PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184702
Appellee,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J.,*
- versus - Carpio Morales,**
Acting Chairperson,
Brion,
Del Castillo, and
Abad, JJ.
CHRISTOPHER TALITA,
Appellant. Promulgated:
October 2, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This
is an appeal from the March 14, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01747, finding appellant Christopher Talita a.k.a. “Praning,”
who had been charged along with Abraham Cinto and Virgilio Ramiro (still at
large), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of a) murder in Criminal
Case 98-727,[2]
b) frustrated murder in Criminal Case 98-728,[3] and c) attempted murder
in Criminal Case 98-729,[4] all of the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque City.[5]
The evidence for the
prosecution shows that, at about
Suddenly, appellant Talita
turned around, pulled out a caliber .38 revolver, fired at least six shots through
the window at those in the car, and left. Once the firing ceased, Sunshine saw Marty and
Marilou wounded and motionless. She moved toward the driver’s side of the
car. But Talita returned, this time
astride the motorcycle that someone wearing
a helmet drove for him. He fired his gun
at her but hit the car’s hood instead. The
motorcycle riders then fled.
Sunshine drove her
wounded kin to the P388,478.00 in medical expenses.
Shortly after the
shooting, Enriqueta De Ocampo, a traffic enforcer directing traffic along Sucat
Intersection, noticed two men riding a motorcycle. She was unable to see the face of the driver who
wore a helmet but she later identified his passenger as appellant
Talita. He carried a gun. She saw the motorcycle riders force their way
across the intersection, heading toward the
Meanwhile, SPO4 Alfredo
Bagunas got a call from the
On follow-up investigations,
Bagunas learned that appellant Talita and Cinto rented a
For their part, appellant
Talita and Cinto denied having committed the crimes of which they were charged. While they admitted having rented a
motorcycle from Balais, they said that they in turn rented it to Virgilio
Ramiro at
In a decision dated
In Criminal Case
98-727, the trial court found Talita and Cinto guilty of murder, qualified by
the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. The court further ordered them to pay Marilou’s
heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages. In Criminal Case 98-728 for frustrated
murder, the trial court sentenced them to suffer imprisonment ranging from 17
years and 4 months to 20 years each and ordered them to jointly pay their
victim P388,478.00 in actual damages.
And, in Criminal Case 98-729 for attempted murder, the trial court sentenced
them to suffer imprisonment ranging from 8 years and one day to 10 years.[8]
Both appellant Talita and Cinto appealed to this Court. But, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[9] their cases were referred to the Court
of Appeals for adjudication.[10] On
As regards appellant Talita, the Court of
Appeals agreed with the trial court’s factual findings and affirmed his
conviction. The appeals court held,
however, that evident premeditation as aggravating circumstance cannot be
appreciated against him since the prosecution failed to show how and when the assailants
decided to commit the crimes charged and how much time had elapsed before these
were carried out.[12] The dispositive portion of the Court of
Appeals’ decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered,
the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.
In Criminal Case No. 98-727 for
murder, the decision of the trial court, insofar as Christopher Talita is
concerned, is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
a.
The penalty is reduced to Reclusion
Perpetua;
b.
The award of exemplary damages is reduced to P25,000.00;
and
c.
The appellant Christopher Talita is ordered to pay,
on top of the P50,000.00 death indemnity, the additional sum of P50,000.00
to the heirs of Marilou Tolentino, as moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 98-728 for frustrated murder, the decision of the trial
court is AFFIRMED with the modification that the appellant Christopher Talita
is to suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
In Criminal Case No. 98-729 for attempted murder, the decision of the
trial court is AFFIRMED with the modification that the appellant Christopher
Talita is to suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision
mayor as maximum.
The appellant Abraham Cinto is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 98-727,
98-728 and 98-729 on the ground of reasonable doubt, his identity not having been
clearly established. Consequently, the
appealed judgment of the trial court with respect to appellant Abraham Cinto is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The appellant Abraham Cinto being in detention, his custodian/Director,
Bureau of Corrections, is directed to cause his release from notice hereof and
to make a return of such compliance within five (5) days to the Clerk of this
Court unless he be held for some other lawful cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[13]
Appellant Talita seeks by notice of appeal
this Court’s review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.[14]
The key issue in this appeal is whether or not
it was appellant Talita who walked by the car mentioned in this case and fired
his gun at Marilou, Marty, and Sunshine.
Here,
the trial court relied, in pinning the liability on appellant Talita, on the
testimonies of Sunshine and Maxima, both of whom positively identified him as
the assailant. Sunshine pointed to Talita
in open court:
Atty. Bautista:
Q: And when you said you
saw Talita passing by before he shot you and your companions, where was he in
relation to your location?
A: Sir, nasa likuran po
siya.
Q: Back of what?
A: At the back of the car,
sir.
Q: When you saw him for the
first time and you said about to board your Nissan Sentra, where was Talita
then?
A: Sir noong pasakay na
po kami ng kotse, nakita ko siyang nag-pass by.
Q: Where was he when you
first saw him?
A: Nasa gilid lang po
namin siya.
Q: And how far was he when
you first saw him?
A: Mga ganyan lang po.
(Witness demonstrated a distance of about one (1) meter).
x x x x
Q: You have been mentioning
and testifying about this person named Talita.
If you will see him again, will you be able to recognize him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And will you kindly look
around this courtroom now and tell us if this person Talita is present?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you kindly stand up
and point to the person of Talita?
A: Yes, sir. (Witness stood up and pointed to a person
who, when asked his name, answered Christopher Talita).
x x x x
Q: Now, you said that Talita
shot you and your companions. Who were
your companions madam witness?
