EN BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - RAMON
REGALARIO, MARCIANO
REGALARIO, SOTERO
REGALARIO, BIENVENIDO
REGALARIO and NOEL
REGALARIO, Accused-Appellants. |
G.R. No. 174483 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,* VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,** LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,* and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: March 31, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
For automatic review is the decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01556 which affirmed with
modification, an earlier decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 3613, finding
accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel, all surnamed
Regalario guilty of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00,
and another sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs of
the proceedings.
In the court of origin,
accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel were originally charged with
Homicide. However, after reinvestigation
of the case, the Panel of Prosecutors of the Department of Justice,
That on February 22, 1997 at about 11:00 in the
evening, at Brgy. Natasan, Municipality of Libon, province of Albay,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
cruelty, treachery, abuse of superior strength, nighttime attack, assault,
strike and hit ROLANDO SEVILLA with wooden clubs (bahi) used as their night
sticks, hitting the latter at the different parts of his body and tying down
his hands and feet with a rope, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious
and mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice
of his legal heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY
TO LAW.
On October 9, 1998, accused-appellants, duly assisted
by their counsel, entered a plea of “not guilty” to the offense charged.[4] Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the following as its
witnesses: Zaldy Siglos, Nancy Sara, Ryan Sara, Armando Cabais Poblete, Ronnie
Siglos, Cynthia Sevilla, Norma Torres, Policeman Jose Gregorio, Cenen Talagtag,
Cesar Sazon and Dr. Mario Cerillo, while Antonio Relato and Nicanor Regonia
testified on rebuttal. Nancy Sara,
Cynthia Sevilla and Ryan Sara were presented for a second time also as rebuttal
witnesses.
On their part, accused-appellants took the witness stand. All raised the defense of denial except for
Ramon who admitted the act charged but claimed self-defense. To corroborate their defense, Jose Poblete
and Adonis Velasco were presented. The
defense also presented Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Jimmy Colisao, Harold
Reolo, Ma. Julieta Razonable, and Dr. Leopoldo Barrosa II.
On August 24, 2000, the trial
court rendered its decision[5] giving full faith and credit to the
prosecution’s evidence. It ruled out
accused-appellant Ramon Regalario’s claim of self defense, and held that there
was conspiracy among the accused-appellants in the commission of the crime as
shown in the manner in which all of them inflicted the wounds on the victim’s
body. It further ruled that the killing
was qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength and by their scoffing at
the body of the victim. It also
appreciated the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. The pertinent dispositive
portion of the said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding Ramon,
Sotero, Bienvenido, Marciano and Noel, all surnamed Regalario, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Par. 1, of Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the aggravating circumstance of scoffing
at the corpse of the victim. However,
accused are entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender which offset the aggravating circumstance of scoffing at his corpse,
hence, are hereby sentenced to suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua together with the accessory penalties provided
for by law.
The accused are hereby ordered to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of the late Rolando Sevilla the amount of P50,000.00
and another sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
2-92 the P200,000.00 bail bond put up by accused Marciano Regalario is
hereby cancelled and is ordered recommitted to jail.
SO ORDERED.
The record of this case was
forwarded to this Court for automatic review, in view of the penalty imposed.
In our Resolution[6] of
August 13, 2001, We accepted the appeal and directed the Chief of the Judicial
Records Office, to send notices to the parties to file their respective
briefs. The Court also required the Jail
Warden, Municipal Jail, Polangui, Albay to transfer accused-appellants to the
Bureau of Corrections,
Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo[9] which modified the provisions of the
Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this
Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
this case was referred for appropriate action and disposition to the CA where
it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 01556.
