SECOND DIVISION
|
JESUS
GERALDO and AMADO ARIATE, Petitioners, - versus - PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No.
173608 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Petitioners
Jesus Geraldo and Amado Ariate were, by Information dated
x x x [O]n the 1st day of July,
2002 at about 3:00 o’clock early
morning, more or less, at Sitio Tinago, Barangay Bunga, municipality of Lanuza,
province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and mutually helping one
another, armed with xxx handguns and with intent to kill, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sho[o]t one ARTHUR U.[1]
RONQ
POINT OF EN
1. Right lumbar area
2.
Right
iliac area
POINT OF EXIT
1. Left lateral area of abdomen
2.
Right
hypogastric area
which wounds have caused the instantaneous
death of said ARTHUR U. RONQUILLO, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in
the following amount:
P50,000.00 – as
life indemnity of the victim;
10,000.00 – as moral damages;
10,000.00 – as exemplary damages; and
40,000.00 – as actual damages.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
At 3:00 a.m. of July 1, 2002, his wife, daughter
Mirasol, and son Arnel, among other persons, on being informed of the shooting
of Arthur Ronquillo (the victim), repaired to where he was, not far from his
residence, and found him lying on his side and wounded. Although gasping for breath, he was able to
utter to Mirasol, within the hearing distance of Arnel, that he was shot by
Badjing[3]
and Amado.
Petitioners who were suspected to be the “Badjing”
and “Amado” responsible for the shooting of the victim were subjected to
paraffin tests at the Philippine National Police (
x x x x
TIME AND DATE RECEIVED : 1105H
REQUESTING PARTY/
Lanuza Police Station
Lanuza, Surigao del Sur
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED :
Paraffin casts taken from the left and the
right hands of the following named living persons:
A = Jesus
Geraldo Jr. alias Bajing
B = Amado
Ariate
/x/x/x/ /x/x/x/
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION
To
determine the presence of gunpowder residue, Nitrates. /x/x/x/
FINDINGS:
Qualitative
examination conducted on specimens A and B gave NEGATIVE results for powder
residue, Nitrates. /x/x/x/
CONCLUSION:
Specimens A and B do not reveal the presence
of gunpowder residue,
Nitrates. /x/x/x/
REMARKS:
The
original copy of this report is retained in this laboratory for future
reference.
TIME AND DATE COMPLETED:
1700H
x x x x
(Underscoring supplied)
In a document dated
In another document dated July 4, 2002 also denominated
as “Affidavit”[6]
which was subscribed and sworn to also before the same Clerk of Court II Balasa
on July 26, 2002, Mirasol also gave a statement in a question and answer style that
her father uttered that herein petitioners shot him.
At the witness stand, Mirasol echoed her father’s
declaration that “Badjing” and “Amado” shot him. Arnel substantially corroborated Mirasol’s
statement.[7]
Upon the other hand, petitioners gave their side of
the case as follows:
Petitioner Ariate, a barangay tanod of Bunga, declared that Barangay Kagawad Omboy Roz (Roz) woke him up at
Petitioner Geraldo declared that he slept in his
house located also in Barangay Bunga, Lanuza at
In the
course of the testimony of Ariate, his counsel presented the
x x x x
Q I
am showing to you [Ariate] a copy of the result of the paraffin test attached
to the record of this case.
COURT
Is
it covered in the Pre-trial Order? You
cannot do that. That is why I told
you; lay your cards on the table.
May
I ask for the court’s reconsideration.
COURT
Denied. I am warning you, all of you.
With
the denial of our motion for reconsideration, I move to tender exclusive
evidence. He would have identified this
result. The paraffin test, which [forms]
part of the affidavit of this witness attached to the record of this case on
page 29. May I ask that this will be
marked as Exhibit “3” for the defense.
COURT
Mark
it. (Marked).[10] (Underscoring supplied)
As shown
from the above-quoted transcript of the proceedings, the trial court restrained
the presentation of the result of the paraffin tests because the same was not
covered in the Pre-trial Order. In the
Pre-trial Order,[11]
the trial court noted the parties’ agreement “that witnesses not listed
in this Pre-trial Order shall not be allowed to testify as additional witnesses.” Significantly, there was no agreement to
disallow the presentation of documents which were not reflected in the
Pre-trial Orders. At all events, oddly,
the trial court allowed the marking of the
When
petitioner Geraldo’s turn to present the same
COURT
That
is the problem in the Pre-Trial Brief if the exhibits are not stated. I will set aside that Order and in the
interest of justice I will allow the accused to submit, next time I will
not any more consider exhibits not listed in the Pre-trial Order.[13] (Underscoring supplied)
The version
of the defense was in part corroborated by witnesses.
