THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ISMAEL
DIAZ @ Maeng and RODOLFO DIAZ @ Nanding, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 185841 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01606 dated 5 June 2008 which
affirmed in toto the Joint Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 42, in Criminal Cases No.
98-02261-D and No. 98-02262-D, finding appellants Ismael and Rodolfo Diaz guilty
of two counts of Murder.
For the deaths of Elmer Quinto and Senior
Police Officer (SPO) 1 Richard Dalioan, appellants Ismael, Rodolfo Diaz and one
Domingo Doe were charged before the RTC of Dagupan with Murder and Assault Upon
An Agent in Authority with Murder. The informations,
which were filed on
Criminal
Case No. 98-02261-D
That
on or about the 15th day of April, 1998, in the City of Dagupan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, ISMAEL DIAZ @ Maeng, RODOLFO DIAZ @ Nanding and DOMINGO
DOE, being then armed with a gun and Armalite rifle, with treachery, evident
premeditation and with intent to kill one ELMER QUINTO, confederating together,
acting jointly and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
latter by shooting him, hitting him on the head, thereby causing his death
shortly thereafter due to “Hypovolemic Shock, Gunshot Wound” as per Autopsy
Report issued by Dr. Benjamin Marcial Bautista, of the City Health Office, this
City, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said deceased, ELMER
QUINTO, in the amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00)
Philippine currency, and other consequential damages.[3]
Criminal Case No. 98-02262-D
That
on or about the 15th day of April, 1998, in the City of Dagupan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, ISMAEL DIAZ @ Maeng, RODOLFO DIAZ @ Nanding and DOMINGO
DOE, being then armed with a gun and Armalite rifle, with treachery, evident
premeditation and with intent to kill one SPO1 RICHARD DALIOAN, a member of the
Philippine National Police, qualified and appointed as such, confederating
together, acting jointly and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
latter by shooting and hitting him several times on vital parts of his body,
while said SPO1 RICHARD DALIOAN was then engaged in the performance of his
official duties or on occasion thereof, thereby causing his death shortly
thereafter due to “Hypovolemic Shock, Multiple Gunshot Wound” as per Autopsy
Report issued by Dr. Benjamin Marcial Bautista, of the City Health Office, this
City, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said deceased, SPO1
RICHARD DALIOAN, in the amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00)
Philippine currency, and other consequential damages.[4]
In view of the arrest of the
appellants, the trial court, on
When arraigned on
The pre-trial conference was held on
1. That the two cases will be tried jointly since they happened during the same incident;
2. The identity of the two accused in the sense that they were the accused who were charged and who were arraigned in these two cases;
3. Both
accused knew personally the late Elmer Quinto, both as private citizen and as a
city councilor. As a matter of fact, he
is addressed as a grandfather by the accused Ismael Diaz; likewise, co-accused
knew personally Richard Dalioan, both as a private citizen and as a policeman
of
4. That
on the night of
5. That deceased Elmer Quinto is married to one Teresita Quinto, the private complainant in CR-98-02261;
6. That one Rosa Dalioan is also the wife of SPO1 Richard Dalioan, the victim in CR-98-02262.[7]
Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
The prosecution presented the
following witnesses, namely: (1) SPO1 Salvino Junio;[8]
(2) Dr. Benjamin Marcial O. Bautista;[9]
(3) Ernesto Decano;[10]
(4) Arnel Quinto;[11]
(5) Consolacion Quinto;[12]
(6) Pedro Urbano;[13]
(7) Rosa Dalioan;[14]
(8) Dr. Ronald Bandonill;[15]
(9) SPO2 Ramon Valencerina;[16]
(10) Police Officer (PO) 3 Marlon Decano;[17]
and (11) SPO4 Onofre Madrid.[18] Their collective testimonies established the
following:
On the evening of
Councilor
Quinto was seated in front of the stage facing the audience. He was seated at the left potion of the stage
between Councilors Casilang and Melendez.
