SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, - versus - ROBERTO PAJABERA y DOE, Appellant. |
G.R. No.
177162 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and PERALTA,*JJ. Promulgated: March
31, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
On appeal is the December 22, 2006 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01437[1]
affirming the July 7, 2005 Decision of Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of
Calabanga, Camarines Sur in Criminal Case No. RTC ’03-878, finding Roberto
Pajabera (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
The Information dated November 5, 2003 charging appellant
with Murder reads:
That on or about the 29th day of May, 2003 at
about 2:30 P.M., in Barangay Pag-asa, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with
deliberate intent to take the life of one MAJEN B. BOLANOS, with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and suddenly attack, assault and stab the latter from behind with a “balisong”,
fatally hitting the latter on his neck and other parts of his body, which
caused the instantaneous and direct death of the said MAJEN B. BOLANOS, to the
great damage and prejudice of his heirs, in such amount as may be proven in court.[2]
On
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.[3]
Culled
from the testimonies of Efren Basi (Basi)[4]
and Ceferino Barcillano (Barcillano)[5] is
the following version of the prosecution:
On
May 29, 2003 at around 2:30 in the afternoon, Majen B. Bolanos (the victim) was at the cockpit arena at Barangay
Pag-asa, Tinambac, Camarines Sur to watch the scheduled cockfighting event that
was part of the barangay fiesta celebrations. Appellant, who was also present thereat,
called the victim from behind. When the
victim turned around, appellant placed one hand on the victim’s shoulder. The victim thereafter fell on the ground and
blood oozed from his shoulder. Basi, who
was standing beside the victim, and Barcillano, soon realized that appellant had
stabbed the victim.
Appellant quickly pulled out the
knife from the victim’s shoulder, and left.
At this juncture, the people at the cockpit arena scampered, and the
cockfighting event did not push through.
Dr. Salvador Betito (Dr. Betito),
Municipal Health Officer of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, who conducted a
medico-legal necropsy examination on the body of the victim about two or three
days after the incident,[6]
concluded that the cause of the death of the victim was rapid internal and
external hemorrhage secondary to a deep penetrating stab wound measuring 1.5
cm. and .5 cm. on his right shoulder, which could have been caused by anything
pointed and sharp like a knife.[7]
Appellant, admitted having stabbed
the victim. He, however, claimed
self-defense. By his account, he and the
victim had wagered with each other for P300 on the result of the
cockfight, and he won.[8] When he tried to collect his winning,
however, the victim refused to pay; instead, the victim pulled out a bladed
instrument and attacked him with it.[9]
Continued appellant: While he ran away from the victim, fell on
the ground face down, and as he turned around, the victim promptly knelt down
and stabbed him.[10] He was able to parry the blow by holding the
victim’s hand, after which the two of them grappled for possession of the
bladed instrument.[11]
Further, appellant related that in
the course of the scuffle, while he was lying with his back on the floor and
the victim was stooping down on him in a kneeling position, he (appellant),
accidentally pushed the bladed instrument being then held by the victim towards
the latter.[12] He then saw blood oozing from the victim’s
body, but he was not sure which part,[13]
drawing him to flee out of fear.[14]
Salvador Habulin (Habulin), who
claimed to have witnessed the incident at a distance of about three meters,[15]
corroborated appellant’s account.
The trial court, crediting the
testimonial evidence for the prosecution vis
a vis the findings of Dr. Betito,[16] convicted
appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused
Roberto Pajabera y Doe beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby found guilty of
the crime of murder as charged. He is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of
Majen Bolanos the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity; P50,000.00
as moral damages; P10,000.00
as actual damages and to pay the costs.
Accused is likewise meted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification as provided in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
Considering that herein accused has undergone preventive imprisonment, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.[17]
Rejecting
appellant’s claim of self-defense, the trial court found it improbable that the
victim could be accidentally hit on the shoulder with the knife during the
respective positions of the parties as described by appellant.[18] If, posed the trial court, the victim was indeed
kneeling and stooping down on appellant who was lying with his back flat on the
ground prior to the fatal blow, the victim could have been hit on the chest or
the stomach, but not on the shoulder.[19]
The trial court found that the
killing was attended by treachery, the suddenness of the attack having deprived
the unarmed victim of any means to defend himself.[20] It ruled out evident premeditation, however,
there being no proof of when appellant conceived of killing the victim.[21]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by
Decision of December 22, 2006,[22]
affirmed that of the trial court, holding that appellant failed to discharge
the burden of proving self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant thus comes before this Court.
Both
appellant and the Solicitor General manifested that they were dispensing with
the filing of supplemental briefs and submitting the case for decision based on
the Briefs they had filed with the appellate court.[23]
The
appeal fails.
What
appellant essentially wants is for this Court to weigh the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses against that of the defense witnesses and review the
observations and conclusions of the trial and appellate courts.
It is settled that the issue of
credibility is a question best addressed to the trial court, and that its findings
of fact, especially when affirmed by the appellate court as in the present case,
are accorded the greatest respect in the absence of a showing that it ignored,
overlooked, or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance
likely to affect the results of the litigation.[24]
Independently of the factual findings
of the lower courts, this Court, in its review of the records, found the
findings in order.
Appellant would have it that he was
lying with his back flat on the floor while the victim was kneeling and
stooping down on him holding the knife. Given that, the thrust of the knife could
only have been downwards pointing to appellant.