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized by the
Office of the Solicitor General, as follows:
Accused-appellants, all surnamed Regalario, are barangay officials of Natasan, Libon, Albay and related to one another by consanguinity. Marciano, barangay chairman, Sotero, barangay kagawad and Ramon, barangay tanod, are brothers while Bienvenido Regalario, also barangay tanod, is their cousin and Noel is the son of Marciano. (TSN, November 16, 1998, p. 9; RTC Order dated October 9, 1998, pp. 115-117)
On the night of February 22, 1997, a dance and singing contest was being held in the barangay pavilion of Natasan, Libon, Albay. At around ten o’clock that evening, Rolando Sevilla and Armando Poblete were enjoying the festivities when appellant Sotero Regalario approached them (TSN, December 7, 1998, p.4). To avoid trouble, the two distanced themselves from Sotero. Nevertheless, a commotion ensued. (ibid., p. 5). Appellants Sotero and Bienvenido Regalario were seen striking Rolando Sevilla several times with their respective nightsticks, locally known as bahi. (TSN, November 16, 1998, pp. 13-17, 32, 34, 36-37). The blows caused Sevilla to fall down in a sitting position but after a short while he was able to get up (ibid., pp. 16-17). He ran away in the direction of the house of appellant Mariano Regalario, the barangay captain (ibid., pp. 18-38). Bienvenido and Sotero Regalario chased Sevilla (ibid., p. 38, TSN, December 7, 1998. p. 6). When Sevilla was already near Marciano’s house, he was waylaid by appellant Ramon Regalario and at this point, Marciano Regalario and his son Noel Regalario came out of their house (TSN, December 7, 1998, pp. 7-9 and 35). Noel was carrying a seven-inch knife. The five appellants caught the victim in front of Marciano’s house. Armed with their nightsticks, they took turns in hitting the victim until he slumped to the ground face down (ibid., pp. 8, 35 and 38). In that position, Sevilla was boxed by Marciano in the jaw. After a while, when Sevilla was no longer moving, Marciano first ordered the others to kill the victim and to tie him up (ibid., pp. 36-37). Upon hearing the order, Bienvenido, with the help of Sotero, tied the neck, hands and feet of the victim with a nylon rope used by farmers for tying carabao. The rest of the group just stood by watching. (ibid., pp. 37-38).
In the early morning of February 23, 1997, Cynthia Sevilla, the victim’s widow, after she was informed of her husband’s death, went to the poblacion of Libon to report the incident at the town’s police station (TSN, December 8, 1998, pp. 7-8). However, her statements were not entered in the police blotter because appellant Marciano Regalario had earlier reported to them, at two o’clock in the morning, a different version of the incident, i.e., it was the victim Sevilla who shot Marciano’s brother Ramon and that Sevilla, allegedly still alive, was placed under the custody of the barangay tanods. (ibid., p. 7; TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M. Session], pp. 9-10). At around eight o’clock of the same morning, SPO4 Jose Gregorio, with some other police officers and Cynthia Sevilla, left the police station on board a truck and proceeded to the crime scene in Natasan. SPO4 Gregorio conducted an investigation of the incident. (TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M. Session], pp. 10-12). Thereafter, the policemen took the victim’s cadaver to the police station in the poblacion (ibid., p. 26) where pictures were taken showing the victim’s hands and legs tied behind him [Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’] (ibid., pp. 14-15; TSN, December 8, 1998, p. 10; TSN, November 20, 1998 [P.M. Session], pp 5-7). On that same day, SPO4 Gregorio requested the Libon’s Rural Health Unit to conduct an autopsy on the victim’s body but since the municipal health officer was not around, it was only performed the next day, February 24 (TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M. Session], p. 26; TSN, December 8, 1998, pp. 10-11; TSN, November 20, 1998 [P.M. Session], p. 11). After Dr. Mario Cerillo, Municipal Health Officer of Libon conducted the autopsy, he forthwith issued a Medico-Legal Report dated February 24, 1997 (Exhibit ‘B’), the pertinent portions of which read:
Findings:
Head : Lacerated wound 4 cm
frontal area, Right.
: Lacerated wound 8 cm.
occipital area, Right.
: Lacerated wound 4 cm.
with fractured skull
(post auricular area),
Right.
: Abrasion 4 x 2 cm.
eyebrow, Right.
: Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm.
with lacerated wound
1 cm. eyebrow, Left.
: Periorbital Hematoma
Left and Right eye.
: Lacerated wound 1 cm.
lower lip, Left.
Neck : Stab wound 2 cm.
penetrating lateral base
of the neck just above
the clavicle, Right.