The trial
court, passing on the demeanor of prosecution witness-the victim’s eight-year
old daughter Mirasol, observed:
. . . She talks straightforward, coherent and
clear, very intelligent, with child mannerism[s]. While testifying she was criss-crossing her
hands, touching anything within her reach, innocent and simple, pressing of[f]
and on her stomach but she talks with correct grammar. No doubt, this Court was convinced of her
testimony which was corroborated by her brother Arnel Ronquillo.[14]
On the
nature and weight of the dying declaration of the victim, the trial court observed:
A dying declaration may be xxx oral or in
writing. As a general rule, a dying
declaration to be admissible must be made by the declarant while he is
conscious of his impending death.
However, even if a declarant did not make a statement that he was on the
brink of death, the degree and seriousness of the wound and the fact that death
supervened shortly afterwards may be considered as substantial evidence that
the declaration was made by the victim with full realization that he was in a
dying condition; People vs. Ebrada, 296 SCRA 353.
Even assuming that the declaration is not
admissible as a dying declaration, it is still admissible as part of the res
gestae since it was made shortly after the startling occurrence and under the
influence thereof, hence, under the circumstances, the victim evidently had no
opportunity to contrive.[15] (Underscoring supplied)
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court
convicted petitioners, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused JESUS GERALDO
y CUBERO and AMADO ARIATE y DIONALDO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and
with the presence of one (1) aggravating circumstance of night time and
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of which could be
properly imposed under the rules of said code and the minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribe[d] by the code for
the offense, hereby sentences each to suffer the penalty of TEN (10) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor minimum
to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum,
with all the accessory penalties provided for by law. To pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00 as life indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages. The claim for actual
damages is denied, there being no evidence to support the same.
The bail bond put up by the accused Jesus
Geraldo and Amado Ariate are ordered cancelled and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.[16] (Underscoring supplied)
The Court of Appeals, by Decision of P50,000, and deleted the award
of exemplary damages. Thus the
Court of Appeals disposed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED save for the modification of the penalty
imposed. Accordingly, accused-appellants
are each hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Eight (8)
years, Five (5) Months and One (1) Day of prision
mayor medium as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum,
with all accessory penalties provided by law, and to jointly and solidarily pay
the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[19] (Italics in the original)
Hence,
the present Petition[20]
raising the following issues:
I
Whether or not the identit[IES] of the accused-appellants as the
II
Whether or not the identit[IES] of the accused-appellants had been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt?[21] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioners
argue:
With due respect, herein petitioners disagree with the holding of the Honorable Court of Appeals that “It is not necessary that the victim further identify that “Badjing” was in fact Jesus Geraldo or that “Amado” was Amado Ariate” because, [so petitioners contend], it is the obligation of the prosecution to establish with moral certainty that indeed the persons they identified as the as the assailant of Arthur O. Ronquillo were really the ones who perpetrated the crime.
Admittedly, prosecution witnesses were able to identify positively herein petitioners as the alleged assailant[s] of Arthur O. Ronquillo. But said identification is based on the assumption that they were the very same “BADJING AMADO” and/or “BADJING AND AMADO” referred to by their deceased father in his dying declaration.
What the Honorable Court of Appeals failed to consider is that, just because the victim declared that it was “BADJING AMADO” and/or “BADJING AND AMADO” who shot him does not necessarily follow that herein petitioners were really the perpetrators in the absence of proof that the “BADJING” referred to by him is Jesus Geraldo and that the “AMADO” is Amado Ariate. It would have been a different story had the prosecution witnesses [been] eyewitnesses because proof that the “BADJING AMADO” and/or “BADJING AND AMADO” referred to by the victim and the persons identified by the prosecution witnesses are the same is unnecessary.
Herein petitioners believe, that even assuming that there are no other “BADJING” or “AMADO” in the barangay, still it does not follow that the person[s] referred to by the dying declarant as his assailant were Jesus Geraldo alias “BADJING” and Amado Ariate alias “AMADO”. Although, it is inconceivable how the Honorable Court of Appeals arrived at the said conclusion that there are no other “BADJING AMADO” and/or “BADJING AND AMADO” in the barangay absent any proof to that effect from the prosecution.[22] (Underscoring in the original)
The
petition is impressed with merit.
The trial court relied on the dying
declaration of the victim as recounted by his daughter Mirasol and corroborated
by his son Arnel.