Appellant Ismael Diaz was at the left side at the back of the
stage. SPO1 Richard Dalioan, the
security escort of Councilor Quinto, was also at the left side behind the
stage, seated on a bench. Behind SPO1
Dalioan on the right was appellant Rodolfo Diaz. Ernesto Decano, a cousin of Councilor Quinto,
was sitting on the left side of a fence about three meters from SPO1 Dalioan,
while Arnel Quinto, the driver of Councilor Quinto, was about six meters away
from the latter.
The
program lasted until dawn of the following day,
Councilor Quinto died on the spot. Ernesto Decano and Arnel Quinto rushed SPO1
Dalioan to the Trauma Center Hosptial, Lucao District,
Dr. Benjamin Marcial O. Bautista,
Rural Health Physician of the City Health Office,
Ernesto Decano testified that when
the shooting happened, he saw Ismael Diaz at the back of the stage holding a
.45 cal. pistol. He then saw SPO1
Dalioan, who was about to pull out a revolver, get shot many times by Rodolfo
Diaz using an M16 armalite rifle.[21] Next, he saw the two flee towards Sitio
Tococ.
Arnel Quinto disclosed that after seeing
Ismael Diaz shoot Councilor Quinto, he then saw Rodolfo Diaz gun down SPO1
Dalioan with an armalite rifle. The two
then took off to Sitio Tococ.
SPO1 Salvino Junio was the Desk
Officer of the night shift at the Dagupan City Police Station when SPO2 Romeo
Esquillo reported to him in the early morning of
SPO1 Pedro Urbano of the Dagupan City
Police Station narrated, among others, how they surveyed the place where the
incident happened and how the empty shells of a .45 cal pistol and M16 armalite
rifle were recovered. He disclosed that
he recovered five empty shells of a .45 caliber pistol, more or less, three and
one-half (3˝) meters away from the cadaver of Councilor Quinto. As to the empty shells of the armalite rifle,
he found 15 of them beside Renato Cuison’s house, which was situated six meters
away from the back of the stage.
Rosa Dalioan, widow of SPO1 Dalioan, said
her husband was 40 years old and was earning a monthly salary of P5,600.00.[24] Her husband’s death was very painful, for he
was the sole breadwinner of the family.
Because of his death, their four children were farmed out to their
relatives.
Consolacion Quinto, mother of
Councilor Quinto, was at the crime scene when the incident happened. She was 2 to 2˝ meters away from her son when
the guns were fired. She tried to dive
to the ground, but was not able to do so.
She bent low towards the ground where she saw her son lying on the
ground with plenty of blood on his head.
She heard people shouting, “It was Maeng and Nanding who did it.” She identified Maeng as Ismael Diaz and Nanding
as Rodolfo Diaz, both of whom she personally knows.
Consolacion Quinto disclosed that his
son, Elmer Quinto, was 47 years old when he died[25]
and was a member of the City Council of Dagupan City, by virtue of his being
the President of the Liga ng mga Barangay
in P18,749.00.[26] She added that Elmer had six children with
his wife, and that his children were traumatized by the incident. Losing her son caused her sufferings. She said her husband was likewise affected. As a result, he became very weak and sickly
until he eventually died. Not only did
she lose a son, she also lost her husband.
Dr. Ronald Bandonill, Medico Legal
Officer, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), testified that on
SPO2 Ramon Valencerina, Warrant Officer
of the Dagupan City Police Station, testified that he tried to serve warrants
and alias warrants of arrest issued in the names of Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo
Diaz, but the same were returned unserved, because the subjects thereof could not
be found in their respective residences.[29]
PO3 Marlon Decano testified that his
only participation in the arrest of Alfredo Diaz, the brother of the appellant
Rodolfo Diaz, was to point to him because his co-police officers did not know
him. Subsequently, Alfredo was invited
for questioning.
