EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 177353
Appellee,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
-v e r s u s- AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO*
and
BRION,
JJ.**
PANCHO ENTRIALGO,
Appellant. Promulgated:
November
28, 2008
x- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
On August 14, 2000, appellant Pancho
Entrialgo was charged with two counts of murder[1] in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49[2] under
the following information:
Criminal
Case No. 16095
That on or about the 30th day of July, 2000 at about 8:20 in the evening of [Brgy.] Sta Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] with intent to kill with treachery, evident premeditation, grave abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime and while armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack therewith one Benjamin Tabang, hitting him and inflicting upon him mortal wounds at the different parts of his body, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 16096
That on or about the 30th day of July, 2000 at about 8:20 in the evening of [Brgy.] Sta Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] with intent to kill with treachery, evident premeditation, grave abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime and while armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack therewith one Avelina M. Tabang, hitting [her] and inflicting upon [her] mortal wounds at the different parts of [her] body, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, the appellant
pleaded not guilty.
In the absence of an eyewitness, the
prosecution presented the theory that appellant had the motive to kill the
victims as he in fact killed the spouses Benjamin and Avelina Tabang.
Appellant’s brother-in-law, Rolly Panaligan, was the prosecution’s
principal witness. Rolly testified that he and appellant were both tanods
of Barangay Sta. Cruz in Puerto Princesa City. However, appellant was dismissed
by their barangay chairman, victim Benjamin Tabang, sometime before July
30, 2000. As a result thereof, appellant harbored ill-feelings towards
Benjamin.
On the evening of July 30, 2000, Rolly met the Tabangs on his way to the sari-sari
store. Soon thereafter, appellant (armed with a bolo) saw him and inquired
about Benjamin’s whereabouts. He told appellant that Benjamin was on his way to
report for duty as barangay captain. Appellant then divulged his plan to
kill Benjamin. Rolly discouraged appellant but appellant did not respond.
Later that evening, appellant went to Rolly’s house and confessed that he
had killed Benjamin and his wife, Avelina.
The next morning, Rolly heard about the Tabangs’ death. Out of remorse,
he surrendered to police authorities and executed a statement regarding the
incident.
Rolly’s wife (appellant’s sister), Mary Ann Panaligan, corroborated the
testimony of the principal witness. Mary Ann testified that appellant went to
see her husband on the evening of July 30, 2000 and the two spoke in a dimly
lit area. She brought an improvised light to the area but appellant told her
not to light it so she went home.
Dr. Carla Vigonte was presented as an expert witness. According to Dr.
Vigonte, Benjamin suffered four hacking wounds while Avelina bore three hacking
wounds and two lacerated wounds. Both victims died due to multiple hacking
wounds.
Appellant denied the allegations against him. According to him, he slept
at around 7 p.m. on July 30, 2000 after a long day at work. He did not present
any evidence to corroborate his testimony.
Weighing the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses vis-à-vis
appellant’s uncorroborated denial, the RTC ruled that denials cannot prevail
over the positive declarations of the prosecution’s witnesses. Thus, it
concluded that appellant killed the Tabangs but found that the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation[3] was
present only with respect to Benjamin.[4]
In a decision dated August 2, 2004, the RTC found appellant guilty of
murder and homicide[5]
for the deaths of Benjamin and Avelina, respectively. [6] Thus:
Therefore, upon a consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Court:
1.
Finds [appellant] guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 16095,
and taking into consideration the presence of aggravating circumstance of
nighttime, there being no mitigating circumstance, is meted the penalty of death
and is ordered to pay by way of civil indemnity the heirs of the victim in
the amount of seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000).
2.
Finds [appellant] guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 16096, taking
into consideration the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime,
there being no mitigating circumstance of, is meted the penalty of imprisonment
for seventeen (17) years, four (4) months
and one day to twenty years and is directed to pay the heirs of the victim
by way of civil indemnity the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).
The City Warden of Puerto Princesa City is hereby directed to immediately bring and commit [appellant] to the National Penetentiary in Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED.
The Court of Appeals (CA), on intermediate appellate review,[7] affirmed
the findings and the ruling of the RTC in toto.[8]
We affirm appellant’s
guilt and the penalties and civil liabilities imposed on him.
With regard to Criminal
Case No. 16095, in view of Section 2 of RA 9346,[9]
appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole. Conformably with present jurisprudence, he is also ordered to pay the
heirs of Benjamin P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[10] He is
further ordered to pay P50,000 as moral damages, as these are warranted
under the circumstances. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded
even in the absence of proof because an untimely death invariably brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family.[11]
With regard to Criminal Case No.
169069, appellant is sentenced to suffer indeterminate imprisonment from a
minimum of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period to a maximum
of 20 years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.[12]
Moreover, to conform with recent jurisprudence, appellant is ordered to pay the
heirs of Avelina P50,000 as moral damages.[13]
WHEREFORE, the
June 30, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00391 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
Appellant Pancho Entrialgo is found guilty of murder as defined in
Article 248(5) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 16095 and is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is
further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Benjamin Tabang P75,000
as civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000 as moral damages.
He is likewise found guilty of homicide as defined in Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 16096 and is sentenced to a minimum of
12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period to a maximum of 20 years
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. He is further
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Avelina M. Tabang P50,000 as
civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000 as moral damages.
Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA.
ALICIA M. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate
Justice |
|
RUBEN
T. REYES Associate Justice |
(On Official Leave) TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
(On Leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
* On official leave.
** On leave.
[1] Penal Code, Art. 248 states:
Article 248. Murder. – Any person who, not falling with the provisions 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 aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
x x x x x x x x x
5. With evident premeditation;
x x x x x x x x x
[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 16095 and 16096 respectively.
[3] People v. Biso, 448 Phil.591, 602 (2003) and People v. Tigle, 465 Phil. 368, 383. (2004). In order that evident premeditation may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstances, the following must be proven by the prosecution:
(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination and
(c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
It must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused persistently and continuously clung to this resolution despite the lapse of sufficient time to clear their minds and overcome their determination to commit the same.
[4] It appears that the prosecution did not submit any evidence to show that appellant intentionally committed the crimes in the evening. The RTC, on the other hand, did not explain why it considered nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
[5] Penal Code, Art. 249 states:
Article 249. Homicide.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. (emphasis supplied)
[6] Decision penned by Judge Panfilo S. Salva. CA rollo, pp. 25-31.
[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00391.
[8] Decision penned by Associate Justice Portio Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Santiago Javier Ranada of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 2-16.
[9] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[10] People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 727, 743.
[11] People v. Mallari, 452 Phil. 210 (2003).
[12] Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code. In the presence of an aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period, in this case, the maximum of reclusion temporal (i.e., 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years). The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the minimum period of the penalty next lower in degree (i.e., prision mayor in its maximum period, from 10 years and one day to 12 years.). The maximum term, on the other hand, should be taken from the maximum of reclusion temporal.
[13] People v. Romero, 447 Phil. 506, 516 (2003).