EN BANC
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Appellee, |
G.R.
No. 174775 |
|
|
Present: |
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
MAMERTO DULAY, Promulgated:
Appellant.
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
R E S O L
U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
Before
the Court is an appeal from the 30 June 2006 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00486.
Mamerto Dulay (appellant) and his
co-accused Diosdado Camat (Camat), John Laurean (Laurean), Rogelio Campos, Ibot
Campos, Henry Caoile (Caoile),
Serafin Dulay (Dulay), and Junior Lopez (Lopez) were charged with (1)
Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms docketed as Criminal Case No.
U-10498[2]
for the death of Elmer Hidalgo; (2) Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms
docketed as Criminal Case No. U-10499[3]
for the death of Marcelina Hidalgo; and (3)
Frustrated Murder docketed as Criminal Case No. U-10502[4]
for the attempt against the life of Pedro Hidalgo. Camat, Caoile, and Lopez remained at large. Appellant and the other accused entered their
pleas of not guilty to the charges.
On
3 November 1999, at around 3:00 p.m., in Barangay
Anis, Laoac, Pangasinan,
Corazon Domingo, Ricardo, Pedro, Juanito, Abelardo, Anastacio, Lydia,
Aurelio, Marcelina, and Elmer, all surnamed Hidalgo,
were sitting on a bench in front of the
house of Juanito.
They were conversing when the motorcycle driven by Rogelio Campos passed
by. On the third time, a certain Pilo Cabingas was backriding on the motorcycle. Shortly thereafter, shots were heard and the
witnesses saw all of the accused firing long and short firearms at the
direction of those sitting on the bench.
The witnesses positively identified appellant and Camat
as the ones holding long firearms while the other accused as the ones holding
short firearms. As a result of the
shooting incident, Marcelina and Elmer Hidalgo were
killed while Juanito and Pedro Hidalgo were wounded.
All
the accused denied the charges against them.
Appellant alleged that at the time of the incident, he was at the place
of his brother Maximo Dulay
at Salcedo, Ilocos Sur. He was
borrowing money for his wife’s placement fee.
Appellant alleged that, together with Bong De Guia
and Marcos Suyat, he helped his brother dry “palay” from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.
The
Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 46 (trial court) acquitted Laurean, Rogelio Campos, Ibot
Campos, and Dulay.
However, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the charges against him. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision[5]
reads:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered:
1. In CRIM. CASE NO. U-10499, CONVICTING beyond
reasonable doubt MAMERTO DULAY of the crime of Murder with the Use of
Unlicensed Firearm and the Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH
to be implemented in the manner as provided for by law; the Court, likewise,
orders him to indemnify the heirs of Marcelina
Hidalgo the sum of P75,000.00, as moral damages; P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages plus P22,000.00 as actual damages.
Accused Ibot Campos, Rogelio Campos, Serafin Dulay and John Laurean are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. In CRIM. CASE NO. U-10498, CONVICTING beyond
reasonable doubt MAMERTO DULAY of the crime of Murder with the Use of
Unlicensed Firearm and the Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH
to be implemented in the manner as provided for by law; the Court, likewise,
orders him to indemnify the heirs of Elmer Hidalgo the sum of P75,000.00
as moral damages and the further sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Accused Ibot Campos, Rogelio Campos, Serafin Dulay and John Laurean are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. In CRIM. CASE NO. U-10502, CONVICTING beyond
reasonable doubt MAMERTO DULAY of the crime of Frustrated Murder and the Court
sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of ten years and one day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twenty years of Reclusion
Temporal as maximum; the Court, likewise, orders him to indemnify the heirs of
Pedro Hidalgo the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the further sum
of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Accused Ibot Campos, Rogelio Campos, Serafin Dulay and John Laurean are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mitimus and to transmit the complete records of Criminal Cases Nos. U-10498 and U-10499 to the Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines for automatic review immediately.
The jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Urdaneta District Jail, Urdaneta City is hereby ordered to deliver the living person of Mamerto Dulay to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
On the other hand, the Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Urdaneta District Jail, Urdaneta City, is hereby ordered to release from detention the living persons of Ibot Campos, Rogelio Campos, Serafin Dulay and John Laurean immediately upon receipt of this Decision, unless they are being detained for another lawful cause/s.
Let alias warrants of arrest be issued against Diosdado Camat, Henry Caoile and Junior Lopez for their apprehension.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The
records of the cases were forwarded to this Court for automatic review and
docketed as G.R. Nos. 148880-82. In a
Resolution dated 1 December
2004,[7]
the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Decision of
this Court in People v. Mateo.[8] In its 30 June 2006 Decision, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Decision.
Hence,
the appeal before this Court.