A: My companions then are
my aunt, my husband and my baby sir.
x x x x
Q: What kind of gun did
Talita use in shooting at you and your group?
A: Maliit lang pong
baril iyong ginamit niya.
Q: And how many times did
he fire at you and your group if you can still remember?
A: Maraming beses po,
perhaps more than six (6) times.[15]
Maxima
confirmed Sunshine’s above statements in this manner:
Atty. Bautista:
Q: You said that Talita
approached you, from what direction, left or right?
A: He came from the back
portion of the car.
x x x x
Q: When the motorcycle
stopped, how far was it from the back of the car?
A: Malapit lang po.
Atty. Bautista:
Witness
demonstrating a distance of about half a meter from the back portion of the
car.
x x x x
Q: How about you, what were
you doing when Talita approached you?
A: I stopped because I saw
Talita carrying a gun.
Q: What kind of gun was
Talita holding then, a short or long firearm?
Atty. Bautista:
Witness
demonstrating a short firearm, Your Honor.
When Talita approached
you from the back of the car, what did you do?
A: He repeatedly shot my
daughter, Marilou Tolentino.
Q: How many times did he
fire his gun?
A: Around six times and
twice at Marty.[16]
Sunshine
and Maxima’s identification of appellant Talita as the assailant is
corroborated by the testimonies of Marty, Sunshine’s wounded husband, and Enriqueta De Ocampo, the traffic enforcer, who also identified him.
Since
this Court’s appreciation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is
hampered by the fact that its members took no part at the trial, it must of
necessity lend weight to the trial court’s factual findings especially since
there is no showing that its findings are palpably unsound or have nothing to
support them in the record. The trial
judge had the benefit of observing the witnesses first hand, their emotions or
lack of it, their spontaneity or reluctance, their bodily reactions to interrogations,
or the slight changes in the expressions on their faces. These send strong signs of falsehood or truth
in testimonies. For this reason, the factual findings and conclusions of
the trial court from such testimonies are usually entitled to much weight.[17]
What is more, the trial court found that soon after
the police arrested Talita and his co-accused, both Sunshine and Maxima identified
them at the police line-up on
Appellant
Talita of course claims that positive identification is impossible since the
shooting was too swift for ample observation.
But it was not that swift.
Sunshine saw Talita as he walked toward the car and pumped about six
shots into the vehicle’s occupants. What
is more, Talita returned shortly after and fired his gun at Sunshine, giving
her further opportunity to observe him.
Besides, conditions
of visibility at the time favored the witnesses, factors that lend credence to
their testimonies.[19] The incident took place in broad
daylight. Talita stood just about one
meter from Sunshine, and a mere half meter from Maxima. Marty also said that Talita shot him from a
distance of about two feet. [20] Under these circumstances, positive
identification could not have been elusive.
The absence of proof that appellant Talita had a motive to
commit the crime is of course not indispensable to conviction since the
witnesses positively identified him and described with definiteness his role in
the crime.[21] Likewise, the fact that Talita did not go
into hiding cannot be considered proof of innocence. While it has been held that flight is an indication of guilt,
non-flight does not necessarily mean non-guilt or innocence. Evidence of flight
is usually taken into account merely to strengthen a finding of guilt. Non-flight cannot be singularly considered as
evidence of innocence.[22]
Talita
mainly relied on denial which, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense because
it can easily be fabricated.[23] The
Court held in People v. Bandin[24] that denial and alibi cannot be given greater
evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses on affirmative
matters. Positive identification, where categorical and
consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witnesses,
prevails over denial which, if not supported by clear and convincing proof, is
a negative and self-serving evidence, undeserving of weight in law.[25]
In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings
of the trial court with regard to Talita’s culpability. There
being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court of Appeals
correctly reduced the penalty for murder in Criminal Case 98-727 from death to reclusion perpetua.[26]
Accordingly, this Court affirms the
modification of penalties in Criminal Cases 98-728 and 98-729 for frustrated
murder and attempted murder, respectively. But, while the trial court and the Court of
Appeals commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of
Marilou Tolentino in Criminal Case 98-727, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an
award of P75,000.00.[27] All other monetary awards are sustained.
WHEREFORE, the
appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01747 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
In Criminal Case
98-727, accused-appellant Christopher Talita is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder and is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs
of Marilou Tolentino the sum of P75,000.00 as indemnity for death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case
98-728, accused-appellant Christopher Talita is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, and is SENTENCED to suffer the
indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay
Marty Sarte the sum of P388,478.00
as actual damages.
In Criminal Case
98-729, accused-appellant Christopher Talita is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Attempted Murder, and is SENTENCED to suffer the
indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Acting 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
*
Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Leonardo A.
Quisumbing, per Special Order No. 691 dated
**
In lieu of Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, per Special Order
No. 690 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-24. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Lucenito N. Tagle.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3]
[4]
[5] Branch 259, presided by Judge Zosimo V. Escano.
[6] TSN,
[7] CA rollo,
pp. 71-81. Penned by Judge Zosimo
V. Escano.
[8]
[9] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[10] CA rollo, p. 203.
[11] Rollo, pp. 17-19.
[12]
[13]
[14] CA rollo, p. 257.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363,
[18] TSN,
[19] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929,
[20] TSN,
[21] People v. Benito, 363 Phil. 90, 98-99 (1999).
[22] People v. Eduarte, G.R. No. 176566,
[23] People v. Honor, G.R. No. 175945,
[24] G.R. No. 176531,
[25] Danofrata v. People, 458 Phil. 1018, 1028-1029 (2003).
[26] People v. Balleras, 432 Phil. 1018, 1027 (2002).
[27] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173477,