THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - ROMEO SATONERO @ RUBEN, Accused-Appellant. . |
|
G.R. No. 186233 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: October
2, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated July 11, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00220
which affirmed the
In an information
dated
That on or about December 25, 1997, in the Municipality of Tulunan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the said accused, armed with a handgun and a knife, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, shot, stab and use physical violence to the person of RAMON AMIGABLE, thereby hitting and [inflicting] upon [the] latter gunshot wound and multiple [stab] wounds on the different parts of his body, which is the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Contrary to law.[3]
When arraigned, accused-appellant,
with the assistance of counsel, pleaded
“not guilty” to the charge against him. After the pre-trial, trial on the
merits ensued.
The prosecution offered in evidence
the testimonies of Leticia Amigable Vda. De Omega, Lorenzo Lines, Dr. Ruel
Sarillo, and Leonila Amigable. On the other hand, the defense presented, as its
witnesses, accused-appellant and his wife, Nena, and one Ronnie Peñafiel.
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
At around
At that moment, Leticia told Ramon
not to mind accused-appellant because he was drunk. When Ramon was about to
board the tricycle, accused-appellant followed him, shot him three times with a
short-barreled gun, then stabbed him several times. All told, Ramon sustained
nine stab wounds on different parts of his body.[5]
Despite the presence of other
persons at the scene of the crime, nobody attempted to approach the
protagonists as accused-appellant threatened to harm anyone who dared come near
them.[6]
Afterwards, accused-appellant went
to the house of Barangay Kagawad Nestor Porras ostensibly to
notify, via radio, the police about the incident. But no policeman came.
Instead, Pastor Peñafiel, the Citizens’ Crime Watch coordinator, arrived and
accompanied accused-appellant to the police station in Tulunan, Cotabato.[7]
Dr. Sarillo, the Municipal Health
Officer of Tulunan, conducted an autopsy on Ramon. The death certificate Dr.
Sarillo signed indicated “severe
hemorrhage” consequent to multiple stab wounds on the chest and feet and
gunshot wound in the left sub-coastal area as the cause of Ramon’s death.[8]
Version of the Defense
Returning home after working on the
rice field owned by Soledad Amigable in the afternoon of
Ramon, however, followed him inside
the store and attempted to stab him again. Whereupon, accused-appellant took a
.38 Caliber gun under the pillow of his bed and fired a warning shot directed
towards the wall. Impervious, Ramon still tried to hit him. This time, accused-appellant
fired a second shot, hitting Ramon but who nonetheless still made it outside
the store, eventually falling to the ground about three meters away from the
store.[11]
Upon seeing Ramon fall, accused-appellant
threw the gun away and went to Ramon’s side so he could bring him to a doctor.
Instead of allowing himself to be helped, Ramon, who was lying on his side,
made another crack to stab accused-appellant and a scuffle ensued for the
possession of the knife.[12]
Per accused-appellant’s account, he
shouted at those nearby, “Indi kamo mag-palapit,”[13]
so to as keep them away from possible harm.
Eventually, Ramon collapsed dead. Accused-appellant then told his wife
that he would be giving himself up. True enough, he went to the house of kagawad
Porras so that the latter could transmit a radio message to the police about
the incident. But no law enforcer
arrived. Pastor, the barangay Citizens’ Crime Watch coordinator, took it
upon himself to accompany accused-appellant to the police station.[14]
According to accused-appellant, he did not
intend to kill Ramon, claiming that he poked his gun at the latter and was
impelled to squeeze the trigger only because Ramon was chasing him.[15]
Ruling of the Trial Court
On May 16, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment
convicting accused-appellant of murder and accordingly sentencing him thus:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds and so holds that accused Romeo Satonero
alias Ruben is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Appreciating
voluntary surrender as ordinary mitigating circumstance, accused Romeo Satonero
alias Ruben is directed to serve the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with its
accessory penalties. His detention from
He is directed to pay cost.
Accused Romeo Satonero alias Ruben is directed to indemnify the heirs of Ramon Amigable the following:
a. Loss of life …………….. P 75,000.00
b. Moral damages ………… 50,000.00
P 125,000.00
SO ORDERED.[16]
Pursuant to a
notice of appeal accused-appellant filed, the RTC forwarded
the records of the case to this Court. In line with People v. Mateo,[17]
however, the Court transferred the case to the CA for intermediate review.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the Decision of the
SO ORDERED.[18]
Accused-appellant
is again before this Court, having earlier interposed a notice of appeal from
the foregoing CA decision.
