THIRD DIVISION
|
people of the
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - charlie
villa, jr.,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 179278 Present: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J., Acting Chairperson, TINGA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] dated
13 March 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00859 which
affirmed the Decision[2] dated
9 October 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Fourth
Judicial Region, Branch 35, finding appellant Charlie Villa, Jr. guilty of the
crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In an Information dated
That sometime on or about 18 July 1997 at around 3:00
o’clock in the morning, in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, armed with a brass knuckle, and
acting with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and assault one
Rodolfo Arevalo y Gamboa by punching him on the left nape with the use of the
hand where he was wearing the brass knuckle thereby resulting in a skull
fracture which caused the death of said Rodolfo Arevalo y Gamboa.[3]
During his arraignment on
At the trial, the prosecution presented
the oral testimonies of the three eyewitnesses to the incident, namely: (1) Orly
Arevalo (Orly), the son of the deceased-victim who saw the events prior to,
during and after the killing of his father; (2) Marlo Rellosa (Marlo), the
person at the wake who was hit by appellant and who was present when the
punching of the victim took place; and (3) Roger Herrera (Roger), who
corroborated the testimony of Orly. Dr.
Ma. Cristina Freyra, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the
cadaver of the victim, testified on the cause of death of the same.
On
Soon after, Rodolfo left the wake and
headed for home. Appellant, who was
wearing a brass knuckle wrapped in a handkerchief, followed Rodolfo and punched
the latter three to fives times, hitting him on the nape.[9] Rodolfo
fell to the ground. Some people tried to
help Rodolfo and carried him to the house of his sister nearby.[10] They
asked appellant to help them carry Rodolfo, but appellant merely smiled and
told them that Rodolfo just fainted.[11] Appellant then crossed the street and boarded
a jeepney going to
Per autopsy report, the cause of
death of the victim is Intracranial Hemorrhage
Secondary to Skull Fracture.[14]
Medico-legal Officer Dr. Ma. Cristina
Freyra found four external injuries on the cadaver of the victim, all of which
were contusions. She said that the three
injuries were at the head and the other one was in the trunk. According to her, the fracture in the right parietal occipital region could have
been caused by a hard blunt object.[15]
The defense, on the other hand,
invoked self-defense. To prove this, the
testimonies of the appellant, Randy Jose Gonzales, a friend of appellant, and Walter
Villa, appellant’s younger brother, were presented.
Appellant testified that on the
afternoon of
Defense witness Randy Jose Gonzales,
testified that at exactly
Walter Villa declared on the witness stand
that he arrived at the scene after the incident had happened. The hitting incident was only recounted to
him by a lad. He went along with the
victim when the latter was brought to the hospital.[21] At around
Unconvinced that appellant killed the
victim in self-defense, the RTC in its decision dated P50,000.00 as death indemnity, and
another P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision
reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, accused Charlie Villa, Jr. is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as charged and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Said
accused is hereby further ordered to pay the heirs of Rodolfo Arevalo y Gamboa
the amount of Php50,000.00 as death indemnity and another amount of Php50,000.00
as temperate damages. The period during
which the accused had undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
his favor in serving the foregoing sentence.[23]
On
The Court of Appeals, on P50,000.00
to P25,000.00. The Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Antipolo City dated P25,000.00.[26]
Hence, the instant case.
In his brief, the appellant assigns a
single error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Appellant takes exception to the trial
court’s verdict convicting him and maintains that he was able to prove by
competent evidence all the elements of self-defense. To support this, he states that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased Rodolfo Arevalo, when the
latter hit him with a club or a piece wood.
It was fortunate that appellant was able to evade the first swing, but
eventually he was hit by the second.
Before appellant could further harm him and put his life on the verge of
danger, appellant instinctively retaliated by boxing the victim on his nape,
which he did not know would result in Rodolfo’s demise. Appellant claims he hit the victim only once,
but because the latter was drunk, he lost his balance and fell down.
According to appellant, the act of
punching the victim was commensurate with the onslaught initiated and continued
by the latter, thereby exposing appellant to an imminent and actual danger to
his life. Appellant insists that when he
boxed the victim, he was merely employing reasonable means to repel the attack
carried out by the victim.
Appellant likewise asserts that he
was able to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
since he initiated the attack by clobbering appellant. Having established all elements of
self-defense, appellant argues he deserves acquittal.
The Office of the Solicitor General,
however, differs. It is of the
conviction that appellant cannot successfully put up self-defense, considering
the number of wounds and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim,
especially that fatal wound at the back.