: Stab wound 2 cm., 6 cm.
depth lateral base of the
neck just above the
clavicle, Right.
Trunk : Hematoma 10 x 8 cm.
clavicular area, Right.
: Multiple abrasion chest
: Contusion 7 x 2 cm.,
7th Intercorsal space and
clavicular line, left.
Extremities : Multiple abrasion and
contusion on both Right
and Left arm and forearm.
: Abrasion (Ropemark)
around Right and Left wrist.
: Abrasion (Ropemark) around
distal 3rd of both Right and
Left leg.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Cause of Death:
Sever blood loss secondary to stab wound and multiple lacerated wound, probably secondary to intracranial hemorrhage.
On the witness stand, Dr. Cerillo opined that the victim’s lacerated wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a hard stick, a stone or iron bar, his stab wounds by a sharp-edged instrument or knife, his contusions and hematoma by a fist blow or through contact with a blunt instrument. Also according to the physician, the sharp object which caused the victim’s stab wounds could have been a knife 2 cm. wide and 6 cm. long because they were clean cut wounds. (TSN, November 20, 1998 [P.M. Session], pp. 14-15).[10]
On the other hand, the accused-appellants’ Brief
presents a different story:
At the time of the incident in question, accused Marciano Regalario was the incumbent barangay captain of Natasan, Libon, Albay. Accused Sotero was a kagawad, while Ramon and Bienvenido were barangay tanods of the same place. Noel Regalario had no public position. He is the son of one of the other accused.
On the night of February 22, 1997, a public dance and singing contest was held in their barangay. Naturally, being barangay officials, the accused, (except Noel who is not an official and whose wife has just given birth) were at the place of the celebration, discharging their peace-keeping duties. They were posted at different places in that vicinity.
At first, a fire broke out in the toilet of the Day Care Center. It was attended to by the persons assigned in that area. A while later, there was another commotion in the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario. When he approached the group where the disturbance was taking place and tried to investigate, Rolando Sevilla suddenly emerged from the group and without any ado, fired a shot at him. He was hit at the left shoulder. Instinctively, and in order to disable Sevilla from firing more shots, which might prove fatal, he struck his assailant with his nightstick and hit him at the back of his head. This is the blow which Nancy Sara and Zaldy Siglos said were delivered by Sotero and Bienvenido. This blow caused Sevilla to reel backward and lean on the bamboo fence. To prevent Sevilla from regaining his balance, Ramon pressed his counter-attack by continuing to harass him with blows of his nightstick. As Ramon pressed on forward, Sevilla retreated backward. Ramon kept him busy parrying the blows which hit his arms and front part of the body, as they were face to face with each other. But even in the course of such harassment, Sevilla was able to fire a second shot which missed Ramon.
When they reached the end of the road pavement, Sevilla lost his footing on edge of the pavement and fell down. At that juncture, Sotero arrived and shouted to Ramon to stop beating Rolando. But Ramon told him that Rolando still had the gun. So, Sotero plunged at Rolando and they wrestled on the ground for the possession of the gun. As they struggled, the gun went off but no one was hurt. When Rolando raised his arms to move the gun away from Sotero, Ramon knocked the gun off his hand and it fell near the place where Jose Poblete was standing. Poblete just arrived at the scene along with Marciano Regalario who was already told that his brother Ramon was shot by Sevilla. Poblete picked up the gun. He was instructed by Marciano to keep it until it is turned over to the authorities.
The wounded Ramon Regalario was brought to town for treatment and later to the provincial hospital. Marciano and Sotero proceeded to the police station to report the shooting of Ramon.
Bienvenido Regalario, the barangay tanod, arrived at the scene after the fact. He was instructed by Marciano, the barangay captain to effect the arrest of Rolando Sevilla for the crime of shooting Ramon. According to Bienvenido, they were taught in their training seminar to just use a rope in lieu of handcuffs because they could not be supplied with it. So, he tied the hands and feet of Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape.
