THIRD DIVISION
|
people of the Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - emelio
tolentino y estrella and jesus Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 176385 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00880 which affirmed the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64, finding appellants Emelio E. Tolentino and Jesus M.
Trinidad, guilty of the crime of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder.
On
Criminal
Case No. 98-0258
For: Murder
That on or about 11:10 o’clock in the evening, more or
less, on the 29th day of August, 1997, at Purok
7, Barangay San Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating,
and helping each other to attain a common purpose, with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, while armed with firearms, assault,
attack, and use personal violence upon one JOSITA FERNANDEZ-NOVELO, by then and
there shooting the said victim on her face causing upon the latter serious and
mortal wounds which were the direct and proximate cause of the death of the
victim to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.
That the commission of the offense is attended by
aggravating circumstance of nighttime purposely sought to facilitate the same
and dwelling.
Criminal
Case No. 98-0260
For: Frustrated
Murder
That
on or about 11:10 in the evening of the 29th day of August, 1997, at
Purok 7, Barangay San
Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other to attain a common
purpose, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with
intent to kill, while armed with firearms and knife, and with treachery,
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, and use
personal violence upon one ANTONIO BEA, by then and there, poking a firearm at
said private offended party, tying his hands with a rope and thereafter,
stabbing said victim on different parts of his body, thus causing upon the
latter serious and mortal wounds capable of causing death, hence, performing
all the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of murder as a
consequence, but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of their (accused) will, that is, by the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to said victim which prevented his death, to the damage and
prejudice of herein private complainant.
Criminal Case No.
98-0270
For: Frustrated Murder
That on or about 11:10 o’clock in the evening of
August 29, 1997 at the fishpond at Purok 7, Barangay San Vicente, municipality of Santa Elena, province
of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to kill with
treachery and evident premeditation and while armed with long firearms and 12
gauge shot gun, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, kick and strike one ANTONIO NOVELO with a shotgun, hitting him on the
different parts of his body and then shot one said Antonio Novelo
but missed, which ordinarily would cause the death of Antonio Novelo thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of Murder
as a consequence, but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of their will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance
rendered to said Antonio Novelo, which prevented his
death, to his damage and prejudice.[3]
During the arraignment on
The prosecution presented the following
witnesses and their respective testimonies: (1) Antonio Bea testified as an
eyewitness on the killing of Josita Novelo and narrated his own near death experience; (2) Ricardo
Basila testified that he saw the accused escorting Antonio
Bea whose hands were tied and disclosed that he was also subjected to violent
acts of the accused. He claimed that he later
heard a gunshot coming from Josita Novelo’s house; (3) Wilfredo Llarena, a Barangay Captain,
testified that several persons went to his house carrying an injured Antonio
Bea and they proceeded to the hospital.
He later reported the incident to the police officers; (4) Antonio Novelo testified that the accused went to the house of Josita Novelo and attempted to
kill him; (5) Dr. Noli Bayani,
the rural health physician of Sta. Elena, Camarines
Norte, conducted a post-mortem examination of the body of Josita
Novelo; (6) Belen Avellera
testified on the existence of the medical records of Antonio Bea; (7) SPO2 Nelson
Ricierra testified that Wilfredo
Llarena reported to him the stabbing and the killing
incidents and that he was a member of the team who made a follow-up
investigation of the report; (8) Rogelio
Novelo testified that Jesus Trinidad used to be his
partner in operating a fishpond and that their partnership turned sour as Jesus
Trinidad harvested the yields of the fishpond without his consent; (9) Dr.
Rolando C. Victoria, a Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, Manila, conducted an
autopsy of the body of Josita Novelo.