In
response to the Court’s directive to submit, if they so desired, supplemental
briefs, both accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee People separately
manifested that they are no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs
and are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of their
respective appeal briefs filed before the CA.
The Issue
As it was before the CA, the sole issue tendered in this appeal boils down to the question of whether or not:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER AND IN
NOT APPRECIATING APPELLANT’S SELF-DEFENSE.[19]
The Court sustains accused-appellant’s
conviction, the prosecution’s evidence being sufficient to establish his guilt
for murder beyond reasonable doubt.
There Was No Self Defense
Accused-appellant
urges his acquittal on the ground he acted in self-defense. He asserts that the
unlawful aggressor in the fatal episode in question was Ramon, who started it
by calling accused-appellant a fool and then chasing him around with
a knife. Pressing the point, accused-appellant alleges that the assault
came without sufficient provocation on his part, having just arrived from a
farm work when Ramon attacked him.[20]
Ramon, so accused-appellant claims, resented the fact that he, accused-appellant,
was presently working on a piece of land which the former used to till and longed to possess.[21]
On another angle, accused-appellant
maintains that the wounds Ramon sustained do not necessarily argue against or
automatically foreclose a claim of self-defense.[22]
The Court finds no cogent reason to
overturn the finding of the CA, confirmatory of that of the RTC, that there was
no self-defense on the part of accused-appellant in the instant case.
One who admits
killing another in the name of self-defense bears the onus of proving the
justifiability of the killing. The accused, therefore, must convincingly prove
the following elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person claiming self-defense. While all three elements must concur to
support a claim of complete self-defenese, self-defense relies first and
foremost on a showing of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
Absent clear proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim,
self-defense may not be successfully pleaded.[23]
In the instant case, accused-appellant
failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression. From a perusal
of the trial court’s decision, the prosecution’s testimonial evidence, notably
Leticia’s testimony, had been carefully weighed and was found by the trial
court to be more credible and convincing than the bare and self-serving
testimony of accused-appellant as to who initiated
the fight and what transpired after the initial assault ensued. The
testimony of a single eyewitness to a killing, if worthy of credence, is
sufficient to support a conviction for homicide or murder, as the case may be.[24] It bears stressing that, as a rule, the trial court’s factual
determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses’ testimony and
their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or
oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[25] For having the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor while in the witness box, such as their facial expression
and the tone of their voice, the trial court is in a better position to address
questions of credibility.[26] The trial court’s proximate contact
with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to
discriminate between a true and false testimony.[27]
The testimony of Leticia had established the following: Accused-appellant, who was drunk at
the time and day when the incident in question occurred, followed her and Ramon
when they were about to board a tricycle. Immediately after a brief but ugly
exchange between Leticia and accused-appellant, the shooting and stabbing started, with Ramon at
the receiving end and culminating in his death.
On the other hand, the allegation of accused-appellant
which pictured Ramon as purportedly pulling out a knife and attempting to stab
the former came uncorroborated, although several onlookers––potential witnesses
all––were at the situs of the crime. And while claiming to have grappled
for some time with Ramon for the possession of the knife, accused-appellant
managed to stay unscathed, which in itself is incredible. And lest it be
overlooked, appellant failed, without explanation, to present the knife purportedly
used by the victim. Jurisprudence teaches that the failure to account for the non-presentation of the
weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-defense.[28] The Court, thus, joins the trial court in its
determination, as affirmed by the CA, of the absence of unlawful aggression on
the part of Ramon.
For unlawful aggression to
be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety.[29] There must be an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.[30] As
the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, or at
least not convincingly proved, accused-appellant’s claim
of self-defense cannot be appreciated.
But assuming arguendo that there was unlawful aggression on Ramon’s part, the
Court distinctly notes that the means accused-appellant
employed to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful aggression were far
from reasonably necessary. The number and nature of the
wounds sustained by Ramon certainly belie a claim of self-defense. It is
worth stressing that accused-appellant inflicted nine stab
wounds on Ramon after he pumped a bullet on the latter’s lower left chest. Said
gunshot wound, as medical report later showed, was by itself already fatal.
