THIRD DIVISION
|
graciano
Petitioner, - versus - people of the
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177276 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, TINGA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August 20, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court which assails the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23725 which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56,
finding petitioner Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. and his co-accused Jeffrey
Poquiz and Pedro Poquiz, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Frustrated Murder.
On
That on or about February 21, 1998 in the evening in
the Poblacion, Municipality of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan, xxx and
within the jurisdiction of this [Honorable] Court, the above-named accused with
intent to kill, with treachery and superior strength, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab Rommel Camacho with a knife inflicting upon him the following
injuries:
- Non-penetrating stab wound 3 cm. 5th
intercostal space mid axillary line (L)
- Non-penetrating stab wound 1.5 cm. scapular area (L)
-2 cm. stab wound supra orbital area (L)
the accused having thus performed all the acts of
execution which should have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence but, which
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the accused and that is due to the timely medical assistance afforded to said
Rommel Camacho which prevented his death and to his damage and prejudice.[3]
During the arraignment on
At the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: (1) The 24-year old victim himself, Rommel
Camacho (Rommel), who testified on matters that occurred prior, during and
after the alleged stabbing incident; (2) Analyn Fernandez, a 15-year old
eyewitness and one of Rommel’s companions during the incident in question,
whose testimony corroborated that of the victim; (3) Roderick Poquiz, a
by-stander who witnessed the mauling and the stabbing incident; (4) Dr. Mario
Ferdinand Garcia, the physician who attended to the injuries of Rommel; and (5)
Dionisio Camacho, the victim’s father who testified on the actual expenses
incurred as a result of the injury.
As documentary evidence, the
prosecution offered the following: Exhibit “A” – the Affidavit of a certain
Maricel Soriano declaring that she witnessed the stabbing incident of Rommel; Exhibit “B” – the sworn statement of the Rommel;
Exhibit “C” – the Medical Certificate of Rommel; Exhibit “D” - the receipts for the medical expenses in the
treatment of the injuries suffered by the victim; and Exhibit “E” - the receipts
for the transportation expenses of the victim’s father who traveled from Bicol
to Pangasinan to be with the victim.
The collective evidence adduced by
the prosecution shows that at around 9:20 p.m. of 21 February 1998, while
Rommel was squatting along Burgos Street, Zone 4 of Poblacion, Bayambang,
Pangasinan, trying to disentangle the warped chain of the tribike he was driving, a tricycle driven by petitioner Graciano, and
which had as passengers, the accused Jeffrey and Pedro, came by and stopped at
the other side of the street. Rommel was with Maylani Poquiz and Analyn
Fernandez. Jeffrey told Rommel to move the tribike
to the far side of the road. Rommel replied
that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. The three men on board the tricycle alighted.
Jeffrey proceeded to the direction of Rommel with Graciano and Pedro following
immediately behind. Without warning, Jeffrey
punched Rommel’s face. Graciano and
Pedro lost no time and joined in the onslaught by punching the victim until he
fell in the muddy canal at the side of the road. Pedro continued the attack by
kicking the victim several times. As Rommel
was trying to lift himself out of the canal, Pedro ordered Graciano and Jeffrey
to kill the victim. Jeffrey right away drew a knife and lunged the same at
Rommel’s back several times. Rommel tried to dodge the attack, but his effort
did not totally spare him from harm as he absorbed some wounds at his back and
on the eyebrow. Feeling helpless, Rommel
raised his two hands and pleaded his attackers to stop. He was nonetheless stabbed on the left side of
his armpit and fell to the ground on his butt. The three assailants boarded the tricycle and
sped off. Maylani Poquiz shouted for help so Rommel could be brought to the
hospital. Rommel was first taken to the
The medical certificate of Rommel
shows that there were three non-penetrating wounds sustained by him: first, at
the back or the scapular area; second, near the left armpit or the intercostal
space, mid-axillary line; and third, at the eyebrow or the supra-orbital area.
