PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - DANTE NUEVA y SAMARO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 173248
Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, carpio MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and
BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: November 3, 2008 |
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C
I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We review the appeal by
accused-appellant Dante Nueva y Samaro (appellant)
from the
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The
prosecution charged the appellant, Porpirio Maribuhok (Porpirio) and John Doe, one of the as yet unidentified assailants, before
the RTC with the crime of murder under an Information that states:
x x
x
That on or about the 29th day of
December, 2000 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually
helping with one another, without any justifiable cause, and with deliberate
intent to kill with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, hit with a piece of wood on the head and stab at the back and chest
one VIRGILIO REVOLLIDO, JR. Y ANTOLIN, with a bladed weapon, thereby inflicting
upon the latter serious physical injuries, which eventually caused his death.
Contrary to law.[3]
Of the three accused, only the
appellant was apprehended; the others remained at large. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not
guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the
trial on the merits that followed: Virgilio Revollido, Sr. (Virgilio);
Alfonso Bacar, Jr. (Alfonso); PO3 Jaime Basa (PO3 Basa); Dr.
Ludivino G. Lagat (Dr. Lagat); PO2 Edilberto Safuentes (PO2 Safuentes);
SPO1 Renato Aguilar (SPO1
Aguilar); and Mariadita Revollido-Baytan (Mariadita). The appellant
took the witness stand for the defense.
Virgilio, the father of the victim,
testified that her daughter, Annabelle Revollido, informed him in the morning of
P5,000.00 as a machine
operator in Vitan Industries.[6] He affirmed that he incurred more than P60,000.00
for the wake and burial of his son.[7]
Alfonso narrated that at around
Alfonso testified further that he was
informed of the full name of the victim on
On cross examination, he narrated
that he was more or less
PO3 Basa, a police officer assigned
at the Caloocan Police Headquarters, testified that on
Dr. Lagat, the Medico-Legal Officer
of the National Bureau of Investigation, declared on the witness stand that he
conducted an autopsy on the remains of the victim on
x x x
Abrasions: 1.0 x 1.3 cm., shoulder, left 4.0
x 2.0 cm., back, left side, 4.0 x 1.0 cm., back, right side; 5.0 x 1.0 cm., antecubital
area, left; 2 x 1.0 cm. right knee.
Incised wounds, 3.0 cm., forehead, right
side; 3.0 cm., chest, right side, 5.0 cm., left supra scapular area; 6.0 cm.,
left hand, back; 3.0 cm., right ring finger.
Stab wounds, all elliptical; clean cut edges,
with sharp and a blunt extremities.
1.
1.0 cm., obliquely oriented, located at the lateral aspect of the neck;
left side; 10.0 cm., from the anterior median line directed backward and
medially involving the skin and soft tissue arteriorly.
2.
3.5 cm., obliquely oriented; located at the anterior chest wall, left
side 4.0 cm., from the anterior median line, level of the 4th
intercostal; directed backward, downward and medially involving the skin
underlying soft tissue; perforating the pericardial sac; penetrating the left
ventrical of the heart, with a depth of 13.0 cms.
3.
4.5 cms., obliquely oriented; located at the anterior chest wall, right
side; 3.0 cms., from the anterior median line, level of the 5th
intercostals; directed backward; downward and medially, involving the skin and
underlying soft tissue; then penetrating the middle lobe of the right lobe with
depth of 12.0 cms.
x x x
CAUSE OF DEATH: STAB WOUNDS, BODY.