SPO4 Onofre
For the defense, the following took
the witness stand: (1) Imelda Quinto,[31]
(2) Josue de Vera,[32]
(3) Ricardo Avelino,[33]
(4) Rhodora Jose,[34]
(5) Lolita Velasco,[35]
(6) Ismael Diaz,[36] (7)
Rodolfo Diaz,[37] (8)
Santiago Marcella, Jr.,[38]
and (9) Alfredo Diaz.[39] Their testimonies disclosed the defense’s
version of the incident.
Appellants Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo
Diaz denied shooting Councilor Elmer Quinto and SPO1 Dalioan. They, however, admitted that they were
present in the dance hall where the shooting happened. They were there as players of a softball team,
which was to receive the runner-up trophy.
They said their table was 20 to 25 meters away from the table, where the
guests who included Councilor Quinto sat.
They alleged that when the shooting occurred, they saw the people in the
dance hall stoop. They likewise crouched
to prevent being hit. When the people
began to run, they (appellants) stood up and heard the people say that somebody
was shot. Appellants Ismael Diaz and
Rodolfo Diaz then ran together with Imelda Quinto, Jayho Villanueva, Ricky
Velasco and some others.
Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz did not
return to the dance hall to know what really happened. They remained in their respective houses
until armed men began to look for them on 17 or
Ismael Diaz said he returned to Sitio
Nibaliw, Lucao District,
On the day he and Rodolfo Diaz were
arrested at
Rodolfo Diaz, despite knowing that he
was being held responsible for the deaths of Councilor Quinto and SPO1 Richard
Dalioan, did not surrender to the authorities because he feared that he might
be killed.
Imelda Quinto, a resident of Lucao
District,
Josue de Vera was a resident of Lucao
District,
Ricardo Avelino declared that he was
at the victory ball when the killings took place. Upon his arrival there, Ismael Diaz escorted
him to the presidential table, he being a candidate for city councilor. He revealed that he did not see the actual
shooting of the victims, because he was sleeping on one of the tables. When he heard the gunshots, he stood up and
looked for his wife and son. He saw
Ismael Diaz who was 2˝ meters away from him.
He said Ismael Diaz did not shoot Councilor Quinto because Diaz was not
holding a gun when he saw him, and that they were 15-20 meters from the place
where Councilor Quinto was shot.
Lolita Velasco disclosed that she was
the aunt of Ismael Diaz and cousin of Rodolfo Diaz. She testified that at around
Rhodora Jose, a neighbor of Lolita
Velasco, testified that at around
Santiago Marcella, 3rd
Assistant City Prosecutor of Dagupan City, testified that he handled two cases
for attempted homicide filed by Salvador Alabasco and Lanecita Arenas against
appellants. The said cases were
dismissed on account of the affidavits of desistance filed by said complainants.
Alfredo Diaz, a brother of Rodolfo
Diaz, testified that he was at the victory ball when the shooting happened. He was at the gate watching when he heard a
loud sound which he thought was a trianggulo
exploding. When he saw people running
and heard someone shouting that somebody got shot, he also ran. Thereafter, he was arrested by the police
officers, one of whom was Marlon Decano.
Several hours later, he was released.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, both
the accused ISMAEL DIAZ and RODOLFO DIAZ are hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for having committed in conspiracy with one another two (2)
counts of MURDER as defined by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and as
penalized by RA 7659, and since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
was attendant to the commission of the offense, each accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in each of the herein
cases. Also in each of the two cases,
both should jointly and severally indemnify the death of ELMER QUINTO and
RICHARD DALIOAN each in the amount of P50,000.00. They should likewise pay jointly and
severally the heirs of Elmer Quinto the amount of P2,474,736.00 as lost
earnings which would have been received by his heirs as support had he been
alive, P30,000.00 as moderate or temperate damages, and P25,000.00
as moral damages, as well as to the heirs of SPO1 Richard Dalioan the amount of
P874,380.00 as lost earnings which would have been received by his heirs
as support had the said victim been alive, P20,000.00 as moderate or
temperate damages, and P25,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the
costs.[40]
The
trial court gave credence to the testimonies of Ernesto Decano and Arnel Quinto,
who pointed to the appellants as the assailants. It ruled that Ismael Diaz had a strong motive
to kill Councilor Quinto, because the latter was the principal suspect in the
killing of the former’s father (Pablo Diaz) who was the political opponent of
Consolacion Quinto. It likewise found
the shooting of SPO1 Richard Dalioan connected with the shooting of Councilor
Quinto. The almost simultaneous shooting
of the two, the trial court said, was enough proof that the appellants
conspired with each other.