Dr. Mario Ferdinand Garcia, the
attending physician of Rommel, testified that the victim could still survive
his injuries even without the immediate medical assistance. He admitted though that he injected the
patient with anti-tetanus serum to prevent him from dying of tetanus.
As a result of the incident, the
victim’s father, Dionisio Camacho, who was attending to family matters in Bicol,
was forced to travel to Pangasinan and incur expenses, as evidenced by
receipts, in the amount of P1,880.00. The victim’s father likewise spent P10,476.75
for hospital and medical bills.
On the other hand, accused Jeffrey invoked
self-defense, while accused Pedro and petitioner Graciano interposed the
defense of denial. To prove their
respective theories, only the testimonies of the three were presented.
Jeffrey,
21 years old and nephew of accused Pedro, testified that on the night in
question, he and his companions, Graciano and Pedro, were riding on a tricycle
driven by Graciano, heading home from a send-off party of a certain Atty.
Benedicto Cayabyab, when they were stalled as someone was blocking the middle
of the road.[5] He told the man, who was then fixing the
tribike, to move to the side of the road.[6] The man, whom he identified as Rommel,
responded rudely, “Vulva of your mother
all of you, this road is not yours.”
Jeffrey tried to talk to Rommel and approached him. As he was approaching, Rommel brandished a
screwdriver and stabbed Jeffrey. Jeffrey
parried the strike and pushed Rommel to the canal at the side of the road.[7] Rommel fell. He, together with Graciano and
Pedro, left. He also said that during
the incident, Pedro was inside the tricycle sleeping, while Graciano stayed on
the driver’s seat.[8] When asked during cross-examination if he
reported to the police officers the attempt on his life by Rommel, he responded
that it was not necessary, as he thought that such incident was inconsequential.[9]
Pedro, 51 years old, testified he was
drunk and was asleep throughout the journey from Atty. Cayabyab’s party to his
house. He came to know of the pushing
incident involving Jeffrey and Rommel when he was in his house when Jeffrey
narrated to him the occurrence.[10] Upon learning of the incident, he, too, did
not deem it necessary to report it to the police authorities.[11]
Graciano corroborated the testimony
of Jeffrey, stating that while they were plying
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, herein three accused, Jeffrey Calpao Poquiz, Pedro
Pidlaoan Poquiz and Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr., nicknamed “Junior”, are hereby
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder penalized
by Article 248 in relation to Articles 6 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. They should suffer the indeterminate prison term
of six (6) years, one (1) month and ten (10) days of prision mayor,
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
maximum, including the accessory penalties provided by law. They should
proportionately pay Dionisio Mabanglo Camacho, the father of the victim who
shouldered the total expenses of P12,356.75.[13]
On
In an Order dated
Despite their notice of appeal, on
Since all the accused already
perfected their appeal, and since the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case by
reason of the appeal, it did not resolve the motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals, on
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 56 of San Carlos City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. SCC-2818
finding appellants Jeffrey Poquiz, Pedro Poquiz, and Junior Olalia GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt is AFFIRMED with Modification. As modified, the
appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Six (6)
Years, One (1) Month and Ten (10) Days of prision mayor as minimum to Fourteen
(14) Years, Eight (8) Months and one (1) Day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
The appellants’ solidary liability for the amount of P12,356.75 to the
victim’s father Dionisio Mabanglo Camacho is AFFIRMED.[16]
On
Hence, the instant petition filed by
petitioner Graciano
Petitioner asserts that the
prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This submission is unmeritorious.
The prosecution, through the
testimony of Rommel, positively identified petitioner as one of the men who
assaulted him. Rommel likewise declared
in the witness stand that he heard Pedro order petitioner and Jeffrey to kill
him:
Pros. Manaois:
Q: While
you were fixing your tribike beside
the road, near the corner, do you recall if there was any unusual incident that
happened?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that unusual incident?
A: The
tricycle of Pedro Poquiz arrived, sir.