As documentary evidence, the
prosecution offered the following: Exhibit “A” - a photograph of the bloody
body of Josita Novelo; Exhibit “A-1” - the “x” mark on the face of Josita Novelo; Exhibit “B” – a photograph
showing the victim prostrate on the ground; Exhibits “C” and “D” - photographs
of the house where the incident of killing took place; Exhibit “E” - the medical certificate of Antonio Bea;
Exhibit “F” - the affidavit of Antonio Bea; Exhibit “G” - the affidavit of
Ricardo Basila; Exhibit “H” - the affidavit of
Antonio Novelo; Exhibit “I” - the medical certificate
of Antonio Novelo; Exhibit “J” - the death
certificate of Josita Novelo
showing the result of the post-mortem examination; and Exhibit “K” - the NBI
autopsy report.
The collective evidence adduced by
the prosecution shows that sometime in January 1997, Rogelio Novelo, the surviving spouse of the deceased-victim Josita Novelo, and appellant
Jesus Trinidad agreed to manage and operate a rented fishpond located at Baranggay San Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines
Norte. Sometime in April of the same year, when the fishpond was yielding its
first harvest, Rogelio Novelo and his wife Josita brought the produce to P9,700.00 as his share in the partnership. After their partnership with appellant
On
The assailants, together with Antonio
Bea, proceeded to the house of the spouses Novelo
situated alongside the fishpond which was more or less 100 meters from Basila’s house.[11] When they arrived at the Novelo
house, Jesus Trinidad called Josita Novelo to get out of the house.[12] Josita Novelo went out of the house holding a light.[13] Jesus Trinidad quickly grabbed Josita Novelo by her mouth and
the two of them went inside the house together with Emelio
Tolentino, Jesus Trinidad and Antonio Bea. From inside the house, Emelio
Tolentino and Jesus Trinidad took Antonio Bea to
another door leading outside and chanced upon Antonio Novelo,
Rogelio Novelo’s brother.[14] Immediately, Jesus Trinidad and Emelio Tolentino kicked Antonio Novelo causing the latter to fall right into the fishpond
and disappear from sight.[15] Antonio Bea was then tied to the door from
the waist down with Emelio Tolentino
guarding him.[16] In that position, Antonio Bea saw Josita Novelo being mauled by
Jesus Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. All of a sudden, Jesus Trinidad shot Josita Novelo on the left cheek
with a gun.[17] Immediately
after, Emelio Tolentino
entered the house and slashed the face of Josita with
a jungle bolo.[18] The three assailants untied the binding on
Antonio Bea’s feet while leaving the ropes tied behind his back.[19] They left Novelo’s
house proceeding towards the fishpond watergate which
was about three meters from the house. Emelio Tolentino led the way, followed by Bea, with Jesus and Arnel Trinidad taking the rear. Without warning, Emelio
Tolentino stabbed Antonio Bea four times in the
stomach with the former’s jungle bolo. Antonio Bea fell into the fishpond.
The assailants left the victim and
boarded a boat which was operated by Jimmy Trinidad. Injured and bleeding, Antonio Bea managed to
untie his hands and swim across the river to ask for help. He received help from the people of Purok 7 and was brought to the house of the Barangay Captain Wilfredo Llarena in a hammock.[20] The barangay
captain then brought the victim to a hospital. From the hospital, Barangay Captain Wilfredo Llarena, along with some members of the police, went to the
house of spouses Novelo and came upon the dead body
of Josita Novelo.[21]
Dr. Noli Bayani, the Rural Health Physician of Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, conducted an autopsy of the body and found
that the cause of Josita Novelo’s
death was “[h]ypovolemic
shock secondary to gunshot wounds and lacerated wound.”[22] Dr. Rolando C. Victoria, a Medico-Legal
Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who also conducted an autopsy
on the body of the deceased, testified that the shotgun wound at the left side
of the face of the victim caused her death.[23]
The medical certificate of Antonio
Bea shows that the four stab wounds inflicted on him caused damage to his
intestines.[24]
On
On
On
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-0258
For: MURDER
WHEREFORE,
finding accused EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, they are hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH. They are also ordered to pay the heirs of the
victim, Josita Novelo, the
amount of P75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-0260
For : FRUSTRATED MURDER
WHEREFORE,
finding accused EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, they are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. They are also ordered to pay their victim,
Antonio Bea the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.[29]
The trial court, however, acquitted
appellants of the crime of frustrated murder allegedly committed against
Antonio Novelo in Criminal Case No. 98-0270.