x
x x[13]
According to Dr. Lagat, the victim
suffered three (3) stab wounds, eight (8) incise wounds, and several abrasions
in different parts of his body. Of the three stab wounds, two (2) were fatal, both
of them at the chest.[14]
PO2
Safuentes of the Mobile Patrol Division, Caloocan City Police, stated that he
was one of the police officers who apprehended the appellant. According to him,
he and his five (5) companions went to Letre, Tonsuya, Malabon to serve the
arrest warrant on the appellant who was not in his house at the time.[15] On
their way out of Letre, they chanced upon the accused who, on seeing them, turned
his back and ran. PO1 Chu[16]
fired two (2) warning shots, causing the appellant to stop. PO2 Safuentes
showed him (appellant) then the corresponding warrant of arrest and then brought
him to the hospital for mandatory physical examination.[17]
SPO1 Aguilar was with the arresting
team and essentially confirmed what PO2 Safuentes testified on.[18]
Mariadita, the victim’s sister,
confirmed that she identified and requested an autopsy of her brother’s remains.[19]
The appellant had a different version
of the events. His testimony was succinctly summarized by the RTC as follows:
x x x Dante Nueva y Samaro testified that on
December 29, 2000, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he was at work as
bouncer at Yellow Submarine with one Wilmor that was from 10:00 p.m. to 3:00
a.m. He does not know of any untoward or stabbing incident in his working
place.
He said he does not know of any reason why he
is being charged with murder.[20]
He likewise narrated that he knows a person
by the name of Porpirio Maribuhok, one of the accused in this case who is a
customer at Yellow Submarine. He did not see Porpirio Maribuhok at the night of
the incident.[21]
On cross by Pros. Susano, said accused
testified that he knows for 3 months already [sic] Porpirio Maribuhok who is a
customer of the Yellow Submarine near
He said that yellow Submarine is owned by one
Maring Rinos whom he knows for three (3) years already. He also knows one
Edgar, Entoy, Val and Leo.[23] [Footnotes referring to the pertinent parts
of the record supplied]
The
RTC convicted the appellant in its decision of
WHEREFORE, accused Dante Nueva y Samaro, is hereby
found Guilty, beyond reasonable
doubt of Murder, qualified by treachery, and is sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. Accused is ordered
to pay the heirs of the victim, Virgilio Revollido, Jr., P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity ex delicto; to pay the heirs of the victim, Fifty Six
Thousand One Hundred Twelve (P56,112.00) Pesos as actual damages.
In the absence of proof to prove loss of
earning capacity, the same is disallowed.
x x x
Let alias warrant of arrest be issued against
the accused Porpirio Maribuhok.
In the interim, the case against him is
Archived, until his arrest.
SO ORDERED.[24] [Emphasis in the original]
The
appellant appealed his conviction to the CA[25]
whose decision of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages, respectively.
In
his brief,[26] the
appellant argues that the lower court erred in finding him guilty of the crime
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He posits that the prosecution merely established that a
person was killed, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was he
who killed the victim.
THE COURT’S RULING
After due consideration, we resolve to deny
the appeal but modify the amount of the awarded indemnities.
Sufficiency of
Prosecution Evidence
A
distinguishing feature of this case is the presence of an eyewitness – Alfonso –
who provided positive identification of the appellant in his
FISCAL NEPTHALI ALIPOSA:
Q: Mr.
Bacar, can you recall where were you on the evening of
ALFONSO BACAR, JR.:
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
were you?
A: I
was at Great Taste Bakery, sir.
Q: This
bakery, where is this located?
A: At
Q: Outside
or inside Great Taste Bakery?
A: Outside,
sir.
Q: While
outside Great Taste Bakery, do you remember of any unusual incident that
happened?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that unusual incident?
A: Somebody
was chasing someone coming from
Q: How
many persons who [sic] were running
after someone?
A: One
is chasing somebody, sir.
Q: What
happened to that pursuit of one man with another man?
A: When
the person being chased reached 4th Avenue coming from M.H. Del
Pilar and facing in front of two persons standing near the corner, then Dante Nueva held the left arm of the one
running.
Q: What
happened after Dante held the left arm of the man being pursued?
A: Then
they proceeded to the other corner or turned around to the other corner.
Q: They turned around because Dante held the
left arm of the person being pursued?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
they reached the other side of the road, what happened?
A: Porpirio
took a piece of wood (dos por dos) and he hit the person being chased on the
head.