On the early morning of February 23, a team of policemen went to Natasan and found the dead body of Rolando Sevilla. Jose Poblete also turned over to the police, Rolando Sevilla’s gun. Meanwhile, Noel Regalario, after learning of the incident, scoured the place where the third shot was fired during the struggle between Sotero and Rolando. He found a .38 caliber slug which was also turned over to the police.[11]
On May 31, 2006, the CA promulgated the herein
challenged decision affirming for the most part the decision of the trial court
with modification as to the penalty imposed.
Unlike the trial court, the CA did not appreciate the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused-appellants. Thus, the penalty was changed from reclusion perpetua to death, and an
additional award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages was likewise
imposed. Pertinently, the CA decision
reads in part:
WHEREFORE,
the assailed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellants are hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of
Rolando Sevilla the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Let
the entire records of this case be elevated to the Supreme Court for its
review, pursuant to AM No. 00-5-03-SC (Amendments to the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases) which took effect on October
15, 2004.
SO ORDERED.[12]
As can be gleaned from the above quote, the CA
elevated the instant case to this Court in view of the penalty imposed. In our Resolution[13]
dated November 14, 2006, we required the parties to simultaneously submit their
respective supplemental briefs. On
December 12, 2006, the people filed a manifestation[14]
stating that it is waiving the filing of a supplemental brief. Accused-appellants filed their supplemental
brief[15]
on February 15, 2007.
In their Brief, accused-appellants
raise the following assignment of errors:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
ALL OF THE ACCUSED PARTICIPATED IN THE KILLING OF ROLANDO SEVILLA AND BASING
ITS DECISION, NOT ON DIRECT EVIDENCE BUT ON ITS OWN SUPPOSITIONS, CONJECTURES
AND INFERENCES;
2. 
THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE
AND DISPLAYED BIAS WHEN IT LEANED IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE DESPITE
THEIR VITAL CONTRADICTIONS AND OBVIOUS FALSEHOODS;
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
THERE WAS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED AND THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
WAS ATTENDED BY THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND
SCOFFING AT THE BODY OF THE VICTIM;
4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE DECEASED WAS KILLED IN SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING
DAMAGES TO THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED.[16]
We begin our evaluation with accused-appellant Ramon
Regalario’s claim of self-defense. Both
the CA and the trial court gave no credence to this theory of self-defense.
When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged
with murder or homicide he necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape
criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred no
criminal liability therefor. Hence, the
three (3) elements of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. However, without unlawful aggression, there
can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete.[17]
Accused-appellant Ramon contends that the victim
Rolando Sevilla committed an act of unlawful aggression with no provocation on
his [Ramon’s] part. Ramon testified that he was trying to investigate a
commotion when, without warning, Rolando emerged from the group, thrust and
fired his gun at him, hitting him in the left shoulder. To disable Rolando from firing more shots,
Ramon struck the victim’s head at the back with his nightstick, causing the
victim to reel backward and lean on the bamboo fence. He continued hitting Rolando to prevent the
latter from regaining his balance and, as he pressed on farther, the victim
retreated backward.
By Ramon’s own account, after he was shot, he hit the
victim at the back of the latter’s head and he continued hitting the victim who
retreated backward. From that moment,
the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and
the continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an
aggressor. There was clearly no longer
any danger, but still Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation.
In People v. Cajurao,[18]
we held:
…The
settled rule in jurisprudence is that when
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or
even wound the former aggressor.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression
and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking
self-defense to attack his adversary ceases.
If he persists in attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense
does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from
the fray. (Emphasis supplied)
Ramon’s claim of self-defense is further belied by the
presence of two (2) stab wounds on the neck, four (4) lacerated wounds on the
head, as well as multiple abrasions and contusions on different parts of the
victim’s body, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report. Dr. Mario Cerillo who conducted the
post-mortem examination on the victim revealed that the victim’s lacerated
wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a hard stick, a stone
or an iron bar; his stab wounds by a sharp-edged instrument or knife; his
contusions and hematoma by a fist blow or through contact with a blunt
instrument. He also declared that the
sharp object which caused the victim’s stab wounds could have been a knife 2
centimeters (cms.) wide and 6 cms. long because they were clean-cut wounds. Indeed, even if it were true that the victim
fired a gun at Ramon, the number, nature and severity of the injuries suffered
by the victim indicated that the force used against him by Ramon and his
co-accused was not only to disarm the victim or prevent him from doing harm to
others.