On
the other hand, the trial court was not convinced by the denial offered by the
appellants. Not only did appellants
admit they were present in the place where the incident took place, they were
positively identified by eyewitnesses. The
trial court did not find credible the defense witnesses (Josue de Vera, Imelda
Quinto and Ricardo Avelino) who alleged that appellants were with them and were
not holding any firearm when the victims were gunned down. It found that appellants had a motive to kill
Councilor Quinto and considered their flight in arriving at its decision.
On
In
its Order dated
On
On
In
a Resolution dated
Appellants
make the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, WHEN THEIR GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION’S EYEWITNESSES.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT CONSPIRACY AND TREACHERY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.[49]
It
is appellants’ contention that there was no proof that the prosecution
witnesses saw the actual shooting. They
argue that this is supported by the trial court’s finding that Ernesto Decano could
have seen Ismael Diaz when the latter was retreating backward. They add that Decano’s testimony that he
heard the gunshots and saw how Councilor Quinto was shot is doubtful considering
that music was being played and firecrackers were being exploded and that he
took cover behind the fence to hide. As
to Arnel Quinto, appellants tried to discredit him by asking how he could have
seen the actual shooting of the victims when he admittedly hid or took cover. Moreover, they maintain that it was unnatural
for Arnel Quinto not to have warned Councilor Quinto when he saw appellants approaching
and holding guns. With all these major
inconsistencies, appellants assert that the conviction of the appellants was
not justified.
After
meticulously going over the testimonies of both Ernesto Decano and Arnel
Quinto, we are convinced that appellant Ismael Diaz shot Councilor Elmer Quinto,
while appellant Rodolfo Diaz shot SPO1 Richard Dalioan.
The
testimony of Arnel Quinto, the driver of Councilor Quinto, clearly points to
the appellants as the assailants. His
testimony as to the actual shooting of the victims goes this way:
Q. Did anything unusual happen in the early
morning of
A. Yes sir, there was.
Q. What was that unusual event that happened?
A. There was a shooting incident that took place, sir.
Q. Who was shot on that incident?
A. Councilor Quinto and SPO1 Dalioan, sir.
Q. Did you personally see who shot Kgd. Elmer Quinto and SPO1 Richard Dalioan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who shot Kgd. Elmer Quinto?
A. A certain Maeng Diaz, sir.
x x x x
Q. Who shot SPO1 Dalioan?
A. It was Nanding Diaz, sir.
x x x x
Q. Please narrate to the Court the sequence of events that occurred during this shooting incident?
A. There was an announcement for the public for dance for all, sir.
Q. And after that announcement, what happened, Mr. Witness?
A. Firecrackers burst out, sir.
Q. And while the firecrackers were being burst, what happened, if any?
A. I heard gun burst shots, sir.
Q. What happened after you heard gun burst shots?
A. I saw Kgd. Elmer Quinto fell down, sir.
Q. Was Kgd. Elmer Quinto shot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was Councilor Quinto when he was shot?
A. He was in front of the stage a little left side, sir.
Q. Who shot Councilor Quinto?
A. It was Maeng Diaz, sir.
Q. Where was Maeng Diaz when he shot Councilor Elmer Quinto?
A. He was on the left side of the stage behind, sir.
x x x x
Q. After Councilor Elmer Quinto was shot, what happened, if any?
A. I saw SPO1 Dalioan who was also shot down, sir.
Q. Who shot SPO1 Dailioan?
A. It was Nanding Diaz, sir.
Q. What did Nanding Diaz use to shoot SPO1 Dalioan?
A. An armalite, sir.
Q. After Nanding Diaz shot SPO1 Dalioan, what happened next, if any?
A. Maeng and Nanding ran away towards Tocok, sir.[50]
Arnel
Quinto’s account of the incident was substantially corroborated by Ernesto
Decano in this wise:
Q.
