Causin v. Demecillo,
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1860,
[80] Dr. Grieve v. Jaca,
465 Phil. 825, 831-832 (2004).
[81] People v. Fabros, G.R.
No. 90603,
[82] People v. dela
Cruz, G.R. No. 171272,
[83]