On
In an Order[31]
dated
The trial court ordered the
transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of
the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[32]
The Court of Appeals, on
WHEREFORE, the decision dated
(1)
In Criminal Case
No. 98-0258, accused –appellants are hereby sentenced each to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
and in addition, to pay the heirs of the victim Josita
Fernandez Novelo the amount of P50,000 as
civil indemnity for her death; P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000
representing exemplary damages.
(2)
In Criminal Case
No. 98-0260, accused-appellants are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment ranging from 8 years of prision mayor
(minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum. Moreover, they are ordered to pay the victim
Antonio Bea the amount of P25,000 as temperate damages; P30,000
as moral damages, P30,000 as civil indemnity and P25,000 as
exemplary damages.[33]
Hence, the instant case.
In their brief, the appellants assign
the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS TO PRESENT DEFENSE EVIDENCE AFTER THE DENIAL OF THE DEMURRER
TO EVIDENCE CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
III
GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE
GUILTY OF INFLICTING INJURY ON ANTONIO BEA, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING
THEM GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF FRUSTRATED MURDER ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTION FAILED
TO PROVE THAT BEA’S WOUNDS WERE MORTAL.[34]
Before proceeding to the first and
third assignment of errors, the Court deems it proper to first deal with the
second assignment.
Appellants, as earlier mentioned,
urge this Court to revisit the issue as to the propriety of the trial court’s
Order dated 17 May 2000 denying the Demurrer to Evidence and preventing them
from presenting evidence due to their failure to seek leave of court prior to
the filing of the demurrer to evidence.
It must be pointed out that the issue
on the validity of the trial court’s order dated
Law of the case has been defined as
the opinion delivered on a former appeal.[35] More specifically, it means that whatever is already
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the
same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether
correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[36]
Indeed, courts must adhere thereto because public policy, judicial orderliness
and economy require such stability in the final judgments of courts or
tribunals of competent jurisdiction.[37]
Besides, under Section 15, Rule 119
of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is stated that when an accused
files a demurrer to evidence without leave of court and the same is denied, he
waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence of the prosecution, thus:
SEC. 15. Demurrer
to evidence. – After the prosecution has rested its case, the court may
dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own
initiative after giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard; or (2) on
motion of the accused filed with prior leave of court.
If the Court denies the motion for dismissal, the
accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the accused files such motion to dismiss without express leave of
court, he waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
The filing of a demurrer to evidence
without leave of court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present
evidence for the accused.[38] The rationale for this rule is that when the
accused moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the
prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said evidence is
insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any
evidence is negated.[39] An accused cannot be allowed to wager on the
outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever
dictated by convenience.[40] The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid
the dilatory practice of filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the
evidence and, after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to
present its evidence.[41] Thus, when the trial court disallowed the
appellants to present evidence on their behalf, it properly applied Section 15,
Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Not even the gravity of the penalty for a
particular offense can change this rule.
As stressed by this Court:
The filing of the demurrer to evidence without leave
of court and its subsequent denial results in the submission of the case for
judgment on the basis of the evidence on record. Considering
that the governing rules on demurrer to evidence is a fundamental component of
criminal procedure, respondent judge had the obligation to observe the same,
regardless of the gravity of the offense charged. It is not for him to grant concessions to the
accused who failed to obtain prior leave of court. The rule is clear that upon the denial of the
demurrer to evidence in this case, the accused, who failed to ask for leave of
court, shall waive the right to present evidence in his behalf.[42]
Going back to the first issue, appellants
take exception with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence before it and
in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Appellants maintain that considering the
lateness of the hour when the incident took place, and the fact that it was
dark, witness Antonio Bea could not have seen clearly the faces of his
attackers and that of the deceased Josita Novelo. Antoio Bea, according to appellants, is incompetent to
testify on matters relating to what was done to the late Josita
Novelo because he was tied from the waist down to the
door outside the house, thus, he could not have seen what had happened inside
the house where the deceased was brutally attacked.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the
matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant’s
demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[43] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the
credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of
witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked
or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the
case.[44]
In the instant case, prosecution
witness Antonio Bea steadfastly pointed to appellants and their companions as
the malefactors. Such identification was
detailed as follows:
Q: Mr.