Q: And
what happened when the tricycle of Pedro Poquiz arrived?
A: They
stopped near us, sir.
Q: And
when they stopped, what happened next?
A: They
shouted, they were asking us (sic) to move our tribike at the side of the road, sir.
Q: And
what did you do?
A: I told
them “the road is wide enough” and they can pass through, sir.
Q: After
you told them that “the road is wide enough,” they can pass through, what
happened next?
A: They
alighted, sir.
Q: Who
alighted?
A: The
three (3) of them, sir.
Q: And
what did they do to you, if any?
A: Jeffrey
Poquiz boxed me on my face, sir.
Q: How
about Pedro Poquiz, what did he do to you?
A: He
also boxed me, sir.
Q: How
about Junior Olalia, what did he do to you?
A: The
three helped one another in mauling me, sir.
Q: After
you were boxed on the face several times, what happened to you after you were
boxed by the three (3) accused on the face?
A: I fell
on the canal, sir.
Q: And
what happened next after you fell on the canal?
A: When I
fell on the canal, Pedro Poquiz kicked me several times, sir.
Q: Were
you hit?
A: Yes,
sir.
Court:
Q: Where?
A: In the
different parts of my body, your Honor.
Pros. Manaois:
Q: After
you were kicked by Pedro Poquiz on the different parts of your body, what
happened next?
A: I went
out of the canal, sir.
Q: Were
you able to go out of the canal?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
what happened after you went out of the canal?
A: Pedro
Poquiz ordered that I be killed, sir.
Q: To whom
did Pedro Poquiz order to kill you?
A: His
two (2) companions.
Q: You are
referring to Jeffrey Poquiz and Junior Olalia?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
what happened after Pedro Poquiz ordered his companions to kill you?
A: Jeffrey
Poquiz drew a balisong (29), sir.
Q: After
Jeffrey Poquiz drew his balisong
(29), what happened next?
A: He
stabbed me and I was hit at the back, sir.
Q: How
many times?
A: Several
times because the other thrust, I was not hit because I was able to evade, sir.
Q: What
happened after you were hit?
A: He was
moving back but he was still stabbing me and I was hit on my left elbow, sir.
Q: And
after you moved back and you were still hit on the left eyebrow, what happened
after that?
A: I was
pleading “that’s enough” (Witness is raising his two (2) hands) but I was still
stabbed and I was hit on the armpit, sir.
(witness pointing to his left armpit.)
Q: After
you were hit on your left armpit, what did you do if you did anything?
A: I fell
on the ground in a sitting position while my lady-companion shouted for help
saying “help us”, sir.
Q: How
about the three (3) accused Jeffrey Poquiz, Pedro Poquiz and Junior Olalia,
what did they do next?
A: They boarded
the tricycle and left, sir.[18]
.
Witness Roderick Poquiz, who was in
the place where the incident happened, corroborated Rommel’s testimony that
petitioner was one of the perpetrators of the crime:
Q: While
you were on that particular place, date and time, do you remember of any
unusual incident that happened, Mr. witness?
A: While
I was along the road, I heard a shout seeking for help, sir.
Q: What
did you do after you heard those shouts?
A: I went
to the place and to see what’s happening, sir.
Q: And
what did you see?
A: I saw
Rommel Camacho being mauled by Jeffrey Poquiz, Pedro Poquiz and Junior Olalia,
sir.
Q: Specifically,
what did Jeffrey Poquiz do to Rommel Camacho?
A: Jeffrey
Poquiz stabbed Rommel Camacho, sir.
Q: How
many times?
A: Many
times, sir, and Rommel Camacho was hit at the back, at the armpit (Witness
pointing to the left armpit and at the forehead near the eye).
Q: How
about Pedro Poquiz, what was his participation?
A: He
helped in mauling boxing and kicking Rommel Camacho, sir.
Q: How
about Junior Olalia, what did he do?
