THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus – AMBROSIO GOLEAS y LIMUEL a.k.a. “CLEO” and ALVIN LACABA y LIMUEL, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No.
181467 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: August
6, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01880, dated
The facts of the case are as follows:
On
That on or about the 2nd
day of November 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping
each other, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation, treachery
and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of JERRY LOBOS y FAMANIAS, by then and there stabbing him several
times with a bladed weapon, hitting him on the chest and other parts of his
body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the
direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice
of the heirs of said JERRY LOBOS Y FAMANIAS.
When arraigned on
The prosecution presented as witnesses Jelly Javier (Javier),
Police Officer 1 Jose Taopo (PO1 Taopo)
and Jessica Lobos (Jessica). Their
testimonies, taken together, bear the following narrative:
On
Javier and some pedicab drivers brought Lobos to the Philippine Children’s
Medical Center (PCMC). PO1 Taopo arrived at the PCMC and asked Lobos to identify his
assailants. Lobos uttered “Leo.”[6] Subsequently, Jessica, Lobos’s
live-in partner, came to the PCMC. Lobos
told her that appellants attacked and stabbed him.[7]
Later that day, Lobos was transferred to the
The prosecution also proffered documentary
evidence to buttress the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1) joint-affidavit
of PO1 Taopo and other police officers (Exhibit A);[9]
(2) sworn statement of Jessica (Exhibit B);[10]
(3) sworn statement of Javier (Exhibit C);[11]
and (4) death certificate of Lobos (Exhibit D).[12]
For its part, the defense presented the
testimonies of appellants to refute the foregoing accusations. Appellants denied any involvement in the
incident and interposed the defense of alibi.
Goleas testified that from
Lacaba declared that he slept in his house on the
whole morning of
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision on P21,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00
as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court finds accused AMBROCIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL, a.k.a. CLEO and
ALVIN LACABA Y LIMUEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER punishable under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Both
accused are further ordered to pay the heirs of the late JERRY LOBOS the total
amount of Twenty One Thousand (Php21,000.00) Pesos as
actual damages, Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, Fifty
Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and Twenty Five Thousand
(Php25,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages.
Both
accused shall be credited in the service of the full time during which they had
undergone preventive imprisonment. Let a
mitimus order be issued for service of sentence.[15]
Appellants appealed the RTC Decision to the
Court of Appeals. On
Hence, the lower court
correctly found that treachery attended the killing of Lobos which makes
accused-appellants Goleas and Lacaba
guilty of murder.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Decision dated
Before us, appellants assigned the following
errors:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY
OF KILLING JERRY LOBOS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THEM FOR MURDER
INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE CONSIDERING THAT NEITHER THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY NOR PREMEDITATION WAS DULY ESTABLISHED.[17]
Anent the first assigned error, appellants put
in issue the credibility of Javier’s testimony. They maintain that the testimony of Javier
regarding the fact that he saw them hold and stab Lobos is incredible. Javier testified that he was fifteen to twenty
meters away from the scene when the incident occurred. At such distance, and considering that there
were people around, it was impossible for Javier to have identified the
attackers of Lobos.[18]
Appellants also assert that Lobos pointed to a
certain “Leo” as the one who stabbed him.[19]
In resolving issues pertaining
to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following
well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings
of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood
or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect
the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the
opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand;
and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a
credible witness.[20]
After
carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing
guidelines to this case, we find no cogent reason to overturn the RTC’s ruling finding Javier’s testimony credible. As an eyewitness to the incident, Javier positively
identified appellant Lacaba as the one who held both
arms of Lobos; and appellant Goleas as the one who
repeatedly stabbed Lobos. His direct
account of how appellants helped one another in killing Lobos is candid and
convincing, thus:
Q Mr. Witness, can you please tell us where you were on
A I was at the store together with my friends
sir.
Q And, where was that store located, Mr. Witness?
A It was in front of the
Q And, where is that
A It was at
Q Of what barangay?
A Barangay Pagasa
sir.