The four (4) other accused-appellants, namely, Sotero,
Marciano, Bienvenido and Noel, to exonerate themselves, denied their
involvement in inflicting wounds on Rolando.
Sotero claimed that he arrived at the scene of the
crime at the time when Rolando lost his footing on the edge of the pavement and
fell down. He even shouted at Ramon to
stop beating Rolando. However, when
Ramon told him that Rolando still had the gun, he jumped on Rolando and they
wrestled on the ground for the possession of the gun.
Marciano maintained that he, together with Jose
Poblete, arrived at the crime scene when Ramon had already knocked the gun out
of Rolando’s hand and the gun fell near the place where Jose Poblete was
standing. When he went to that place, he
already knew that his brother (Ramon) had been shot, so, he told the latter to
go to the hospital. Thereafter, he and
Sotero proceeded to the police station to report the shooting incident.
Bienvenido asserted that he arrived at the crime scene
after the shooting incident. He was
asked by Marciano to arrest Rolando.
Lastly, Noel insisted that he was not present when the
shooting incident took place. He was
inside their house sleeping, as his wife had just given birth.
We are not convinced.
Accused-appellants’ denials cannot overcome the
positive identification by the prosecution’s witnesses. Elementary is the rule that positive
identification, where categorical and consistent, prevails over unsubstantiated
denials because the latter are negative and self-serving, and thus, cannot be
given any weight on the scales of justice.[19] The participation of each of the
accused-appellants can be fully ascertained from the clear, categorical and
spontaneous testimony given by prosecution witness, Ronnie Siglos, who was at
the scene of the crime, thus:
PROSECUTOR RESARI:
Q While
you were walking on your way home, was there an unusual incident and can you
recall?
A Yes,
ma’am
Q What
was that incident about?
A While
I was on my way towards the house of my parents, I just suddenly saw a person
being beaten on the road.
Q When
you first noticed that there was a man being beaten along the road, how far
were you?
A I
was about more or less 9 to 10 meters.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When
you saw a man being beaten what did you do?
A I
continue walking, but upon reaching that place near the person being beaten, I
stopped.
Q Why
did you stop?
A To
verify and know as to who that person being beaten.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And
who was that person being beaten?
A Rolando
Sevilla.
Q Who
were the persons beating Rolando Sevilla?
A Marciano
Regalario, Sotero Regalario, Ramon Regalario, Bienvenido Regalario, Noel
Regalario, Ernani Regalario, Reynante Regalario, Jose Poblete, Jose Quinno and
Virgilio Rebanal.
Q Who
else?
A Cecilio
Lunas.
Q If
some of the persons you saw beating Rolando Sevilla are present in this court
room, will you be able to point and identify them?
A Yes,
ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR:
Q You
stated that you saw the persons you have just named as beating Rolando
Sevilla. Were there weapons used in
beating Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes.
Q What
kind of weapons (was) used?
A Sotero
was armed with bahi wood, and also Ramon.
Bienvenido was also armed with bahi, as well as Cecilio Lunas, Jose
Quinno were also armed with ‘malo-palo.’
xxx xxx xxx
Q What
kind of weapon was being held by Noel Regalario?
A A
knife.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now,
when you saw Rolando Sevilla being beaten by the persons you mentioned before,
what did you notice on the condition of Rolando Sevilla?
A He
was lying on his stomach.
Q Did
you see the face of Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes.
Q How
were you able to see the face of Rolando Sevilla?
A Because
Sotero was holding him by his hair.
Q What
was your observation on the condition of Rolando Sevilla?
xxx xxx xxx
WITNESS:
He
was already motionless. He is not moving
anymore.
PROSECUTOR:
Of
the persons you named as holding weapons, you did not mention Marciano
Regalario as holding any weapon. What
was Marciano Regalario doing then?
A He
boxed Rolando Sevilla and Rolando was hit on his jaw.