Was there anything unusual happen in the early morning
of
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was this unusual event that happened?
A. Councilor Quinto and SPO1 Dalioan were shot and killed, sir.
x x x x
Q. Who shot Elmer Quinto?
A. Maeng Diaz, sir.
x x x x
Q. And who shot SPO1 Dalioan?
A. Nanding Diaz, sir.
x x x x
Q. Please relate to the Court the unusual event that occurred during the shooting incident?
A. Councilor Quinto was sitting in front of the makeshift stage, sir.
Q. And then what happened, Mr. Witness?
A. The public was told to dance and they play the song Dayang-Dayang, sir.
Q. While the song Dayang-Dayang was played what happened?
A. While the song Dayang-Dayang was played some firecrackers were being burst, sir.
Q. What happened when a firecracker was being burst, if any, Mr. Witness?
A. Then suddenly I heard some gunshots, sir.
Q. What happened after the firing of the gunshots?
A. I saw Maeng Diaz at the back of the stage holding a .45 caliber pistol, sir.
Q. What happened after that, if any?
A. SPO1 Dalioan was about to pull out the .22 revolver but he was shot many times by Nanding Diaz with M16 Armalite Rifle, sir.[51]
From
the foregoing declarations, it is clear that after the people in the dance hall
were invited to dance, the song Dayang-Dayang was played and some firecrackers
were exploded. It was at this moment
that Ismael Diaz, using a .45 caliber pistol, shot Councilor Quinto from the
back hitting him on the head. When SPO1
Dalioan was about to draw his weapon, Rodolfo Diaz shot him with an armalite rifle
inflicting on him multiple gunshot wounds.
As explained by the trial court, though the tables of appellants and
Councilor Quinto were situated 20-25 meters away, it was not impossible for the
appellants to have gone to the place where the victims were located by slipping
under the bamboo strand of the fence surrounding the dance hall, and going to the
stage from behind, towards the place where Councilor Quinto’s table was
located.
The
statement of the trial court that “Ernesto Decano could not have seen him (Ismael
Diaz) go near Elmer Quinto since everybody’s attention was focused on the
audience and he (Ernesto Decano) could have only seen him (Ismael Diaz) as the
said accused was retreating backward from his target” does not mean that
appellant Ismael Diaz was not the one who shot Councilor Quinto. The fact that Ernesto Decano saw Ismael Diaz
holding a .45 caliber pistol, whether retreating or not, bolsters the
declaration of Arnel Quinto that it was Ismael Diaz whom he saw shoot Councilor
Quinto with a .45 caliber pistol.
Appellants’
argument that both Ernesto Decano and Arnel Quinto could not have witnessed the
shooting because they admitted that they hid or took cover during the shooting
incident does not have a leg to stand on.
Both witnesses emphatically stated that the shooting happened so fast
that they were able to hide or take cover when the shooting had almost ended.
Arnel Quinto explained:
Q. Were you standing near the sound system during the shooting incident?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you do?
A. I hid because I might be hit by the bullets, sir.
Q. Could you still see what happened from your position?
ATTY. CABRERA:
We would object to that, Your Honor, please, how could he see that? He has already hidden himself.
ATTY. JAVELLANA:
That is why we were asking him, your Honor.
COURT:
Q. How did you hide yourself?
A. Because before I hid, the shooting incident has almost ended, because as what I have said, the incident happened so fast, sir.
x x x x
COURT:
Q. You said that when the dance was going on you were looking from place to place watching Kgd. Elmer Quinto, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you need to watch Kgd. Quinto?