Q During that time and place Mr. Witness, can you please tell
us what was that unusual incident that happened?
A I saw Jerry coming, boarding with his pedicab.
Q And, do you know the surname of Jerry?
A Jerry Lobos sir.
Q You said that Jerry was boarded at his pedicab,
whereat?
A He was heading towards us sir.
Q And, while Jerry heading towards you what happened, if any?
A When he was in front of us his passenger alighted and waved
his [Lobos] hand to us.
Q And, what happened next after his passenger alighted from
his pedicab?
A He was not yet far from us when Jerry was blocked by Alvin
and Ambrosio.
Q And what happened after he was blocked by Alvin and Ambrosio?
A When [sic]
Q Who held the arms of Jerry?
A It was Alvin who held the hands of Jerry sir.
Q And, how did he held the arms of Jerry?
A He held his two arms sir.
Q What is the position of
A He was in front of Jerry sir.
Q When
A He suddenly stabbed Jerry Lu [Lobos] sir.
Q Who stabbed Jerry Lobos?
A Ambrosio Goleas
sir.
Q What happened to Jerry after he was stabbed?
A He struggled sir.
Q And, how many times did Ambrosio
stab Jerry?
A Many times sir.
Q And, do you know what kind of instrument or weapon used to
stab Jerry?
A I did not see sir but I saw him stabbed Jerry.
Q And, how do you know that you said, that it was Ambrosio who stabbed Jerry?
A Yes sir.
Q And, it was Alvin who held both arms of Jerry?
A Yes sir.
Q If you will see these people again would you be able to
identify them?
A Yes sir.
Q Are they present here inside the courtroom?
A Yes sir.
Q If they are present inside the courtroom will you please
step down from the witness stand and tap the shoulder of these persons?
COURT INTERPRETER:
At this juncture, the witness is tapping the shoulder of
a male person, wearing a yellow T-Shirt and when asked his name he answered Ambrosio Goleas.
The witness also tapped the shoulder of the second man
wearing a yellow T-shirt and when asked his name he answered Alvin Lajaba [Lacaba].
FISCAL ANCHETA: (To continue)
Q What happened after Jerry was stabbed by Ambrosio?
A They both ran away sir.[21]
It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if
positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support a conviction
even in the charge of murder.[22]
The
foregoing testimonies are consistent with the documentary evidence submitted by
the prosecution. The RTC and the Court
of Appeals found the testimonies of Javier, PO1 Taopo
and Jessica to be truthful and unequivocal and, as such, prevailed over the
denials and alibis of appellants. Both
courts also found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
It is
not incredible for Javier to have identified appellants at a distance of 15-20
meters. Such distance was not that far
as to blur Javier’s vision of appellants during the incident. In several cases we have decided,[23]
the distance of the eyewitness from the crime scene was 15-20 meters away and
even more, nevertheless, the eyewitness’ identification of the malefactors was
found to be credible, accurate and unmistaken.
Further, as aptly
observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, Javier was familiar with the
faces[24]
of appellants having known them since childhood,[25]
and Javier had a good vision of appellants during the incident since it
occurred at about 11:30 a.m.[26]
True, Lobos mentioned a certain “Leo” to PO1 Taopo
as his assailant. The records, however,
show that the “Leo” being referred to by Lobos was appellant Goleas.[27]
Javier testified that appellant Goleas was also known by his nickname “Cleo.”[28]
It should be noted that Lobos sustained
multiple stab wounds and was catching his breath when he uttered the nickname
of appellant Goleas to PO1 Taopo.
Thus, understandably, he could not have
spoken clearly in such difficult situation.
Apropos the second assigned error, appellants argue that there was no
treachery in the killing of Lobos because (1) the killing was done in broad
daylight and in the presence of several individuals; (2) Lobos was already forewarned
of an impending danger to his life since he saw his assailants approaching; (3)
there is no evidence that Lobos was cornered; and (4) there was no proof
showing that a specific form of attack was deliberately employed to ensure the
killing of Lobos.[29]
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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any
defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make. The essence of treachery is the deliberate
and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the
attack. Two essential elements are
required in order that treachery can 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; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of
means, methods or manner of execution.