Q What
else did Marciano Regalario do if any?
A After
he boxed Rolando Sevilla, he went inside his house but after about one (1)
minute he again return(ed) back.
Q After
Marciano Regalario returned back, what did he do if any?
A He
shouted to kill that.
Q After
you heard Marciano Regalario (say) to kill “that,” what did you do?
A I
proceeded towards home.
Q While
you were walking, was there any unusual incident which again happened?
A Yes.
Q And,
what was that incident?
A While
I was walking towards home, again I heard Marciano Regalario shouted to tie
him, that is why I again stopped.
Q When
you heard Marciano Regalario to tie him how far were you from him?
A More
or less 7 meters.
Q You
said that upon hearing Marciano Regalario, you stopped. What else happened?
A Bienvenido
Regalario passed by me and went to that sleigh (pababa) which is on the lower
portion and got a rope.
Q What
did Bienvenido Regalario do with the rope?
A He
tied Rolando Sevilla by placing he rope around his neck and tied his hands.
Q Was
there somebody who assisted Bienvenido Regalario in tying Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes.
Q Who
were the persons, if any?
A Sotero
Regalario.
Q Aside
from Sotero, was there anybody else who helped Bienvenido Regalario in tying
Rolando Sevilla?
A No
more.
Q While
Rolando Sevilla was being hog tied, where were the persons of Marciano
Regalario, Noel Regalario, Ramon Regalario and the rest of the persons whom you
just mentioned awhile ago?
A They
were there standing beside Rolando Sevilla and they were watching.
Q Did
you notice whether Rolando Sevilla was still moving when he was still being
tied up by Bienvenido and Sotero?
A He
was not moving anymore.[20]
The aforequoted testimony of Ronnie Siglos is
corroborated by the following testimony of Armando Poblete:
Q While
you were standing by the road, what did you notice?
A Then
I saw Rolando Sevilla being chased by Bienvenido and Sotero both surnamed
Regalario
Q To
what direction was Rolando Sevilla being chased by Sotero and Bienvenido
Regalario?
A Towards
the place of Kapitan.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR
RESARI:
Q Considering
that was already nighttime, how were you able to know that the person being
chased was Rolando Sevilla and the persons chasing him were the two (2)
Regalarios which you have identified?
A Because,
I was with Sevilla during that time and it was moonlit night.
Q When
the two (2) were chasing Rolando Sevilla, what happened next?
A Ramon
waylaid Rolando Sevilla.
xxx xxx xxx
Q After
you saw Ramon Regalario waylaid Rolando Sevilla, what else did you see?
A After
that I saw the group of Sotero, Regalario, Marciano, Noel, caught up with
Rolando.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR
RESARI:
Q Since
Bienvenido Regalario and Sotero Regalario were the ones chasing Rolando
Sevilla, from what direction did Ramon Regalario come from when he waylaid
Rolando Sevilla?
A That
side, left side going towards the house of Kapitan.
Q And
where did Marciano and Noel xxx come from?
A From
their house.
Q After
the five (5) caught up with Rolando Sevilla, what happened to Rolando Sevilla?
A They
took turns in beating him.
Q Did
they use any weapon in beating Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes,
their night sticks.
Q When
Bienvenido and Sotero caught up with Rolando Sevilla; and the three (3) other
accused also joined the two (2), how far was your distance to them?
A More or less 14 to 15 meters.[21]
We agree with the findings of the two courts below as
to the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for criminals do not write
down their lawless plans and plots. The
agreement to commit a crime, however, may be deduced from the mode and manner
of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent. It does not matter who inflicted the mortal
wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and each incurs the same criminal
liability.[22] We quote with approval the findings and observations
of the CA, thus:
The eyewitnesses’ account surrounding Rolando
Sevilla’s death shows that the accused-appellants performed concerted acts in
pursuit of a common objective. Sotero,
Bienvenido, and Ramon, armed with nightsticks, and Noel armed with a knife,
seven inches in length, beat Rolando Sevilla.