A: The
same with what Pedro Poquiz did, sir.
Q: You
said while ago that Jeffrey Poquiz stabbed Rommel Camacho several times, how
did Jeffrey stabbed Rommel?
A: Witness
raising his right hand in swaying position form back and forward at the level
of his armpit?
Q: What
weapon did he use in stabbing Rommel Camacho?
A: Balisong, sir.[19]
These detailed accounts eloquently
depict what transpired on the night in question. Only trustworthy witnesses could have
described such picturesque view of the incident which ineluctably points to
petitioner as one of the culprits in the wrongdoing. Given the sincere, trustworthy and positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses of the assailants and the latter’s
respective participation in the felony, petitioner’s denial is rendered
futile. Under settled jurisprudence, denial
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of witnesses. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense which
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.
Also, petitioner maintains that the
RTC’s findings on the attendance of conspiracy and on his participation in the
stabbing of Rommel are based on a glaring misapprehension of facts. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
he avers, merely indicate that he and his co-accused punched the aggrieved
party, but the same testimonies are absolutely silent as to his specific
participation in the stabbing of said victim. He insists that he did not exhibit any overt
act showing that he heeded the prodding of accused Pedro to kill Rommel. In fact, he dissociated himself from accused
Jeffrey when the latter drew his knife but it was too late for him to prevent
what his companions were about to do, since he had no idea what the two were
thinking.
There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.[20] Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit
a crime is not necessary.[21] Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of
the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which
indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action
and community of interest. It is
sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by
their acts a common intent or desire to attack, so that the act of one accused
becomes the act of all.[22]
In the case under consideration,
unity of design or objective can easily be drawn from the concerted acts of the
three assailants. Coming from a drinking
party, it is not far-fetched to infer that the three were easily agitated and
peeved by the straightforward answer of Rommel when asked to move to the side
of the road. They rushed towards the
target. Jeffrey, who was the first to get near the victim, right away hit the
victim’s face. Petitioner and Pedro
joined in the punching spree, throwing punches and pounding. As the victim tried to pick himself up, Pedro
ordered his companions to kill him. Jeffrey complied and dealt several stab
blows to the victim, while petitioner stood behind Jeffrey. Petitioner’s act of punching the victim indubitably
showed his desire to hurt him, which intent was also shared by Pedro and
Jeffrey. Moreover, his presence during
the stabbing served no other purpose than to ensure that no one else would come
to the aid of the victim and thereby stop their criminal design from being
accomplished. If indeed his desire was
merely to punch the victim, he could have told or stopped Jeffrey from stabbing
Rommel, since Jeffrey was just in front of him. However, instead of doing so, he remained
where he was. He committed no act
whatsoever to indicate that he did not concur with the act of stabbing or
killing the victim. Thus, their
conspiracy is evident, notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion that he did not participate
in the stabbing. Having shown that the
three were in conspiracy through their concerted acts, there is collective
criminal responsibility, since “all the conspirators are liable as principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation, because the act
of one is the act of all.”
Petitioner also disagrees with the
findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of treachery. He claims it
was error for said courts to rely on the location of one of the stab wounds
inflicted at the victim’s back as a basis for considering the attack as
treacherous. He states that the location
alone of the wound, as ruled consistently by this Court, does not prove
treachery. According to him, treachery
could not have existed, since it was the victim who instigated the fight when
he uttered insulting words against the assailants. This verbal altercation which immediately
preceded the attack, he insists, would negate the presence of treachery. He adds that the fact that the victim was able
to parry some stab blows and was able put up a fight indicates that the attack
was not sudden and unexpected.