Witness, do you know a certain Jesus Trinidad y Maravilla?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: A
certain Emelio Tolentino y Estrella, do you know a person with such name?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: These
persons that I made mention to you since when have you known them?
A: For
almost ten (10) years.
Q: And
because of that length of time you could not possibly [be] mistaken as to their
identity?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: On
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Will
you please tell us what is that incident that you recalled?
A: There
was somebody that called me, sir.
x x x x
Q: When
you heard somebody called you on that occasion, what did you do?
A: I
flash[ed] a light to the Prensa, sir.
x x x x
Q: x x x [W]hat happened next?
A: Somebody
hold (sic) my hand sir.
Q: Did you
recognize who held your hand?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who?
A: Emelio Tolentino.
x x x x
Q: Mr.
Witness, what happened next after Emelio Tolentino held your hand?
A: He
pulled me outside, sir.
Q: And
what happened next after you were pulled outside your house?
A: I am (sic)
telling him I have no fault.
x x x x
Q: Nang oras na iyon sino
pa ang nakita mo kung mayroon man?
A: Jesus
Trinidad, sir.
Q: Who
else if any?
A: Arnel Trinidad, sir.
Q: What
happened after you told them you have (sic) no fault?
A: He
kicked me, sir.
Q: Who
kicked you in particular?
A: Jesus
Trinidad, sir.[45]
Cross-examination:
Q: Who
was the person who held you?
A: Emelio Tolentino, sir.
Q: How did
you recognize him to be Emelio Tolentino?
A: When I
focused the light, I saw them because of the light, wearing bonnet and their
faces were exposed to the light.
Q: You
said “them”, how many were they?
A: Jesus
Trinidad, Emelio Tolentino
and Arnel Trinidad, sir.[46]
The identification of witness Antonio
Bea of the perpetrators of the crimes evinces factual truth of what really
occurred on that fateful night. He could
not have been mistaken as to the identity of the appellants since, at that time,
he has known them personally for ten (10) years already. Their faces were illuminated by the
flashlight when witness Antonio Bea focused the same in their direction. Also, Bea’s identification of the assailants
was corroborated by Ricardo Basila and Antionio Novelo who testified
that they likewise suffered violent acts from the malefactors during the
incident.
Although Antonio Bea was tied at the
door outside the house of Josita Novelo,
he declared with clarity the circumstances leading to the killing of Josita and his near-death experience, viz:
Q: x x x Mr. Witness, where were you
when you said you went out of the house let’s go back to the situation wherein
you entered the house of Josita Novelo
in one door and then you exited on the other and there you said the other two,
Jesus Trinidad and Emelio Tolentino
saw Antonio Novelo, where you at that time?
A: I was
with them sir, because they are holding the other end of the rope.
Q: And
what did they do to you afterwards?
A: They
tied me at the door, sir.
Q: That
door where you exited?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: From
the place you were tied did you see Josita Novelo?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
while you were tied on that occasion what happened to Josita
Novelo?
A: They
are asking Josita Novelo
where was it placed?
Q: Do you
know what were they asking?
x x x x
Q: Did you
hear the reply of Josita Novelo,
if any?
A: I
cannot hear the reply of Josita Novelo
because they are mauling her or “binubugbog nila.”
Q: Who in
particular was mauling Josita Novelo?
A: Jesus
Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad, sir.
Q: What
about Emelio Tolentino,
what was he doing?
A: He is
outside guarding me, sir.