A. Because I was then his driver, your Honor.
Q. But your duty as a driver was to drive him and not to watch him, is that correct?
A. I was watching over him, Your Honor, because of instances that he might be asking me to do something for him so that he can easily tell me through signal.
Q. So the court understands that you are watching him because there was possible harm that may occur to him, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, of course, when you go from one place to another within the premises of the dancing hall, you noticed the presence of Rodolfo Diaz and Maeng Diaz behind the stage?
A. Not yet, sir.
Q. What moment did you notice the presence of Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz in relation to the gun report?
A. During the gun burst, Your Honor.
Q. But you did not tell that you went somewhere else to hide yourself?
A. Your Honor, it was when the gun burst was about to end when I hid myself.[52]
Ernesto Decano made it clear that he
saw what happened, thus:
Q. Now, from your position when you took cover, Mr. Witness, could you still see what was happening?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why?
A. The sight is almost finish[ed] when I was able to take cover because it is very fast, sir.[53]
Appellant further tries to discredit
Arnel Quinto by claiming that it is highly unnatural for the latter not to have
warned either Councilor Quinto or SPO1 Dalioan when he saw Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo
Diaz holding firearms.
Arnel Quinto testified on how he
acted under the situation in this manner:
Q. Will you tell us the reason why you did not call the attention of either Kgd. Elmer Quinto or SPO1 Dalioan despite the fact that you have seen these two accused already holding a firearm before the firing took place?
A. Because I was not aware of their intention, Your Honor.
Q. Did you not know that SPO1 Dalioan was there to secure the safety of Kgd. Elmer Quinto because of previous grudge with people?
A. I do not know, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY ATTY.JAVELLANA
Q. You said that you saw Maeng Diaz and Nanding Diaz before the shooting incident, could you tell us how long before the shooting incident that you saw Maeng Diaz and Nanding Diaz?
A. About a minute, sir.
Q. Is that the reason why you were not able to inform SPO1 Dalioan and Councilor Quinto?
ATTY. CABRERA
Misleading, we object, Your Honor, please.
COURT
Q. Did you know that the family of Diazes and the family of Quintos were not exactly in good terms because of previous incident that happened between them?
A. I know, your Honor.
Q. And yet, you know that very well but you did not call the attention of either Police Officer Dalioan and your boss Elmer Quinto about the presence of Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz holding their respective firearms?
A. I was far from them, your Honor.
Q. You claim to be 6 meters away from them, you consider that too far?
A. Of course, I did not tell them anymore or get near them because if I have done it, I might be even one of those who were hit, Your Honor.[54]
We agree with the Court of Appeals
when it said that the credibility of said witnesses was not affected because it is
well-settled that different people react differently to a
given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or
frightful experience. Witnessing a crime
is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions
from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be
drawn.[55] As Arnel Quinto explained, he failed to call
the attention of Councilor Quinto or SPO1 Dalioan because he did not know the intention of the
appellants, and the incident happened very quickly, giving him no opportunity
to give any warning to the councilor and to his security escort. Moreover, he was scared that he might get hit
if he called the victims’ attention.
Having been positively identified by
prosecution witnesses as the assailants, all that appellants can offer for
their exoneration is the defense of denial.
Appellants admitted that they were present in the dance hall where the
victims were gunned down, but claimed that they were not the assailants.
To be believed, denial
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and
without merit.[56] Greater weight is given to the
categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to
the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime.[57] In the instant case, appellants failed to
adduce strong and credible evidence to overcome the testimonies of the
prosecution’s eyewitnesses. The
testimonies of the defense witnesses (Josue de Vera, Imelda Quinto and Ricardo
Avelino), who alleged that appellants were with them and were not holding
firearms when the victims were gunned down, were not given credence by both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals.
These witnesses were not credible witnesses. Thus, denial, unsubstantiated by any credible
evidence, deserves no weight in law.
When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves
great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe
directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is
in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence
properly.[58]
It is to be noted that the Court of
Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. In
this regard, 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.[59] We find no compelling reason
to deviate from their findings.