It avers that the failure of appellant to surrender to authorities after
the incident and to report the same indicates he was not acting in
self-defense.
Self-defense as a justifying
circumstance may exempt an accused from criminal liability when the following
requisites are met, namely: (1) there was
an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression was reasonably necessary; and (3) the person
defending himself had not provoked the victim into committing the act of
aggression.[27] The burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the killing was justified is on the accused. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution.
The varying accounts of the
prosecution and of the defense as to who initiated the aggression was resolved
by the RTC which gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses over those of the defense, thus:
In the present case, the burden of evidence having
been shifted, the Court finds the narrations of the sequence of events by the
accused decidedly unconvincing.
x x x x
Be that as it may, self-defense on the part of the
accused is further negated by the physical evidence in the case. The wound located at the back of the head of
the victim indicates that the accused indeed followed the victim when he left
the wake and punched him with a hard blunt object. Such wound, according to the medico-legal
officer, was the most fatal one among those sustained by the victim as it
fractured his skull and eventually caused his death. These facts, in addition to the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses who did not show any motive to falsely testify and
implicate or point on erring finger at the accused inside the courtroom as the
perpetrator of the crime, established that the accused’s act was not an act of
self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim.[28]
The trial court, which had the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, was
convinced of the veracity of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and not
that of appellant’s.
We find no reason to reverse or alter
the evaluation of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The time-tested doctrine is 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.[29] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the
credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of
witnesses. [30] This is especially true when the trial court’s
findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown
that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and
circumstances of significance in the case.[31] A scrutiny of the records shows that no such
error was committed by either the RTC or the Court of Appeals.
An assiduous evaluation of the
transcript of stenographic notes indicates that the three prosecution witnesses
-- Marlo, Orly and Roger -- whose accounts agree on material points, testified
in a candid and straightforward manner as to what had really transpired on that
fateful day. Marlo declared on the
witness stand the incident prior to the killing of the victim, and also his own
experience at the hands of the appellant:
Q: Mr.
Witness, do you recall where you were on
A: Yes,
sir. I was attending a wake, sir.
Q: Where
was that, in what place?
A: Barangay
San Roque, Antipolo.
Q: You
said you were attending a wake, where were you, inside or out where the wake
was held?
A: I was
near the place.
Q: What
were you doing that time?
A: I was
sleeping.
Q: Did you
wake up from your sleep?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Around
what time did you wake up?
A:
Q: Was
there any particular reason why you woke up from your sleep?
A: I was
box by Hapon.
Q: What is
the full name of this Hapon you are referring to?
A: Charlie
Villa, Jr.
Q: In what
part of your body were you boxed by this Charlie Villa, Jr.
A: In my
face.
Q: Did you
find out the reason why you were boxed by Charlie Villa, Jr.?
A: “Pinag-tripan po ako.”
Q: When
you woke up when you were boxed by Charlie Villa, Jr. in the face, what
happened next?
A: He also
took a fancy to my friend.
Q: Who is
this friend you are referring to?
A: Buboy.
Q: What is
his full name?
A: I
don’t know, we just call him Buboy.
Q: In what
way did Charlie Villa took a fancy to your friend?
A: He fed
him with biscuit.
Q: By the
way, how old is this Buboy?
A: Still
young.
Q: When
Charlie Villa was putting biscuit in the mouth of this Buboy, what was Buboy
doing then?
A: He was
sleeping.
Q: How far
away was Buboy when you saw this?
A: About
four meters away.
Q: While
Charlie Villa was putting biscuit on the mouth of Buboy while sleeping, what
happened?
A: Mang
Loloy tried to prevent him.
Q: What is
the complete name of this Mang Loloy?
A: I
don’t know.
Q: Up to
now you do not know the name of this Mang Loloy?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Then
what happened next?
A: Mang
Loloy went to Charlie Villa and said, “Huwag
mong pagtripan ang batang natutulog.”
Q: What
was the reaction of Charlie Villa if any?
A: Charlie
said, “anong pakialam mo.”
Q: How far
was Charlie Villa from Mang Loloy when he answered that way?
A: About
a meter away.
Q: After
Charlie Villa told Mang Loloy to mind his own business, what happened next?
A: Mang
Loloy stood up and walked away and Charlie Villa followed him and boxed him and
he fell to the ground.
Q: Did you
see what part of the body of Mang Loloy was boxed by Charlie?
A: On his
nape.[32]
Witness
Q: Where
were you on the date the incident happened?