Q: What
happened after Josita Novelo
was mauled by these two you mentioned?
A: Suddenly,
Jesus Trinidad shot Josita Novelo.
Q: Did you
see where Josita Novelo was
hit?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
was she hit, if you have seen?
A: On the
left cheek which exited at the back of her head.
Q: After
they have shot Josita Novelo,
what did they do next?
A: They
get (sic) out, sir.
x x x x
Q: What
about Emelio Tolentino,
what did he do if any?
A: Emelio Tolentino entered the
house and then slashed the face of Josita Novelo.
Court: Anong ginamit? Nakita mo?
A: Jungle
bolo.
Q: Saan? Sa kanan o kaliwa?
A: Sa kaliwa, po.
x x x x
Q: Now, Mr.
Witness, you said that after Josita Novelo was shot by Jesus Trinidad, and Emelio
Tolentino went inside the house and put an X mark on
the face of that dead woman, what happened next?
A: They
untied me, sir.
Q: And
what did they do after untying you?
A: They
passed through the prensa and stabbed me, sir.
Q: Mr.
witness, you said you were untied is it (sic) not?
A: Yes,
sir, sa paa lang.
x x x x
Q: So in
other words from the time you were untied you walked towards that ‘prensa’ for about three (3) meters?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
you walked, who was ahead of you, if any?
A: Emelio Tolentino, sir.
Q: Were
your hands still tied?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
about Tolentino who was ahead of you what was he
doing?
A: He has
a jungle bolo sir, and stabbed me.
x x x x
Q: How
many times were you stabbed on that occasion?
A: Four
times, sir.[47]
The foregoing testimony can only be
told by a person who had really witnessed the incident and had been subjected
to personal violence from the perpetrators, hence, such testimony is entitled
to full faith and credit. Furthermore,
Bea’s testimony jibed with the physical evidence. The nature of the wound of the deceased was
affirmed by the medical experts to be a result of a gunshot wound. The location of the wounds found on Josita Novelo’s face as described
by witness Bea was consistent with the documentary evidence, i.e., photographs, autopsy result and
the physical examination of the corpse of the victim. All these tend to dispel any doubt that
witness Bea would have concocted the whole story. The prosecution successfully established
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants and their cohorts killed Josita Novelo.
Anent the third issue, appellants
argue that in the stabbing of Antonio Bea, they should have been liable only
for attempted murder and not frustrated murder since the prosecution failed to
prove, due to its failure to present the attending physician, that the injury
suffered by the victim was fatal.
A crime is frustrated when the
offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the
consummation of the crime.[48] The offender has passed the subjective phase
in the commission of the crime.[49] Subjectively, the crime is complete.[50] Nothing interrupted the offender while
passing through the subjective phase. He
did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime was not consummated by
reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender.[51] In homicide cases, the offender is said to
have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim
is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention
or attendance.[52]
In the instant case, the prosecution
established that Antonio Bea sustained four stab wounds inflicted by Emelio Tolentino which caused
damage to the victim’s abdomen resulting in massive blood loss. The victim was hospitalized for two months
because of these injuries.[53] In fact, at the trial, the victim showed the
scars in his abdomen. All these tend to
show the seriousness of the wounds suffered by the victim and which would have
caused his death had it not been for the timely medical intervention.
The trial court, in assessing the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution, made this appropriate observation:
In the instant cases, the corroborative testimonies of
prosecution witnesses, Antonio Bea, Ricardo Basila
and Antonio Novelo, positively identifying the accused
as the perpetrators of the crime satisfactorily persuade the Court. x x x.
x x x
x
Witness Antonio Bea testified that accused Jesus Trinidad
and Emelio Tolentino are
known to him for almost ten (10) years x x x.
Likewise, witness Antonio Novelo,
on cross-examination, testified that he recognized the accused because their
voices are very familiar to him being neighbors and he had known the accused
for a long time.
x x x
x
The identification of an accused through his voice is
acceptable, particulary if the witness knows the
accused personally.
The sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable
means of identification where it is established that the witness and the
accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.[54]
Worth stressing is that the Court of
Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC.
The settled rule is that when the trial court’s findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and
binding upon this Court.[55] We find no cogent reason to veer away from
their findings.
In an effort to exculpate themselves
from the charges, appellants identified inconsistent statements of witness Bea
such as the latter’s declaration that he was a friend of Jesus Trinidad which
is contradictory to his earlier testimony the he got mad at Jesus Trinidad four
months prior to the incident. They also
make an issue of the statement of Bea during the cross-examination wherein he
made mention that a gun was poked at him, which declaration is missing in the
direct examination.
These inconsistencies are very
trivial and insignificant. Minor inconsistencies do not warrant rejection of
the entire testimony nor the reversal of judgment.[56] Accuracy in accounts had never been applied
as a standard to which the credibility of witnesses are tested since it is
undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions
and the passage of time.[57] Witness Bea’s inconsistencies rather enhance
truthfulness for it erases suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
The RTC convicted the appellants of
murder in Criminal Case No. 98-0258 for the killing of Josita
Novelo and frustrated murder for the assault of Antonio
Bea in Criminal Case No. 98-0260 by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery and generic aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling.
The RTC is correct in appreciating
the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of Josita
Novelo and in the stabbing of Antonio Bea.
The essence of treachery is a
deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape.[58] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is
sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[59] What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to
retaliate.[60]
In the killing of Josita
Novelo, the victim was at her home when someone
called her. When the victim went
outside, suddenly Jesus Trinidad held her.
Thereafter, Jesus Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad
mauled Josita Novelo.
Without warning, Jesus Trinidad shot the helpless victim on the cheek. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that
the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the
aggression. She was unarmed when she was
attacked. Indeed, all these
circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous.
The stabbing of Antonio Bea was also
attended with treachery. While Bea,
whose hands were tied behind his back, and the assailants were walking along
the dike, Emelio Tolentino
unexpectedly stabbed the victim four times.
The victim could not put up a defense as the attack was swift and he was
not in the position to repel the same since his hands were tied.
Also affirmed is the ruling of the
RTC appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of
dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258.
Evidence shows that Josita Novelo
was killed in her own house. When the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not
given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[61] Here, the crime was committed inside the house
of the deceased victim. Dwelling is
considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law
accords to human abode.[62] He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or
do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[63]
Dwelling, however, cannot be
appreciated in Criminal Case No. 98-0260 considering that the same was not
alleged in the information. Under
Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information and proved otherwise; even if proved but not
alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by the Court in
the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused.[64]
The aggravating circumstance of
nighttime in both cases was improperly appreciated by the RTC. Nighttime is considered an aggravating
circumstance only when it is sought to prevent the accused from being
recognized or to ensure their escape.
There must be proof that this was intentionally sought to ensure the
commission of the crime and that the perpetrators took advantage of it. Although
the crime was committed at nighttime, there is no evidence that the appellants
and their companions took advantage of nighttime or that nighttime facilitated
the commission of the crime.
Proceeding now to the appropriate
penalty, in Criminal Case No. 98-0258, it must be borne in mind that the
prosecution successfully established the presence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery in the killing of Josita Novelo. With this, the
crime committed by the appellants is murder in accordance with Article 248. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty imposed should be in its maximum,
which is death.[65]
In
view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
As to damages, when death occurs due
to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for
the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages;
(4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6)
interest, in proper cases.[68]
The RTC awarded P75,000.00 in favor
of the heirs of Josita Novelo
as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals
reduced the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to
the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime. Based on current jurisprudence,
the RTC award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Josita Novelo is in order.[69]
The RTC also correctly awarded moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the
victim. This does not require allegation
and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.[70] Article
2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, as in this
case.[71] To deter future similar transgressions, the
Court finds that an award of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages is proper.