A dying declaration is admissible as
evidence if the following circumstances are present: (a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it is made when death appears to be
imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the
declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d)
the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry
involves the declarant’s death.[23]
There is no dispute that the victim’s
utterance to his children related to the identities of his assailants. As for the victim’s consciousness of
impending death, it is not necessary to prove that he stated that he was at the
brink of death; it suffices that, judging from the nature and extent of his
injuries, the seriousness of his condition was so apparent to him that it may
safely be inferred that such ante mortem
declaration was made under consciousness of an impending death.[24] The location of the victim’s two gunshot
wounds, his gasping for breath, and his eventual death before arriving at the
hospital meet this requirement.[25]
It has not been established, however,
that the victim would have been competent to testify had he survived the
attack. There is no showing that he had
the opportunity to see his assailant. Among
other things, there is no indication whether he was shot in front, the
post-mortem examination report having merely stated that the points of entry of
the wounds were at the “right lumbar area” and the “right iliac area.”[26]
“Lumbar” may refer to “the loins” or “the group of vertebrae lying between the
thoracic vertebrae and the sacrum,”[27]
or to “the region of the abdomen lying on either side of the umbilical region
and above the corresponding iguinal.”[28] “Iliac” relates to the “ilium,” which is “one
of the three bones composing either lateral half of the pelvis being in man
broad and expanded above and narrower below where it joins with the ischium and
pubis to form part of the actabulum.”[29]
At all events, even if the victim’s
dying declaration were admissible in evidence, it must identify the assailant with
certainty; otherwise it loses its significance.[30]
In convicting petitioners, the trial
court, as stated earlier, relied on the testimony of the victim’s daughter
Mirasol, which was corroborated by her brother Arnel, that the “Badjing” and
“Amado” mentioned by the victim as his assailants are herein petitioners whom
they claimed to know because they live in the same barangay.[31] The Court of Appeals believed too the
siblings’ testimonies, holding that
It is not necessary that the victim further identify that “Badjing” was in fact Jesus Geraldo or that “Amado” was Amado Ariate. There was never an issue as to the identity of the accused. There was no other person known as “Badjing” or “Amado” in their neighborhood or in their barangay. Accused-appellants never presented any proof that a person in their locality had the same aliases or names as they. It is not uncommon that even an eight-year-old child can identify that Jesus Geraldo was known as “Badjing” and that Amado Ariate was “Amado.”[32] (Underscoring supplied)
Contrary, however, to the immediately-quoted
ruling of the appellate court, it is the prosecution, not petitioners, which had the burden of proving that petitioners were,
at the material time, the only
ones in the barangay who bore such nicknames or aliases. This, the prosecution failed to discharge.
When there is doubt on the identity
of the malefactors, motive is essential for their conviction.[33] The Court notes that in their affidavits
supporting the criminal complaint, the victim’s wife and children Mirasol and
Arnel proffered not knowing any possible motive for petitioners to shoot the
victim.[34] At the trial, no evidence of any motive was presented
by the prosecution. Petitioners’ defense
of denial and alibi thus assumes importance.
Specifically with respect to
petitioner Ariate, the victim’s wife admitted that Ariate accompanied her
family in bringing the victim to the hospital.[35] While non-flight does not necessarily
indicate innocence, under the circumstances obtaining in the present case,
Ariate’s spontaneous gesture of immediately extending assistance to the victim
after he was advised by the Barangay Kagawad
of the victim’s fate raises reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the crime
charged.[36]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
June 30, 2006 affirming with modification the Decision of Branch 41 of the
Surigao del Sur Regional Trial Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Jesus Geraldo and Amado Ariate are
ACQUITTED of the charge of Homicide for failure of the prosecution to establish
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
of petitioners unless they are being
lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken
within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISU
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
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
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] “O” in some parts of the records.
[2] Records, p. 4.
[3] Sometimes spelled “Bajing.”
[4] Exhibit “3,” records, p. 29.
[5]
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8] Supra note 4.
[9] Ibid.
[10] TSN,
[11] Records, pp. 95-96.
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] TSN,
[14] Records, p. 243.
[15]
[16]
[17] Penned by Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with
the concurrence of Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Sixto C. Marella,
Jr. CA rollo, pp. 78-91.
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo,
pp. 3-14.
[21]
[22]
[23] Vide
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section
37; People
v. Manguera, G.R. No. 139906,
[24] Vide
People v. Macalino, G.R. No. 79387,
[25] Vide
id. at 193: “That his demise came
swiftly upon his arrival at the hospital further emphasizes the victim’s
realization of the hopelessness of his recovery.”
[26] Exhibit “A,” records, p. 26.
[27] Dictionary.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Vide
People v. Ador, G.R. Nos. 140538-39,
[31] TSN,
[32] Rollo,
p. 25.
[33] Vide
People v. Rapeza, G.R. No. 169431,
[34] Records, pp. 13-21.
[35] Vide
TSN,
[36] Vide Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 148079, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA
223, 230-231.