The
main issue is whether appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The
appeal has no merit.
Appellant
argues that he was convicted based on contradictory and improbable testimonies
of prosecution witnesses. He argues that
it was improbable for the witnesses to look at the faces of the persons firing
at them when they were more concerned with taking cover for their safety. Appellant further argues that since his
supposed co-conspirators were acquitted, he should also be acquitted since they
were alleged to have conspired to commit
the crimes charged.
We
do not agree. A few discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details do
not impair their credibility.[9] Minor inconsistencies even tend to strengthen
the credibility of a witness because they discount the possibility that the
testimony was rehearsed.[10] As regards the actuations of the witnesses at
the time of the incident, it is settled that there is simply no standard form
of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a
strange, startling, or frightful occurrence.[11]
We
agree with the Court of Appeals that we may no longer review the acquittal of
the other accused. A verdict of
acquittal is immediately final.[12] However, the acquittal of his co-accused
does not necessarily benefit appellant.
In People v. Uganap,[13]
appellant questioned the trial court’s decision which convicted him alone of
murder and acquitted the rest of the accused.
The Court ruled that appellant may not invoke the acquittal of the other
conspirators to merit the reversal of his conviction.[14] The Court declared:
There is nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed
co-conspirators and the conviction of another.
Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as
the mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person
alone cannot be convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator
does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found
guilty of the offense.[15]
We
also reject appellant’s defense of alibi.
Positive identification, where categorical, consistent, and not attended
by any showing of ill motive on the part of the witnesses testifying on the
matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight
in law.[16]
Appellant
also argues that the trial court erred in appreciating against him the aggravating circumstances of
treachery and use of unlicensed firearm.
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.[17] The essence of treachery is the unexpected
and sudden attack on the victim which renders him unable and unprepared to
defend himself due to the suddenness and severity of the attack.[18] In this case, the victims were conversing in
front of the house of Juanito
The
existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the
presentation of the firearm.[19] It was established that Elmer and Marcelina
Pursuant
to Republic Act No. 9346,[20]
we modify the penalty imposed on appellant in Criminal Case Nos. U-10499 and
U-10498 from death to reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole.
When
death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to
such amount as indemnity for death without need of any evidence or proof of
damages.[21] Consistent with recent jurisprudence, we
award the heirs of Marcelina Hidalgo P50,000
and the heirs of Elmer Hidalgo P50,000 as indemnity for their deaths.[22] However, we reduce the award of moral damages
from P75,000 to P50,000 and the award of exemplary damages from P50,000
to P25,000.[23]
In
Criminal Case No. U-10502, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of frustrated murder. Under Article 50
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principal in a frustrated felony. Hence,
the penalty imposable upon appellant for frustrated murder is reclusion
temporal. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law and considering the attendant aggravating circumstances, the
penalty imposed by the trial court falls within the range of the proper
imposable penalty of prision mayor (6
years and 1 day to 12 years) to reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years). However, the trial court
erroneously awarded damages to the heirs of Pedro Hidalgo instead of to
the victim himself. We reduce the award
of moral damages from P50,000 to P25,000 and increase the award
of exemplary damages from P20,000 to P25,000.[24]
WHEREFORE,
we AFFIRM the
In
Criminal Case No. U-10499, appellant Mamerto Dulay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm and is SENTENCED to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to
pay the heirs of Marcelina P50,000 as
indemnity for death, P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as
exemplary damages, and P22,000 as actual damages.
In
Criminal Case No. U-10498, appellant Mamerto Dulay is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the Use of Unlicensed
Firearm and is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Elmer
Hidalgo the sum of P50,000 as indemnity for death, P50,000 as
moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
In
Criminal Case No. U-10502, appellant Mamerto Dulay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Frustrated Murder and is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
ten years and one day of prision mayor
as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay Pedro Hidalgo the sum of
P25,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ 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 |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-22. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 14-16.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 6. No copy of the Information was attached to the rollo but it was recited in the Court of Appeals’ Decision.
[5] CA rollo,
pp. 56-76. Penned by Judge
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 213.
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[9] Mamangun
v. People, G.R. No. 149152,
[10]
[11] People v. Dulanas,
G.R. No. 159058,
[12] People v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 159261,
[13] G.R. No. 130605,
[14]
[15]
[16] People v. Barcino, Jr., 467 Phil. 709 (2004).
[17] People v. Piliin,
G.R. No. 172966,
[18]
[19] People v. Malinao, 467 Phil. 432 (2004).
[20] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition
of Death Penalty in the
[21] Cabuslay
v. People, G.R. No. 129875,
[22] Supra note 17.
[23]
[24]