THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- ALLAN DEL PRADO y CAHUSAY, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187074 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: October 13, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
Us is an appeal from the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals on CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02216 dated
Del
Prado, together with co-accused Lloyd Peter Asurto (Asurto) and Jaylord Payago
(Payago), was charged with murder under the following Information:
That on or about the 24th day
of January 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with
a knife and stone, with intent to kill and attended by the qualifying aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal
violence upon the person of one Anthony Hudo y Magtanong, by then and there
hitting him with the said stone and even
if he is already wounded, weak and unarmed, accused Allan del Prado stabbed
him, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death.[2]
Del
Prado was arraigned on
The
evidence of the prosecution, consisting of the testimonies of Sheryll Ann
Tubigan (Tubigan); Police Officer (PO)1 Nerito Lobrido (Lobrido); Southern
Police District Chief Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra (Dr.
Freyra); and the mother of Anthony Hudo (Hudo), Yolanda Magtanong (Magtanong), tended
to establish the following facts:
On
Tubigan
left the basketball court and sought the assistance of Hudo’s friends and
cousins. Hudo’s cousins, Pony and his
brother, carried Hudo’s body. They boarded a tricycle and took Hudo’s body to
the
Dr.
Freyra, chief Medico-Legal Officer at the Southern Police District, conducted
the autopsy examination on Hudo’s body.
Hudo sustained two stab wounds, two lacerated wounds, one contusion, one
incised wound, one punctured wound and several abrasions. The two stab wounds were fatal.
At
around midnight of 24 January 2003, Magtanong, the mother of Hudo, received a
phone call from her nephew Jeffrey Arceo who told her that Hudo was dead. Magtanong went to the P14,300.00
in funeral expenses.
The
defense’s version of the facts is as follows:
On
the night of the incident, Del Prado was on his way to his mother’s house in
Binangonan coming from the house of his sister at Welfareville Compound,
Del
Prado did not know Tubigan and maintained that her testimony was
untruthful. Nobody arrested him for over
a year, but the parents of Hudo asked P50,000.00 from him by way of settlement. He later on voluntarily surrendered to the
police to clear his name and to verify if a case had been filed against
him. Despite being Hudo’s friend, he did
not inquire further into what happened to the former, as he was afraid of being
implicated. He did not go to the wake
and burial of Hudo.
On
WHEREFORE then, in view of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ALLAN DEL PRADO Y
CAHUSAY, “GUILTY” of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized in Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.
As a consequence of this judgment, the
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which penalty shall be served at the National
Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa.
Any period of detention the accused
shall have served shall be credited in his favor in the service of his sentence
as provided for in Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
With respect to the civil liability
arising from the commission of the crime, the accused is herein ordered to pay
the sum of Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (Php 14,300.00) as actual
damages and the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as moral damages.[3]
Del
Prado’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02216, and was raffled to the Fifth Division of the said court. On
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 30, 2006 of the Regional
Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS
to the effect that the accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of
the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the P14,300.00
actual damages awarded by the trial court.[4]
Hence,
this appeal, wherein Del Prado asserts that:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE CONSIDERING
THAT NEITHER THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY NOR PREMEDITATION WAS
DULY ESTABLISHED.
Sufficiency of the Evidence to Prove Guilt Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
In
arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Del Prado beyond
reasonable doubt, the latter’s main argument is that the testimony of Tubigan
is incredible and contrary to human experience.
According to Del Prado, it is unbelievable that Hudo’s friends did not
lend assistance to him despite being present at the time of the incident.
This
Court disagrees with Del Prado’s observations.
There is no standard form of human behavioral response when confronted
with a frightful experience.[5] Not every witness to a crime can be expected
to act reasonably and conformably with the expectations of mankind,[6]
because witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicit different reactions
from witnesses, and for which no clear-cut, standard form of behavior can be
drawn.[7] In the case at bar, it was not even unusual
for Hudo’s unarmed companions to refrain from risking their lives to defend him
when the assailants were brandishing a foot-long knife, a baseball bat and a 6x8-inch
stone.
