|
PEOPLE OF
THE Appellee, - versus - DOMINGO ALPAPARA, PEDRO ALPAPARA, ALDEN PAYA AND MARIO BICUNA, Appellants. |
G.R. No. 180421
Present: Quisumbing, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO,* CHICO-NAZARIO,** BRION, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 30, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00294, dated
On
That on or about the 13th day of January
1998 at more or less 7:00 o’clock in the evening at Barangay Talin-Talin,
Municipality of Libon, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating and mutually aiding one another [to] achieve a common goal, that
is to kill GOMEZ RELORCASA, did then and there, with malice aforethought and
with deliberate intent to take the life of the latter, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery (alevosia), evident
premeditation and with the aid of armed men, attacked, assaulted and fired upon
Gomez Relorcasa with firearms, hitting and inflicting gunshot wounds upon the
latter on the different and vital parts of his body, as evidenced by the
Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Ma. Cristina U. Orbesom, mortally and fatally
wounding him and thereby causing the direct and immediate death of Gomez
Relorcasa, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
That the commission of this felony was attended
with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the victim not having given any
provocation.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The
present case originated from Branch 13 of the Ligao, Albay
On
The prosecution’s
account of the incident is as follows:
On
Domingo, Pedro and
Alden dashed outside to join their companions who threatened to hack the
witnesses with bolos. The three took off in a
passenger jeep driven by appellant Mario Bicuna. Thereafter, Gomez’s companions brought him to
the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The Medico-Legal Report[7] dated
For their part, the
appellants allege the following facts:
In the
evening of
Afterward, three
gunshots echoed from Gomez’s house. Upon
hearing this, Domingo immediately closed his store while Pedro and Alden made
their way home.
From his house,
Alden heard Mary Rose crying for help from her aunt Gavina Mata, exclaiming “Tulungan ninyo si papa, nabaril siya ng sarili
niyang baril.” But Alden ignored her call for help and
stayed home for the night.
Concurrently,
defense witness Marilou Mata came upon Mary Rose and Julius who were screaming
for help, saying “Si papa may
tama, si Joy kasi.” Marilou also saw Gomez being carried away on
a chair by their neighbors.
About that time,
Pedro reached his house and roused Mario from sleep. The two left in a passenger jeep driven by
Mario. As they passed by Domingo’s
house, the latter flagged them and hitched a ride along with his wife
Zenaida. They dropped off Zenaida at the
house of Cesario Alpapara, Pedro and Domingo’s brother, in Polangui, Albay
before reporting the shooting incident to the Libon Police.
Following trial, the
Quezon City
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds accused DOMINGO ALPAPARA, PEDRO ALPAPARA,
ALD[E]N PAYA and [MARIO] BICUNA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder, qualified by treachery, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended, and applying the provisions of the said Code,
hereby sentences them to Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties
by law and pay the heirs of the late Gomez Relorcasa jointly and severally the
amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity for the death of the
victim, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as actual damages and Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
x
x x x
SO ORDERED.[8]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. It gave credence to the positive
identification by the witnesses of the appellants as the assailants of
Gomez. It also ruled that treachery was
sufficiently shown in the swift manner by which the appellants attacked the
victim.
Before this Court, the appellants pose the following issues for our
resolution:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING
FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION [TO THE]
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL E
IV.
WHETHER
OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS TREACHERY;
V.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE TEST
Essentially,
the issues for resolution are: (1) Did
the Court of Appeals err in convicting the appellants of the offense charged?
and (2) Did treachery attend the killing?
On
Primarily,
appellants assail the credibility of the prosecution witnesses Joey Bobis,
Gavina Mata and Mary Rose Relorcasa.
They contend that their testimonies were rehearsed since the witnesses
were able to accurately recount the details of the shooting, specifically,
which part of Gomez’s body the appellants held; the order in which he was shot;
and the number and names of appellants’ companions. In contrast, appellants highlight the same
witnesses’ failure to recall certain facts on cross-examination. Mary Rose could not remember the color of the
guns the appellants used on the victim and what her companions did right after
the shooting. Gavina, for her part, gave
conflicting versions of what she did immediately after the appellants left. Appellants further question the integrity of
Gavina’s testimony in view of the political rivalry between her husband, Barangay Captain Sofronio Mata, and
the Alpaparas. Appellants likewise
contend it is unworthy of belief that they would kill the victim in the
presence of his relatives and friends as claimed by the witnesses for the
prosecution.
In addition,
the appellants fault the appellate court for disregarding the testimonies of
the defense witnesses. They draw
attention to the disparity between the physical evidence and the prosecution’s
account of the shooting incident. Police
Investigator SPO4 Vicente Ricafranca found four 9 mm. cartridge cases in
Gomez’s backyard. Prosecution witnesses
testified, however, that only three shots were fired, all inside the victim’s
house. Notably, witness Joey Bobis specifically identified appellants’ guns as
.38 caliber pistols.