The
Court has consistently adhered to the principle that proof of motive
is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is
positively identified by an eyewitness, and his participation is adequately
established. Motive
assumes true significance only when there is no showing
of who the perpetrator of a crime might have been.[60] In this case, not only were the appellants
positively identified as the killers, it was shown that they had a motive to kill
the victims. As shown by the evidence,
appellants Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz are the son and cousin, respectively,
of the late Pablo Diaz, the political opponent of Consolacion Quinto, who is
the mother of Councilor Quinto.
Councilor Quinto is suspected of having masterminded the killing of
Pablo Diaz.
Appellants’
flight is further evidence of their guilt.
It is well-established that the flight of an
accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt;
and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an
inference of guilt may be drawn.[61] In the case before us, appellants were
apprehended only on
Appellants assert that neither
conspiracy nor treachery attended the killings.
We disagree. Both conspiracy and treachery were present in
the commission of the killings.
We agree with the Court of Appeals
when it said:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Although there is no direct proof of conspiracy, the same may still be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated or it can be inferred from the acts of the appellants themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
In the present case, appellant
Ismael Diaz was behind Councilor Quinto while appellant Rodolfo Diaz positioned
himself behind SPO1 Dalioan, the security aide of Councilor Quinto. When Ismael Diaz shot Councilor Quinto, SPO1
Dalioan tried to pull out his gun but appellant Rodolfo Diaz shot him. Thereafter, the two escaped going to Sitio
Tococ. Both appellants were apprehended
only on
The possession of arms by both appellants, their strategic positions before the incident and their simultaneous firing of guns ineluctably show their concerted action to kill Councilor Quinto, including the latter’s aide. Their actions were so closely connected showing that they mutually aided one another in bringing about their criminal design.[63]
Both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals correctly found the appellants guilty of two
counts of murder in view of the presence of
treachery. There is treachery when the
means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and such means, methods, and
forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person.[64]
In the case under consideration, the attack was
unexpected and swift. Appellants
attacked from behind, catching both victims defenseless. Both victims had no opportunity to defend
themselves, and the appellants were not exposed to any danger in view of the
unexpected attack. It is likewise
apparent that appellants consciously and deliberately adopted their mode of
attack – the use of high-powered weapons like a .45 caliber pistol and an armalite
rifle -- making sure that the victims would have no chance to defend themselves
by reason of the surprise attack.
We now go to the penalties to be imposed on
appellants.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659,[65] murder
is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance in the commission of the felony,
appellants should, in each case, be sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
conformably to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
We now go to the award of
damages. When death occurs due to a
crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim;
(2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages;
and (5) temperate damages.[66]
Civil indemnity is mandatory and
granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime.[67] The trial court properly awarded the amount
of P50,000.00 to each of the heirs of the victims as civil indemnity. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant
the imposition of the death penalty.[68]
As to actual damages, the heirs of the victims are
not entitled thereto, because said damages were not duly proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty.[69] However, the award of P25,000.00 in
temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of
burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court.[70] Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code,
temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of
the victims suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact amount was not proved.[71] Thus, the award of temperate damages to the
heirs of Councilor Quinto is reduced to P25,000.00, while that granted to
the heirs of SPO1 Dalioan is retained.
Anent moral damages, the same is mandatory in cases
of murder and homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the
death of the victim.[72] The
trial court awarded P25,000.00 as moral damages in each case. The same must be increased to P50,000.00
to conform with current jurisprudence. [73]
Both lower courts did not award exemplary
damages. The heirs of the victims are
entitled to exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was firmly established.[74] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary
damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating
circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense,
since the law does not specify otherwise.[75] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we
award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to each of the heirs
of the victims.[76]
The trial court awarded the amounts of P2,474,736.00
and P874,380.00 as lost earnings to the heirs of Councilor Quinto and
SPO1 Dalioan, respectively.
The monthly income of Councilor Quinto was P18,749.00
or a gross annual income of P224,988.00.