Q: When
Porpirio hit the head of the person being pursued, what was Dante Nueva doing
in relation to the victim, if any?
A: Dante Nueva boxed first the person being
chased until the person who was chasing arrived.
Q: You
said that the person being pursued was being hit by a piece of wood on the
head, what happened to the person being hit on the head?
A: The
person being chased was hit on the head with a piece of wood fell on his knees.
Q: While
the victim who was hit on the head was on a kneeling position, what happened?
A: While
the person who was hit on the head fell on his knees, the person who was
chasing him arrived.
Q: What
happened when the person chasing the victim arrived?
A: Then
that person stabbed the person being chased at the back who was then kneeling.
Q: Where
was Dante at that time when the victim was hit by that person pursuing at the
back?
A: Dante was there in front of the victim.
Q: What
happened after the victim was stabbed at the back, what did Dante do, if any?
A: Dante pulled out a knife and stabbed the
victim on the front portion of the body and at the same time the other person
was stabbing the victim.
Q: With what weapon did Dante use in stabbing
the victim on the front part of the body?
A: A
fan knife, sir.
Q: How
about the other person who was pursuing the victim and who stabbed first the
victim at the back, do you know what weapon was being used by this person?
A: I
don’t know what weapon was that, because upon arrival of this person, he
immediately stabbed the victim.
Q: What
happened to the victim who was conspired upon by the 3 persons Dante Nueva,
Porpirio and the person who stabbed the victim at the back?
ATTY. JIMMY EDMUND BATARA:
We
object, Your Honor, conspire is already a conclusion.
COURT:
What
is again the question?
STENOGRAPHER:
What
happened to the victim who was conspired upon by the 3 persons, Dante Nueva,
Porpirio and the person who stabbed the victim at the back?
COURT:
Successively
attacked.
FISCAL NEPTHALI ALIPOSA:
Yes,
Your Honor, successively attacked.
ALFONSO BACAR, JR.:
He
was kneeling while he was being stabbed or while they were stabbing that victim
all at the same time and that person being stabbed by the 3 persons also tried
to parry the stabbing.
Q: What
happened to him?
A: Then
after that or after the stabbing of the victim, they ran away and went towards
the direction of MH Del Pilar.
x x x x
Q: These
3 persons who attacked the victim one on the head, one of them stabbed the
victim at the back and the other in front, are they inside the Courtroom now?
A: Only
one is inside, sir.
Q: Will
you kindly point to the one who was or who is now inside this room?
A: That
person sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness is pointing to a person who
identified himself as Dante Nueva.[27] [Emphasis supplied]
Time and again, we have ruled that the credibility of witnesses is
a matter best left to the determination of the trial court because it had the
unique advantage of having personally observed the witnesses, their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude. As a consequence,
we have considered the the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of
witnesses to be binding except when the lower court had patently overlooked facts
and circumstances of weight and influence that could alter the results of the
case.[28]
We carefully scrutinized the records of this case and found no
reason to disbelieve Alfonso’s straightforward narration of the events
surrounding the death of the victim. Nor did we see anything on record showing
any improper motive that would lead Alfonso to testify as he did. In fact, in his testimony of
In his defense, the appellant claimed the defenses of denial
and alibi. He denied knowing the victim and insisted that he was at the Yellow
Submarine bar on 4th Avenue/Del Pilar St. on December 29, 2000; he
was there working as a bouncer from 10:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. He explained that he
failed to get a certification from Yellow Submarine to prove that he was
working at that time because no one visited him.
To be
believed, denial must be supported by strong evidence of
non-culpability; otherwise, it is purely self-serving.[30]
Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be
rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively
established by the prosecution.[31]
For the appellant’s defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime when it was committed. By physical
impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access between
the situs criminis and the place
where he says he was when the crime was committed.[32]
The appellant fails this
test as he insisted that he was at the Yellow Submarine working as a bouncer at
the time of the stabbing incident. By
his own admission, the Yellow Submarine is only 30 to 40 meters from the Great
Taste Bakery. This short
distance does not render it physically impossible for the
appellant to have been at the place where the victim was attacked.