Lastly, the
appellants contest the Court of Appeals’ finding of treachery. They reason that the altercation between
Domingo and Gomez provided the latter with sufficient warning of the impending
danger.
The Office of
the Solicitor General (
Taking into
consideration the evidence in this case, both for the prosecution as well as
the defense, we are convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that appellants are
guilty of murder as charged.
Article 248[11] of the Revised
Penal Code defines and penalizes the offense of murder as qualified by
treachery. There is treachery when in
killing the victim, the malefactors deliberately and consciously adopted means,
methods, or manner of execution to ensure their safety from any defensive or retaliatory
action on the part of the victim.[12]
The factual
finding of the Court of Appeals shows that appellants Domingo, Pedro and Alden
barged into Gomez’s house and restrained his arms before Domingo shot him at
the back. As the victim was falling
over, Pedro fired a bullet through his right temple. This finding is supported by the Medico-Legal
Report prepared by Dr. Ma. Cristina U. Orbesom, the Municipal Health
Officer-Rural Health Unit of Libon, Albay, as follows:
External Examination:
= cadaver in
rigor mortis state
= skin
tattoing, brownish in color, 4 x 1 cm., forehead, 1 cm. above the eyebrow,
R.
= gunshot
wound of entrance, circular, 1 x 1 cm. lumbar area, R
Internal
Examination:
= foul-smelling
visceral organs, with 4 cupsful of blood in the abdominal cavity
= bullet found
lodged in the epigastric area, in-between the skin and the adipose tissues, 6.5
cm[.] below the xiphoid process
= hemorrhagic
mesentery
= perforated
large mesocolon, kidney, R
Cause of Death: Hemorrhagic
Shock [Secondary] to Organ Damage [Secondary] to Gunshot Wound (Emphasis
supplied.)
The
large circular entrance wound at the back sustained by Gomez is consistent with
the prosecution witnesses’ account that he was shot at close range.[13] The skin tattoing above his right eyebrow,
which is dense and of limited dimension and spread,[14] likewise,
confirms that he was fired at from short range[15] as he was falling
to the ground. This finding belies the
testimony of defense witness Romeo Buitizon that after Gomez let off two shots
upward, he heard “another shot coming from a dark place”[16] which eventually
hit Gomez. The nature and position of
Gomez’s wound are also incongruent with appellant Alden Paya’s claim that he
heard the victim’s daughter call for help as her father was shot by his own
gun.[17]
Despite these
findings, appellants deny that the killing was attended by treachery inasmuch
as the shooting was preceded by an argument between Domingo and Gomez. Hence, they contend that Gomez was forewarned
of the forthcoming peril.
This argument
fails to persuade us.
True, on
numerous occasions, we have held that where a killing was preceded by an
argument or quarrel, then the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no
longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have been forewarned
and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.[18] What is decisive in treachery, however, is
that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or retaliate.[19]
Here, the
unarmed Gomez was pinioned by appellants Pedro and Alden before Domingo dealt
him a fatal blow at the back. Clearly,
the victim had no opportunity to parry the attack. Further, there was a lapse of time between
the argument and the shooting since Domingo went back inside his store after the
confrontation between him and the victim.
At this point, the prior hostility had ceased and the latter had no more
reason to anticipate further aggression from Domingo.
Apart from
treachery, in our view, the manner by which the appellants killed Gomez clearly
demonstrates a conspiracy, thereby making each of them equally liable for the
offense.[20] There is conspiracy when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.[21] To establish the existence of conspiracy,
direct proof is not essential.[22] Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of
the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which
indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action
and community of interest.[23]
In this case,
each of the accused performed acts which contributed to the execution of the
crime.[24] Domingo, Pedro and Alden armed themselves
with guns and forcibly entered the victim’s home. Pedro held Gomez by the shoulder while Alden
pinned down his left hand. Then, Domingo
shot him at the back. The sum of all the
circumstances in this case points to no other conclusion than that these three
appellants (Pedro, Alden and Domingo) were moved by a single objective -- to
kill Gomez Relorcasa.
However, the
same conclusion cannot include appellant Mario Bicuna. Although the latter does not deny having
driven the three cited appellants to Polangui and Libon in Albay, the
prosecution has not shown beyond peradventure of doubt that he knew of his co-appellants’
design to kill Gomez. Neither can we
hold him liable as an accessory for helping the escape of the appellants under
Paragraph 3,[25]
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
Said provision punishes an accessory who harbors, conceals or assists in
the escape of a principal of the crime of murder. For one, appellant Domingo Alpapara reported
the shooting incident to the Libon Police.[26] Moreover, the Return[27] of the warrant
for the arrest of the appellants indicates that they voluntarily surrendered to
the authorities. These circumstances
rule out any inference that appellants intended to escape when they boarded the
jeep driven by Bicuna after the shooting.