He was 47 years old at the time of his death. On the other hand, SPO1 Dalioan was 40 years
old when he was killed and was earning P5,600.00 a month or a total of P67,200.00
gross annual income. The formula[77]
for unearned income is as follows:
Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income
(G.A.I.) less Living expenses
(50% G.A.I.)]
where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the deceased )
The unearned income of Councilor Quinto is
computed as follows:
Unearned
Income = 2/3 (80-47)(P224,988.00-P112,494.00)
= 2/3 (33)(P112,494.00)
=
P2,474,868.00
The unearned income of SPO1 Dalioan is computed as follows:
Unearned Income = 2/3 (80-40)(P67,200.00-P33,600.00)
= 2/3 (40)(P33,600.00)
=
P896,000.00
The unearned income or lost income awarded to the
heirs of Councilor Quinto and SPO1 Dalioan must respectively be increased to P2,474,868.00
and P896,000.00.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01606 dated 5 June 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the
award of temperate damages to the heirs of Councilor Quinto is reduced to P25,000.00;
the award of moral damages to each of the heirs of the victims is increased to P50,000.00;
the award of unearned income to the heirs of Councilor Quinto and SPO1 Dalioan
is increased to P2,474,868.00 and P896,000.00, respectively. Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
are awarded to the heirs of each of the victims. Cost against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
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 Agustin S. Dizon with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 231-246.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 38-62.
[3]
[4]
[5] Records, Vol. 1, p. 56.
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] Exh. F, Folder of Exhibits, p. 4.
[20] Exh. G, id. at 6.
[21] TSN,
[22] Exh. A, Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
[23] Exh. B, id.
[24] PNP Certification, Exh. U, id. at 29.
[25] Birth Certificate, Exh. L, id. at 14.
[26] Certificate issued by City Council Secretary, Exh. M, id. at 15.
[27] Certificate of Identification and Consent for Autopsy, Exh. W, id. at 31.
[28] Autopsy
Report No. 98-08-P, Exh. Y, id. At 32.
[29] The testimony of Police Inspector
(P/Insp.) Franklin Moises Mabanag was dispensed with when the defense admitted
that the trial court had been informed, per return of a subpoena, that the
arrest of Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz had been effected. (TSN,
[30] Exhs. II and JJ, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 50-51.
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35]
[36] TSN, 14-15 November 2000 and
[37] TSN, 11 and 20 December 2000.
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
[41] Records, Vol. 1, p. 313.
[42]
[43] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[44] CA rollo, p. 123.
[45]
[46]
[47] Rollo, p. 24.
[48]
[49] CA rollo, p. 138.
[50] TSN,
[51] TSN,
[52] TSN,
[53] TSN,
[54] TSN,
[55] People v. Baniega, 427 Phil. 405, 415 (2002).
[56] Belonghilot v. Hon. Angeles, 450 Phil. 265, 293 (2003).
[57] People v. Baccay, 348 Phil. 322, 327-328 (1998).
[58] People
v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67,
[59] People
v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385,
[60] People v. Lozada, 390 Phil. 93, 114 (2000).
[61] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695,
[62] Exh. BB-1, Folder of Exhibits, p. 39.
[63] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[64] People v. Ave, 439 Phil. 829, 853 (2002).
[65] An Act to Impose the Death Penalty
on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for That Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes. Took effect on
[66] People
v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051,
[67] People
v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271,
[68] People
v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737,
[69] People v. Tubongbanua, supra note 67.
[70] People v. Dacillo, 471 Phil. 497, 510 (2004).
[71] People
v. Surongon, G.R. No. 173478,
[72] People v. Bajar, 460 Phil. 683, 700 (2003).
[73] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 171272, 7
June 2007, 523 SCRA 433, 453.
[74] People v. Beltran, Jr., supra note 66.
[75] People v. Abolidor, 467 Phil. 709, 721 (2004).
[76] People
v. Daleba, Jr., G.R. No. 168100,
[77] People
v. Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No. 179499,