Aside from being inherently weak, the
appellant’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification made by Alfonso that the appellant was one of the victim’s assailants.
We particularly note that Alfonso
categorically stated that he stabbed the victim from the front,[33]
and note as well that the victim’s two fatal wounds were his chest wounds.[34] Thus, of the three assailants, it was the
appellant himself who delivered the fatal blows on the victim.
In a long line of cases, this Court
has held that positive identification, made categorically and consistently,
almost always prevails over alibi and denial. These defenses,
if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
self-serving and are undeserving of weight in law.[35] We see no reason in this case to deviate from
these established rules.
The crime committed
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
defines the crime of murder as follows:
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling
within the provision of Article 246, shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to
death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1.
With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity;
x x x x
a. No treachery
In convicting the appellant of the
crime of murder, the courts a quo
appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. According to the RTC,
“the attack was sudden and not provoked, and was not preceded by any exchange
of words, no altercation between the assailants and the victim, who was not
aware that he would be killed by the accused. x x x [A]ccused stabbed the
victim in succession even when he was already on the ground, wounded.”[36]
The CA concurred with this RTC finding of treachery without however offering
any explanation for its concurrence.
We
disagree with the lower courts in this conclusion as our review of the evidence
points us to the conclusion that no treachery existed.
Treachery is not presumed. The circumstances surrounding the murder must be proved as
indubitably as the crime itself.[37]
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to insure
its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the
offended party might make.[38]
To constitute treachery, two
conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of
execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any defense or
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or
manner of execution.[39]
We find it undisputed that prior to the killing, the victim
was being chased by John Doe. Upon reaching
Under these facts, we see no evidence indicating that the
appellant and his co-accused made some
preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution
of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself.[40]
There
was nothing in the record that
shows that the three (3) assailants carefully considered the mode or method of
attack to ensure the killing of the victim.
While the intent to kill was patent, the manner of attack did not appear
to have been deliberately adopted.
In People v. Antonio,[41]
we held that it is not only the sudden attack that qualifies a killing into
murder. There must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the mode
of attack for a specific purpose.
Likewise, in People v.
Catbagan,[42] we
ruled that treachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence that
the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the
killing, or that the death of the victim was the result of premeditation,
calculation or reflection.
b. Abuse of superior strength
We
agree, however, that abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the
victim. To take advantage of superior strength means
to use purposely excessive force, or force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of
the parties.[43]
It is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor so that the superiority of strength is notoriously
advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this superiority in
committing the crime.[44]
The records reveal that the lone and unarmed victim was held by the appellant by hand and led to the
other side of the road; struck on the head by Porpirio; boxed by the appellant;
and then successively stabbed by John Doe and by the appellant. Clearly, the
victim was in no position to defend himself; he was overwhelmed by the combined
efforts of all three (3) assailants who did not only enjoy superiority in number, but
also of weapons. This numerical and physical disparity
was manifest in the victim’s various abrasions on the shoulders and knees;
incised wounds on the forehead, chest, hand and back; and stab wounds on the
neck and chest. That the assailants took advantage of their superior
number and combined strength as against the relatively defenseless victim can
be clearly discerned from these circumstances.
c. Evident premeditation
While
evident premeditation was alleged in the Information, the court a quo correctly concluded that this
circumstance was not proven. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the
following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2)
an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution
to allow the accused to reflect on the consequences of his act.[45] Significantly, the prosecution did not even
attempt to prove the presence of these elements; Alfonso, the principal
eyewitness, was not even aware of any prior incident or any possible reason that
could have led the appellant and his co-accused to attack the victim.
Conspiracy
A conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on
direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of
the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be deduced from
the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
acts of the accused showing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest.[46]
In the present case, no
evidence exists showing that the three (3) assailants previously met and came
to an agreement to attack the victim. However, from the evidence presented, it
was clear that they aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object. Each
did an act that, though apparently independent, was in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment.