A: I was
at the other street corner. I just could
not get near them immediately because Charlie Villa immediately rode on a jeep.
Q: When
did this incident happen?
A: On the
night of the 18th at past
Q: July
18?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
x
Q: Can you
tell the Court why you were there in that area on that particular date and
time.
A: Because
there was a wake at the house nearby.
x x x
x
Q: You
said there was a wake that time near your house, what about your father Rodolfo
Arevalo, what was he doing prior to the incident wherein he was punched by
accused Charlie Villa?
A: He was
drinking coffee at the wake.
Q: After
he drank coffee, what happened next?
A: Charlie
Villa arrived and he fed a child with biscuit and he was prevented by my
father.
Q: That
child which Charlie Villa fed biscuit, what was the child doing prior to the
time he was fed biscuit?
A: He was
sleeping.
Q: After
Charlie Villa fed the child who was sleeping with biscuit, what happened next?
A: He was
accosted by my father not to disturb the child who is sleeping.
Q: After
your father told that to Charlie Villa, what happened next?
A: Charlie
Villa said, “huwag mo akong pakialaman.”
Q: After
Charlie Villa responded by saying, “huwag
mo akong pakialaman,” what happened next?
A: My
father left.
Q: To what
direction did your father go when he left?
A: To the
direction of our house.
Q: So, he
was leaving the wake?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
your father left the wake, what happened next?
A: Charlie
followed him.
Q: After
Charlie followed your father when he left the wake, what happened next?
A: That
was the time when I saw that he punched my father.
Q: What
hand did Charlie Villa use in punching your father?
A: His
right fist.
Q: What,
if anything, did you notice at the hand of Charlie Villa which he used in
punching your father?
A: His
fist was wrapped with a handkerchief that covered the metal knuckle.
Q: Did you
see the metal knuckle?
A: Yes,
sir, because it is bulging.
x x x
x
Q: Was
your father hit when he was punched by Charlie Villa?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
was he hit?
A: On his
nape.
Q: How
many times did Charlie Villa hit your father?
A: About
three to five times.
Q: In that
three to five times that Charlie Villa hit your father, was your father hit?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And in
those three to five times that Charlie Villa punched your father, where was he
hit in those three times?
A: All in
his nape.
Q: After
your father was hit in the nape by the several punches made by Charlie Villa,
what happened next?
A: He
fell down unconscious.
Q: How did
he fall down?
A: Face
first.
Q: After
your father fell down face first, what did you see Charlie Villa do?
A: He
crossed the street and suddenly rode a jeep.[33]
Roger narrated a similar story, thus:
Q: Do you
recall where you were on
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
were you on that date and on that particular time?
A: I was
attending a wake, sir.
x x x
x
Q: Now,
did you come to see the person of Rodolfo Arevalo on
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
x
Q: Now,
where did Rodolfo Arevalo go after you saw him for the period of ½ hour at that
wake?
A: He
went home.
Q: Did you
see him going home?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How did
you know that he was going home.
A: He
said goodbye, and he said he will go home.
Q: Was he
able to go home?
A: No,
sir.
Q: Why did
you know that he was not able to go home?
A: Because
we saw him [fell] down on the ground at the store of Aling Helen.
Q: How far
was the place you saw him lying down on the ground from the place where the
wake was being held?
A: Five (5)
meters, sir.
Q: How did
you see him lying on the ground?
A: Because
when a vehicle passed by the light of the vehicle fell on the body of this
Rodolfo Arevalo, that’s why we saw him.
x x x
x
Q: Do you
know the reason why Rodolfo Arevalo was lying on the ground?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was the reason?
A: He was
punched by using metal knuckle on his nape, sir.
Q: Who was
this person who punched him who used metal knuckle?
A: Charlie
Villa, Jr., sir. [34]
From the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, it is readily clear that the first requisite of self-defense is
wanting. The unlawful aggression did not
originate from the victim but from the appellant himself. Appellant was offended when the victim
reprimanded him by telling him not to make fun of the sleeping child. Nurturing that ill feeling, appellant
immediately went after the victim as the latter was leaving. Not suspecting that the appellant harbored
rancor, the victim walked on his way home, thereby exposing his back to the
attack of the appellant. With the brass
knuckle around his right fist, and without warning, appellant poured his anger towards
the victim by punching the latter’s nape until he fell unconscious. When he came to his senses, appellant realized
what he had done. Feeling responsible
for it, he fled. With this evidence
adduced by the prosecution, appellant’s posture can hardly succeed. He was the aggressor. Appellant’s behavior
right after the incident runs contrary to his avowed innocence. His act of fleeing from the scene of the
crime instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities are
circumstances highly indicative of guilt and negate his claim of self-defense.[35]
The version of the defense detailing
the manner in which he supposedly defended himself from the assault of the
victim is hard to believe. He claims
that he boxed the victim on his nape only once.