Further, this aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the
information and duly proven.[30]
Lobos was casually driving a pedicab when
appellants suddenly appeared and blocked his path. To ensure the success of their criminal design,
appellant Lacaba held both arms of Lobos while
appellant Goleas viciously and repeatedly stabbed
Lobos. When Lobos fell on the ground,
the appellants ran away.[31]
It is clear that Lobos was defenseless
during the attack as his hands were restrained by appellant Lacaba,
facilitating the repeated stabbing of Lobos by appellant Goleas.
Verily, the manner in which Lobos was
restrained and assaulted was deliberately and consciously adopted by the
appellants to ensure his death.
The fact that the killing was done in broad daylight, in the presence
of many people and that Lobos saw his assailants approaching, do not negate
treachery. We have held that these circumstances do not
abrogate treachery as long as the attack was executed in such a manner as to
make it impossible for the victim to retaliate or to defend himself.[32]
As earlier discussed, both arms of Lobos
were immediately held by appellant Lacaba to prevent
him from retaliating and, at the same time, to facilitate his stabbing by
appellant Goleas. In such a helpless situation, it was impossible
for Lobos to repel the attack or escape.
We have observed that the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength were also alleged in the
information. It is a rule of evidence
that an aggravating circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.[33]
For evident premeditation to be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance, the following elements must be 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 the will if he desired to hearken to its warning.[34]
In the case at bar, no proof was adduced to prove the foregoing
elements. Thus, the RTC correctly found
that evident premeditation could not be appreciated in the case at bar.
The RTC also properly disregarded the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength because it is absorbed and inherent in treachery.[35] As such, it cannot be separately appreciated
as an independent aggravating circumstance.[36]
We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties imposed by
the RTC on appellants.
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 considered as a qualifying
circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be imposed.[37] Hence, the RTC acted accordingly in sentencing
appellants to reclusion perpetua.
The
award of civil indemnity for the death of Lobos in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00
were proper since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and
allegation other than the death of the victim.[38]
Likewise,
the award of actual damages in the amount of P21,000.00
was in order since this was supported by the records.[39] The heirs of Lobos are also entitled to exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000.00 since the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[40]
To obviate
any question or confusion as regards the penalties imposed, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is imposed on each of the appellants and they are jointly and severally liable for
the aforementioned damages awarded by the RTC.
WHEREFORE, after due deliberation,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17 July 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01880 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate Justice
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 |
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’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 Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando
with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Enrico
A. Lanzanas, concurring; rollo, pp.
2-11.
[2] Penned by Judge Ma. Theresa L. Dela Torre-Yadao; records, pp.
147-155.
[3] Records,
p. 1.
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9] Records,
p. 96.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] Records,
p. 155.
[16] Rollo, p. 10.
[17] CA
rollo,
p. 44.
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Galido,
G.R. Nos. 148689-92,
[21] TSN,
[22]
[23] People v. Manalad,
436 Phil. 37, 45 (2002); People v. Peleras,
417 Phil. 536, 548 (2001); People v. De
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27] Records,
pp. 4 and 96-100.
[28] TSN,
[29] CA
rollo,
pp. 49-51.
[30] Rules of Court, Rule
110, Sections 8 and 9; Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479,
[31] Mendoza v. People, supra note 22.
[32] People v. Aguila,
G.R. No. 171017, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 658; People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503
SCRA 715, 735; People v. Guzman, G.R.
No. 169246, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 156, 174.
[33] People v. Discalsota,
430 Phil. 406, 416 (2002).
[34] Supra
note 24.
[35] People v. Pirame,
384 Phil. 286, 300 (2000).
[36]
[37] People v. Guzman, supra note 32.
[38] People v. Ducabo,
G.R. No. 175594,
[39] Records,
p. 155; TSN,
[40] People v. Ducabo,
supra note 38 at 476-477.