To the point of being repetitive, we
restate what Alfonso, the principal witness, positively narrated in court: the
appellant held the hand of the victim and led him towards the other side of the
road; Porpirio hit the victim on the head with a piece of wood causing the
latter to fall to his knees; the appellant boxed the victim until John Doe came
and stabbed him at the back; then the appellant, who was at the victim’s front,
stabbed him in the chest.
In our view, these joint actions
sufficiently point to a common design to end the life of the victim. Thus, the act of one acting pursuant to this design is deemed the act
of all.[47]
The proper penalty
The
crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength is penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659)
with reclusion perpetua to death.
While
treachery and evident premeditation were alleged in the Information, these
circumstances were not adequately proven. In the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances
in the commission of the felony, the courts a
quo correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2)[48]
of the Revised Penal Code.
Civil Liability
The
RTC awarded the amount of P56,112.00 to the victim’s heirs as actual
damages. It appears that out of the said amount, only P55,438.00 was
duly supported by receipts. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary
to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and
on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[49]
We
also award indemnity for loss of earning capacity to the victim’s heirs, as
documentary evidence (Exh. “D”)[50]
was presented to substantiate this claim. Indemnity for loss of earning
capacity is determinable under established jurisprudence based on the net earning capacity of the murder
victim computed under the formula:
Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 less the age of the victim at the
time of death) x (Gross Annual Income
less the Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses)[51]
The
records show that the victim’s annual gross income was P61,245.60
computed from his weekly rate of P1,275.95 (or P5,103.80 per
month). His reasonable and necessary living expenses are estimated at 50% of
this gross income, leaving a balance of P30,622.80. His life expectancy,
on the other hand, is assumed to be 2/3 of age 80 less 31, his age at the time
of death. Applied to the above formula, these data yield the net earning
capacity loss of P1,010,552.40.
We
affirm the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[52]
and P50,000 as moral damages[53]
pursuant to current jurisprudence.
The
heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to exemplary damages since the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was firmly established.
When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying
or generic, an award of P25,000.00[54]
as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the
foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM the
(1) actual damages is REDUCED to P55,438.00;
and
(2) the appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of
the victim P1,010,552.40 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity.
Costs against appellant
Dante Nueva.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag; rollo, pp. 2-11.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre; CA rollo, pp. 53-68.
[3] Records, p. 2.
[4] TSN,
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] TSN,
[13] Records, p. 72.
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] In some parts of the records, his name appears as PO1 Tiu.
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
[25] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00727.
[26] CA rollo, pp. 42-52.
[27] TSN,
[28] People
v. Dee, G.R. Nos. 115251-52,
[29] People
v. Rada, G.R. No. 128181,
[30] Velasco
v. People, G.R. No. 166479,
[31] People
v.
[32] People
v. Visperas, Jr., G.R. No. 147315,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] See People
v.
[36] RTC decision, CA rollo, p. 33.
[37] People
v. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731,
[38] ART. 14, par. 16 of the Revised Penal Code.
[39] People
v. Garcia, G.R. No. 174479,
[40] People
v. Nitcha, G.R. No. 113517,
[41] G.R. No. 128900,
[42] G.R. Nos. 149430-32,
[43] People
v. Barcelon, Jr., G.R. No.
144308,
[44] People v. Riglos, G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000, 339 SCRA 562, citing People v. Asis, 286 SCRA 64, 74 (1998).
[45] People
v. Rodas, G.R. No. 175881,
[46] People
v. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 118573-74,
[47] People
v. Delmo, G.R. Nos. 130078-82,
[48] ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. x x x
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following shall be observed in the application thereof:
x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[49] People
v.
[50] Pay Envelope and Advice Slip.
[51] People
v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223,
[52] People
v. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 179278,
[53] People
v. Eling, G.R. No. 178546,
[54] See People
v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385,