The autopsy report, however, belies appellant’s assertion. The autopsy report revealed that the victim
sustained four injuries, three of which were at the head near the nape and one
at the trunk.
It is also inconceivable how he could
have hit the victim at the back of the latter’s head when, as he claimed, they
were facing each other and appellant was just defending himself. Furthermore, why should appellant wear a
brass knuckle if he had no intention to kill the victim?
Another troubling account of the
defense is the conflicting version of both defense witnesses. Witness Randy Jose Gonzales declared it was
the appellant who first left the wake and was subsequently chased by the victim
with a dos por dos. Appellant, on the other hand, bared that it
was the victim who first left the wake and went home. When the victim returned, he was already
holding a club. These diverging
statements of the defense tend to support the RTC opinion that, indeed, the
defense interposed by the appellant was merely an afterthought.
The nature and number of injuries
likewise make appellant’s defense highly suspect. If appellant punched the victim just to
defend himself, it defies logic why he had to deliver several blows on the head
of the victim. If indeed the victim was
drunk, one blow from the appellant would have been sufficient to repel the
alleged attack coming from the victim. But
appellant could not contain his fury for being humiliated by the victim. In order to gratify himself he had to box the
victim until the latter became unconscious. It has been held in this regard that the
location and presence of several injuries on the body of the victim is physical
evidence that eloquently refutes appellant’s allegations of self-defense.[36]
The
RTC appreciated the presence of treachery qualifying the killing of Rodolfo to
murder.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself
by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[37] It is an aggravating circumstance that
qualifies the killing of the person to murder.
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. Moreover, treachery must be alleged in the
information and proved during the trial.
The prosecution sufficiently proved
treachery. In the instant case, the
prosecution established that the victim was punched from behind while on his way
home. While there may have been an exchange
of words between the appellant and the victim prior to the killing, the latter
did not have the slightest idea that he was about to be attacked by the former,
since the victim thought he was just giving a constructive advice. No heated argument or a physical contest had
occurred prior to the punching incident.
Unwary that appellant had taken badly his piece of advice, the victim
was walking when the appellant behind suddenly punched him three times at the
back of his head with the use of a brass knuckle, causing him to fall. 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 the onslaught
was from behind.
Also affirmed is the ruling of the
RTC and the Court of Appeals imposing upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering
that neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attended the commission
of the crime, the imposition of reclusion
perpetua is proper pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code.[38]
As to the award of damages, the Court of
Appeals correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
temperate damages. The award of moral
damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the
heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot
be denied.[39] 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 in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the
victim is in order.[40]
Although the prosecution presented
evidence that the heirs incurred expenses, no receipts were presented. The award of temperate damages, in the amount
of P25,000.00, to the heirs of
the victim is justified. Temperate
damages are awarded where no documentary evidence of actual damages was
presented in the trial because it is reasonable to presume that, when death
occurs, the family of the victim incurred expenses for the wake and funeral.[41]
However, in addition to these
damages, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim,
since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven by the prosecution.[42] 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.[43] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those
guilty of outrageous conduct.[44]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages and another P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Costs against appellant.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Acting 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.
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting 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
* Per
Special Order No. 497, dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-16.
[2] Penned by Judge Mauricio M. Rivera; CA rollo, pp. 19-25.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12] TSN,
[13]
[14] Records, p. 143.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17]
[18]
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] TSN,
[22]
[23] CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
[24] Records, p. 134.
[25] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[26] Rollo, p. 15.
[27] People v. Cabansay, 406 Phil. 247, 257 (2001).
[28] CA rollo, p. 24.
[29] People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
[30] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 838-839 (2002).
[31] People
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912,
[32] TSN dated
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] People v. Macuha, 369 Phil. 257, 267 (1999).
[36] People v. Saragina, 332 SCRA 219.
[37] People
v. Abatayo, G.R. No. 139456,
[38] People
v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002,
[39] People v. Caraig, 448 Phil. 78, 98 (2003).
[40] People v. Guillermo, 465 Phil. 248, 274 (2004).
[41]
[42] People
v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017,
[43]
[44]