Significantly, after Ramon fell as a result of his bullet wound, accused-appellant
still proceeded to stab him. As aptly observed by the trial court, Ramon could
not have walked far after he was hit by the bullet.[31] Accused-appellant’s
pretense, therefore, that he had no intention to harm Ramon after the shooting and
that he only approached the fallen Ramon to bring him to the doctor, stretches
credulity to the absurd and must be rejected. Certainly, the nature and number of the injuries
inflicted by accused-appellant on the victim should be significant indicia in
determining the plausibility of the self-defense plea.[32]
Accused-appellant’s
underlying posture that he shot Ramon as a measure of repelling the latter’s
unlawful attack on his person crumbles in the face of Leticia’s testimony on
what actually transpired on the fateful afternoon in question. Leticia, being also the aunt of accused-appellant,
had no reason to falsely testify against the latter and none was established.
Per her account, accused-appellant was the unlawful aggressor.
Leticia on direct examination:
Q: After that, what happened?
A: At that time, my nephew
[Ramon] was about to [stand] up and about to board because the vehicle is
already there.
Q. And then what happened?
A. He [accused-appellant] followed him and he
fired shot.
x x x x
Q: You said that Romeo
Satonero shot your nephew by the name of Ramon Amigable, how many times?
A: Three times.
x x x x
Q. What happened after he was shot three
times?
A. He died.
Q. After the three shots, what happened to
him?
A. He was stabbed.
The Qualifying
Circumstance of Treachery
Was Properly
Appreciated by the Trial Court
Accused-appellant
also argues that granting his criminal responsibility for Ramon’s death, the
trial court erred in its determination that the killing constitutes murder
attended by treachery.[33]
He claims that the suddenness of the attack cannot not, standing alone, sustain
a finding of alevosia, even if his purpose
was to kill.[34]
We disagree. It may be, as
postulated, that the suddenness of the attack would not, by itself, suffice to
support a finding of treachery.[35]
Where, however, proof obtains that the victim was completely deprived of a real
chance to defend himself against the attack, as in the instant case,
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victim, the qualifying circumstance
of treachery ought to and should be appreciated.[36]
Verily, what is decisive
is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered
defenseless and unable to retaliate.[37]
As shown by the prosecution’s
evidence thus adduced and as determined by the trial court, Ramon was without a
weapon and had no opportunity to defend himself against accused-appellant’s
unexpected assault. In fact, Ramon was about to board a tricycle––an indicium of the suddenness of the
attack––when accused-appellant shot him three times, with at least
one bullet finding its mark. The assault with the knife came immediately after
Ramon fell to the ground. It was physically impossible for Ramon to safely
distance himself due to the swiftness of the assault. Any suggestion, therefore, that the killing
of Ramon was not attended by treachery cannot be accepted.
The trial court correctly awarded the amount of
P75,000 to the heirs of Ramon by way of civil indemnity ex delicto. Its
award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is,
however, increased to P75,000.00 to conform to existing jurisprudence. Moral
damages may be awarded without need of pleading or proof.[38] The Court, however, deems it proper to award
exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in accordance with Article 2230
of the Civil Code considering that the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00220 finding Romeo Satonero alias Ruben guilty of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION:
(1) The award of moral
damages is increased to PhP 75,000; and (2) Accused-appellant is also ordered
to pay the heirs of Ramon Amigable exemplary damages in the amount of PhP
30,000.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 5-16. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Elihu A. Ybañez.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 15-27. Penned by Judge Rogelio R. Narisma.
[3]
[4] TSN,
[5]
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8] Records, p. 9.
[9] “Here comes the fool.”
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13] “Don’t come near.”
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16] CA rollo, p. 26.
[17] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[18] Rollo, p. 15.
[19] CA rollo, p. 45.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] People v. Mara, G.R. No. 184050, May 8, 2009; citing People v. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 300, 310-311.
[24] People v. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 115555-59, January 22, 1998, 284 SCRA 501, 509.
[25] People v. Virrey, G.R. No. 133910, November 14, 2001, 368 SCRA 623, 630.
[26] Mara, supra note 23; citing People v. Roma, G.R. No. 147996, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 413, 426-427.
[27] People v. Olivo, G.R. No. 130335, January 18, 2005, 349 SCRA 499.
[28] People v. Camacho, G.R. No. 138629,
[29] People v. Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 111.
[30]
[31] Records, p. 132.
[32] People v. Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002, 383 SCRA 15.
[33] CA rollo, p. 54.
[34]
[35] People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 128116,
[36] See Mara, supra note 23; citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 169082, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 631, 638.
[37] Mara, id.; citing People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 432, 457.
[38] People v.