All five accused-appellants caught up with the victim, blocked all means
through which the victim could escape and ensured the achievement of their plan
to kill Rolando Sevilla even as the latter already fell to the ground. Accused-appellant Marciano hit the victim on
his jaw and later, ordered his co-accused to kill and tie the victim. Upon hearing Marciano’s instruction,
Bienvenido Regalario tied Rolando’s neck, hands and feet with a rope. The collective act of the accused-appellants
is sufficient to make them co-principals to the killing.[23]
Considering the foregoing, as well as the manner in
which the attack against Rolando was carried out, and the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses positively identifying the accused-appellants as the
assailants, we concur in the rulings of the CA, affirming those of the trial
court, in (a) disregarding Ramon Regalario’s declaration that he attacked the
victim in self-defense and (b) holding that all the accused-appellants acted in
concert and killed Rolando.
We likewise rule that both the CA and the trial court were
correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength in killing Rolando Sevilla. To
take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the
means available to the person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it must be clearly
shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take
advantage thereof.[24] In this case, as testified to by the prosecution eyewitnesses,
accused-appellants Ramon, Sotero and Bienvenido, with the exception of Marciano,
were armed with nightsticks (bahi)
while Noel was holding a knife. Clearly
they took advantage of their superiority in number and arms in killing the
victim, as shown by numerous wounds the latter suffered in different parts of
his body.
Also affirmed is the
ruling of both courts appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating
circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim. Accused-appellants did not just kill the
victim. They tied him hog-style after
rendering him immobilized. This action
constituted outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. In this connection, we agree with the trial
court’s observation:
…The
concerted acts committed by all the accused mostly armed with wooden clubs and
one with a 7-inch long knife after the victim fell pummeling him with mortal
blows on the forehead and back of his head and stab wounds on his neck and one
of them telling his co-accused to kill the victim clearly proved that the
Regalarios conspired and took advantage of their strength and number. Not satisfied with delivering mortal blows
even when their hapless victim was already immobile, Bienvenido and Sotero,
upon order of their co-accused Marciano, tied their victim hog style. The manner by which Rolando was tied as
vividly captured in the picture (Exhs. ‘C’ & ‘D’) clearly speaks for itself
that it was nothing but to scoff at their victim.[25]
The CA was likewise correct in not appreciating the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused-appellants. For said circumstance to be appreciated, it
must be spontaneous, in such a manner that it shows the intent of the accused
to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense of finding
and capturing him.[26] In the case at bar, accused-appellants remained
at large even after Judge Jose S. Sañez issued the warrant for their arrest on
February 6, 1998. Accused-appellants
surrendered only on September 9, 1998 after several alias warrants of arrest
were issued against them. Hence,
voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in their favor as mitigating
circumstance.
The accused-appellants’ acts plainly amount to murder,
qualified by abuse of superior strength.
As the generic aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body of the
victim was alleged and proven, and as there was no mitigating circumstance, the
CA correctly sentenced accused-appellants to death in accordance with Art. 248,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Art. 63(1) of the revised
Penal Code.
In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No.
9346,[27]
the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited. Thus, the penalty imposed upon
accused-appellants should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
While the new law prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still
death and the offense is still heinous.[28] Consequently, the civil indemnity for the
victim is still P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,[29]
we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on appellant
because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00
is still proper because, following the ratiocination in People v. Victor (292 SCRA 186), the said award is not dependent on
the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the
commission of the offense.
As to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the CA
correctly held accused-appellants jointly and severally liable to pay the heirs
of Rolando Sevilla for the same. Moral
damages are awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional
suffering of the victim’s heirs. As
borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and
necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s
family.[30] If a crime is committed with an aggravating
circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is
justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. This kind of damage is intended to serve as
deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those
guilty of outrageous conduct.[31] However, consistent with recent jurisprudence
on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00[32]
while the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00
to P30,000.00.[33]
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01556 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the following modifications: (1) the penalty of death imposed on
accused-appellants is lowered to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole; (2) the monetary awards to be paid jointly and severally by
accused-appellants are as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (3) interest
on all the damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully
paid is imposed.[34]
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
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 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
(On leave) MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
(No part) ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
|
|
(On leave) ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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
Chief
Justice