The rest of the issues raised by the appellants delve on the
appreciation of evidence by the appellate court. At the risk of sounding trite, we reiterate
that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and
attitude under cross examination. The
trial court’s findings on such matters, when affirmed by the appellate court,
are binding and conclusive on this Court, unless it is shown that the court a
quo has plainly overlooked substantial facts which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case.[28]
In this case,
both the
In an attempt to impugn the credibility of the prosecution witnesses,
the appellants magnify certain discrepancies in their testimonies. They stress that Gavina at first stated that
she immediately went to Gomez’s aid after the appellants left. But later, when asked how she was able to
recognize the latter’s companions at the gate, she said that she peeped through
the window before rushing to help Gomez.
Also, they stress that Joey testified that the appellants used caliber
.38 guns but the empty shells retrieved by the police outside the victim’s
house were for a 9 mm. pistol.
Additionally, Mary Rose could not remember the color of the guns used by
the appellants.
Even so, we
have held time and again that witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless
testimony all the time. Indeed, even the
most candid witness often makes mistakes and falls into confused statements, at
times. Far from eroding the
effectiveness of their testimonial evidence, such lapses could instead
constitute signs of veracity.[31] The victim’s house is a nipa hut of
modest size. In all likelihood, Gavina was
able to catch a glimpse of the appellants’ companions through the open window
or door as she was approaching the victim’s body. Also, it is worth noting that while the 9 mm.
cartridges were found at Gomez’s yard, the shooting took place inside his home. Besides, the Firearms Identification Report[32] did not
conclusively establish the caliber of the gun used to shoot the victim because
the bullet extracted from his body was deformed. More importantly, witness Joey Bobis cannot
be expected to identify with certainty the caliber of the guns used absent any
proof that he is a gun expert.
Prescinding
from the foregoing facts and circumstances, we affirm the penalty imposed by
the Court of Appeals upon the appellants except as regards Mario Bicuna who
must be acquitted. With the advent of
Republic Act No. 9346,[33] the penalty for
murder is now reclusion perpetua, without possibility of parole under
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[34]
Likewise, we
sustain the award of moral damages to the heirs of Gomez Relorcasa in the
amount of P50,000. However, the award of civil indemnity must be
modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence[35] which fixes the
amount of indemnity at P75,000. Also, instead of actual damages proven[36] in the amount of P20,000, the court shall award temperate damages of P25,000 in accord with People v. Villanueva where the
Court held:
When the actual damages proven by receipts during the
trial amounts to less than P25,000,
as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of the 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.[37]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY
GRANTED. Appellant Mario Bicuna is ACQUITTED because of insufficient
evidence concerning the charge against him.
The Decision
dated P50,000 to the heirs of Gomez
Relorcasa is also SUSTAINED. The amount of civil indemnity, however, is MODIFIED to P75,000 in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence, and temperate damages of P25,000 is awarded in
lieu of actual damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE
CONCUR: ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
||
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
||
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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. 757.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 759.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 90-104. Penned by Judge Ma. Theresa L. Dela Torre -Yadao.
[3] Records, p. 104.
[4]
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7] Records, p. 13.
[8] CA rollo, p. 104.
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[11] ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
x x x x
[12] People v.
[13] P. Solis, Legal Medicine, 357 (1987).
[14] Records, Exhibits “J,” and “J-1,” p. 380.
[15] P. Solis, Legal Medicine, supra.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] People v. Buluran, G.R. No. 113940,
[19] People v. Almedilla, G.R. No. 150590,
[20] People v. Listerio, G.R. No. 122099,
[21] Revised
Penal Code,
ART. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
[22] People v. Listerio, supra at 58 citing People v. Canoy, G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17, 2000, 328 SCRA 385, 399; People v. Geguira, G.R. No. 130769, March 13, 2000, 328 SCRA 11, 32-33.
[23] People v. Listerio, supra at 57-58.
[24]
[25] ART. 19. Accessories. – Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
x x x x
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
[26] Records, Exhibit “4,” p. 546.
[27] Records, Exhibit “E,” p. 34.
[28] People v. Segobre, G.R. No. 169877,
[29] People v. Barreta, G.R. No. 120367,
[30] People v. Listerio, supra note 20, at 56-57.
[31] People v. Ranin, Jr., G.R. No.
173023,
[32] Records, Exhibit “6,” p. 548.
[33] An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the
[34] An
Act to
[35] People v. Ranin, Jr., supra at 312.
[36] Records, Exhibit “C,” p. 371.
[37] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No.
139177,