Even assuming that appellant was able to twist the victim’s hand which
held the knife, it was unlikely that appellant could “accidentally” stab the
victim on the right shoulder.
The Court notes that the testimony of
Habulin, the defense’s so-called “eyewitness,” bears lapses on material points:
x x x x
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
x x x x
Q Then what happened when the two ran after each other?
A Roberto fell down and at that juncture Roberto was able to get hold of the right hand of Majen.
Q Then what happened when Roberto got hold of the right hand of Majen?
A This Majen was hit by the bladed weapon that he himself was holding.
Q When you said Berto and Roberto as you mentioned the person who was ran after by Majen, was he the same Roberto Pajabera the accused in this case?
A Yes, Sir.
Q After that, what happened, after you saw that bladed weapon being held by Majen struck [sic] him while the two were grappling with each other, what happened next?
A The people scampered.
x x x x
CROSS EXAMINATION:
x x x x
Q And how about Roberto, where he was [sic], while you were as you said that [sic] you are at the fence?
A Roberto was lying back flat on the ground with his enemy on top of him.
x x x x
Q And Roberto fell down, when Roberto fell down, did Roberto stood [sic] up?
A After the victim was hit that is the time that Roberto left.
Q Just answer my question whether or not when Roberto fell down after which he stood up or not [sic]?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Then when he stood up that is the time that you said they grappled with the knife, correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And when you said that Majen was hit, they were standing position [sic], correct?
A When Majen fell down because he was already hit, Roberto left.
Q So it is clear from your testimony that when they were grappling in a standing position, that’s the time when Majen was hit and Majen fell down, correct?
ATTY. NACIONAL:
Misleading, Your Honor. There was no testimony that they were grappling in a standing position.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Yes, there is already.
COURT:
They were standing. Both of them were standing.
x x x x
COURT:
Alright for clarification. Alright, answer. Translate.
A They were both lying on the ground and Roberto was lying flat and Majen on his top when they were grappling for the possession of the deadly weapon.[25] (Underscoring supplied.)
First, on direct examination, Habulin
did not positively state that the victim was hit with the knife while grappling
with appellant for its possession. The “grappling” part was only inserted in a
subsequent question by counsel for the defense.
Second, on cross examination, Habulin was
tentative on whether appellant and the victim were lying on the ground or
standing while “grappling” for possession of the knife. He only remembered the version of appellant,
which he was supposed to corroborate, when counsel for the defense led him to
restate the same by objecting to the prosecution’s question confirming his most
recent statement that the “grappling” took place while appellant and the victim
were standing.
To the Court, these lapses in
Habulin’s testimony cast serious doubt upon his claim that he witnessed the
incident. It bears emphasis that the
turn of events, particularly the respective position of appellant and the
victim before the fatal blow, is crucial in view of appellant’s claim of
self-defense. Hence, the trial and
appellate courts did not err in crediting the version of the prosecution.
That there is no evidence of any dubious
reason or improper motive why prosecution witnesses would testify falsely
against appellant or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime renders their
testimonies worthy of full faith and credit.[26]
Parenthetically, although the incident
occurred in a public place, why was appellant only able to present one supposed
“eyewitness” who even, as reflected above, contradicted himself?
Appellant’s attack having been made in
a swift and unexpected manner on the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who did
not give the slightest provocation, treachery attended the killing.[27] Perforce, appellant’s conviction for Murder
stands.
Since treachery qualified the killing
to Murder and absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua is proper,
applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.[28] Reclusion
perpetua carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification.[29]
On the civil aspect of the case, the
Court finds the awards of P50,000
as civil indemnity and P50,000
as moral damages in order based on prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Instead of actual damages, the Court awards
temperate damages of P25,000[31]
as the actual damages claimed by the prosecution and admitted by appellant
amount to P10,000[32] or
less than P25,000.
The award of exemplary damages in the
amount of P25,000 is additionally
in order if, as here, there is present an aggravating circumstance (qualifying-treachery)
in the commission of the crime.[33] The Court thus grants the same.
WHEREFORE, the December 22, 2006 Decision of the Court
of Appeals affirming that of Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of
Calabanga, Camarines Sur is MODIFIED in that temperate damages of
P25,000 in lieu of P10,000
actual damages, and exemplary
damages of P25,000 are AWARDED. In all other
respects, the challenged Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
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
* Additional member per Special Order No. 587 dated March 16, 2009 in lieu of the leave of absence due to sickness of Justice Arturo D. Brion.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Noel G. Tijam.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3]
[4] TSN,
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] Ibid.
[11]
[12] Ibid.
[13]
[14] Ibid.
[15] TSN,
[16] Records, p. 71.
[17]
[18]
[19] Ibid.
[20]
[21]
[22] CA rollo, pp. 110-120.
[23] Rollo, pp. 17-21.
[24] Vide De Guia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120864, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA 114, 129; Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 651, 658-659.
[25] TSN,
[26] Vide People v. Bacungay, G.R. No.
125017,
[27] Vide
People v. Bermas, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312,
[28] ART. 63.
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
applied.
2. When
there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by
some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. (Emphasis supplied)
[29] Art. 41, Revised Penal Code.
[30] People
v. Balais, G.R. No. 173242,
[31] Vide
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177,
[W]hen actual damages proven by receipts
during the trial amount to less than P25,000,
as in this case, the award of
temperate damages for P25,000
is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages
proven exceeds P25,000,
then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the
receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.
[32] Vide records, p. 43.
[33] People v. Balais, supra note 30.