In Criminal Case No. 98-060, the RTC
imposed upon the appellants the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for the crime of frustrated murder. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty to
8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years and 8
months of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
Under Article 61, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty of frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua
to death, which is reclusion temporal.[72] Reclusion
temporal has a range of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal,
the penalty for the crime taking into account any modifying circumstances in
the commission of the crime.[73] The minimum of the indeterminate penalty
shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor
which is one degree lower than reclusion
temporal. Since there is no
modifying circumstance in the commission of the frustrated murder, an
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and 1 day of prision mayor as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum[74]
may be considered reasonable for the frustrated murder under the facts of this
case.
As to the award of actual damages,
the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate Antonio Bea’s
hospitalization expenses. Nonetheless,
in light of the fact that Antonio was actually hospitalized and operated upon,
this Court deems it prudent to award P20,000.00 as temperate damages
since it cannot be denied that he suffered pecuniary loss. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of
P30,000.00 is in order.[75] Moreover, Antonio is also entitled to moral
damages which this Court hereby awards in the amount of P40,000.00. Although there was no testimony on the moral
damages that he sustained, the medical certificate issued by the hospital indicated that Antonio Bea
sustained serious stab injuries inflicted by appellants. It is sufficient basis to award moral damages
as ordinary human experience and common sense dictate that such wounds
inflicted on Antonio Bea would naturally cause physical suffering, fright, serious
anxiety, moral shock, and similar injury.[76] Finally, the award in the amount of P25,000.00
as exemplary damages is also in order considering that the crime was attended
by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either
qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is
justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[77] This kind of damage is intended to serve as
deterrent to serious wrong-doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of
outrageous conduct.[78]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
(1) In Criminal Case No. 98-0258, appellants
are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim Josita Novelo the amount of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00
representing exemplary damages.
(2) In Criminal
Case No. 98-0260, for the crime of Frustrated Murder, appellants are sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal as maximum. In addition, appellants
are ordered to pay jointly and severally the victim Antonio Bea the amount of P40,000.00
as moral damages, P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as
temperate damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary 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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] Penned by Judge Franco T. Falcon.
CA rollo, pp. 15-29.
[3] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[4] Records, p. 56.
[5] TSN ,
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] Rollo, p. 16.
[25]
[26] Records, pp. 199-202.
[27]
[28] SEC.
15. Demurrer to evidence. – After the
prosecution has rested its case, the court may dismiss the case on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution an opportunity to be heard; or (2) on motion of the accused filed
with prior leave of court.
If
the Court denies the motion for dismissal, the accused may adduce evidence in
his defense. When the accused files such
motion to dismiss without express leave of court, he waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[33] Rollo, p. 17.
[34] CA rollo, pp. 47-48.
[35] Private
Enterprise Corp. v. Magada, G.R. No. 149489,
[36]
[37]
[38] People v. Sayaboc, 464 Phil. 824, 844 (2004).
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42] Osumo v. Serrano, 429 Phil. 626, 632 (2002).
[43] People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
[44] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 838-839 (2002).
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47] TSN,
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] Rollo, p. 16.
[54] Records, pp. 803-804.
[55] People
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912,
[56] People
v. Molina, 370 Phil. 546, 554-555 (1999).
[57]
[58] People v. Belaro, 367 Phil. 90, 107 (1999).
[59]
[60] People v. Pidoy, 453 Phil. 221, 230 (2003).
[61] People v. Prades, 355 Phil. 150, 168 (1998).
[62] People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445, 464 (1999).
[63]
[64] People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 427 (2003).
[65] People v. Paraiso, supra note 62 at 465.
[66] People
v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077,
[67]
[68] People
v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271,
[69] People
v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471,
[70] People
v. Caraig, G.R. No. 116224-27,
[71] People v. Buban, supra note 69 at 134.
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75] People v. Castillo, 426 Phil. 752, 768-769 (2002).
[76] People v. Ibañez, 455 Phil. 133, 167-168 (2003).
[77]
[78]