The essence of treachery is a
deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape.[23] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is
sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[24] What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to
retaliate.[25] In the instant case, the victim who fixed his
attention to what he was doing and was unwary of what the assailants were about
to do, and without warning, was suddenly mauled by the three. When he was about to get out from the canal,
he was again hit. The barrage of bodily
harm inflicted on the victim culminated in the stabbing. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that
the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the
aggression. He was unarmed when he was
attacked. Indeed, all these
circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. While he was at some point able to avoid some
of the stab blows, that does not mean that the aggression was not sudden. The survival instinct, which is inherent in
every extant human being, may have worked well for the victim, or he might just
have been fortunate to escape some of the thrusts dealt him, but these things would
not negate the presence of treachery. Contrary
to petitioner’s claim, there was no heated argument preceding the
aggression. Victim Rommel Camacho merely
testified that when he was ordered by Jeffrey to get out of the way, he
answered that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. Jeffrey’s
order and the victim’s answer can hardly be considered as a heated argument.
Petitioner likewise makes much of the fact that the medical certificate
presented by the prosecution states nothing about the injuries sustained from
the punching. The seeming silence of the
medical certificate on the injuries caused by the punching does not at all
discount the evidence established by the prosecution of the act of mauling. The credible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses were sufficient to establish such fact.
The Office of the Solicitor General
recommends that petitioner and his companions be convicted of attempted murder
and not frustrated murder because the wounds inflicted were non-penetrating or
not mortal wounds.
We subscribe to such argument.
The rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only
attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution
that would have brought about death.[26] By commencing their criminal design by overt
acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by
reason of some cause other than their own desistance, petitioner and his
cohorts committed an attempted felony. In the instant case the three
assailants already commenced their attack with a manifest intent to kill by punching
Rommel countless times and when one of the malefactors stabbed him, but failed
to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will,
that is, the agility of the victim. Rommel sustained three stab wounds
which were characterized by the prosecution witness Dr. Mario Ferdinand Garcia
as non-penetrating or non-life-threatening wounds.
The penalty of consummated murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion perpetua to death. The imposable penalty should be reduced by
two degrees under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code because the appellant is
a minor. As reduced, the penalty is reclusion temporal. Reclusion
temporal should be reduced by two degrees lower, conformably to Article 51
of the Revised Penal Code, which is prision
correccional. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposable on a principal in an
attempted murder, where there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, is prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium
period. As applied, appellant shall
suffer the penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and twenty
(20) days of prision mayor, as
maximum.
As to the damages, we affirm the actual
damages awarded by the RTC to Dionisio Camacho in the amount of P12,356.75,
the same being supported by receipts.
One last note. Records reveal that the Court of Appeals
affirmed the RTC decision convicting Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr., Pedro Poquiz
and Jeffrey Poquiz of frustrated murder.
However, only petitioner Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. appealed the
judgment of conviction. Accused Pedro Poquiz
and Jeffrey Poquiz, for unknown reasons, did not seek to assail their
conviction before the Court. Since the
Court downgraded the crime committed by petitioner from frustrated murder to
attempted murder, and considering that the same set of facts were used to
convict Pedro Poquiz and Jeffrey Poquiz, the Court holds, that the favorable
verdict on petitioner’s appeal should likewise be extended to Pedro Poquiz and
Jeffrey Poquiz, since under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the present Rules on
criminal procedure, an “appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.”[27]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P12,356.75 as actual damages.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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
* Justice
Dante O. Tinga was designated to sit as additional member replacing Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Regalado E. Maambong with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring. Rollo, pp. 85-107.
[2] Penned by Judge Edelwina Catubig
Pastoral; rollo, pp. 30-36.
[3] Rollo, p. 30.
[4] Records, Vol. I, p. 84.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Records, Vol. I, p. 255.
[14]
[15]
[16] CA rollo, pp. 102-103.
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] People
v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341, 363 (2003).
[21] People
v. Panida, 369 Phil. 311, 341 (1999).
[22]
[23] People v. Belaro, 367 Phil. 90, 107 (1999).
[24]
[25] People v. Pidoy, 453 Phil. 221, 230 (2003).
[26] Velasco
v. People, G.R. No. 166479,
[27] Lim
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147524,