Furthermore,
this Court has held in a long line of cases that the trial court's
determination of the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent
findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless
certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered,
might affect the result of the case.[8]
This is so because of the judicial
experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. It can
thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[9]
Del
Prado also claims that the prosecution was not able to sufficiently explain why
Hudo’s companions in the incident were unable to testify.
We
are not convinced. We have held in People v. Jumamoy,[10]
that:
The prosecutor has the exclusive prerogative to
determine the witnesses to be presented for the prosecution. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses,
as in the instant case, the prosecutor need not present all of them but only as
many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may,
therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. x x x.
In
the case at bar, the prosecutor must have deemed it unnecessary to present
other witnesses on the belief that the quantum of proof necessary to prove the
guilt of Del Prado beyond reasonable doubt had been met. Upon examination of Tubigan’s testimony on
the incident, this Court finds that the prosecutor was correct in making such
assumption, since Tubigan’s testimony was clear and convincing:
Q So, you
said, Madam Witness, that the unusual incident you saw on the evening of
A He was
hit by a bat, ma’am.
Q By the
way, Madam Witness, how far away were you from Anthony Hudo during this
incident?
A From
where I am sitting right now to the door of the courtroom.
PROS. LAZARO:
May
we request the defense counsel to stipulate, more or less seven (7) meters,
Your Honor?
COURT:
From
the place of the incident.
PROS. LAZARO:
Yes,
Your Honor, the position of the witness from the victim.
Q Can you
tell before this Honorable Court the lighting condition of the place at that
time?
A Well
lighted, ma’am.
Q Where
did the light come from?
A From
the electric post, ma’am.
Q You
said that Anthony was hit by a bat. Who
hit him with a bat, Madam Witness?
A Jaylord,
ma’am.
Q Do you
know the family name of this Jaylord?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Do you
personally know this Jaylord?
A Yes,
ma’am. He is our friend.
Q How
long have you friends with Jaylord? (sic)
A For a
long time but not as long as my friendship with Anthony.
Q And
what kind of bat was used by this Jaylord in hitting Anthony Hudo?
A Baseball
bat, ma’am.
Q How
many times did Jaylord hit Anthony Hudo with the said baseball bat?
A For
several times, Ma’am.
Q In
which body parts of Anthony Hudo were hit by the said baseball bat?
A In his
head and body, ma’am.
Q And
what happened to Anthony Hudo after he was hit by a baseball bat by Jaylord?
A He fell
down, ma’am.
Q By the
way, Madam Witness, can you describe this Jaylord before this Honorable Court?
A Quite
taller than me, ma’am.
Q How
tall are you?
A I do
not know, ma’am.
COURT:
Can
you stand up, please?
Can
you stipulate Atty. Cruz and Public Prosecutor?
PROS. LAZARO:
The
witness is five (5) feet in height and Jaylord is taller than the witness.
Q How
about his complexion, Madam Witness?
A I’m
quite fairer than Jaylord.
Q The
length of his hair?
A Short
hair, ma’am.
Q The
shape of his face?
A Round
face, ma’am.
Q If
Jaylord Payago is present here in court, will you be able to identify him?
A Yes,
ma’am.
COURT:
Q Is he
in court?
A None,
You[r] Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
For
the record, Your Honor, Jaylord Payago, one of the accused is still unarraigned
and still at large.
COURT:
When
did we issue the last warrant, Homer?
Based on the return, he cannot be found?
INTERPRETER:
Yes,
Your Honor.
COURT:
When
was that?
INTERPRETER:
COURT:
How
about Lloyd Peter?
INTERPRETER:
The
same, Your Honor.
COURT:
Cannot
be found also, still unarraigned?
INTERPRETER:
Yes,
Your Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
We
request, Your Honor, for the issuance of an alias bench warrant to these
accused Jaylord Payago and Lloyd Peter Asurto.
COURT:
Okay. Continue please.
x x x x
Q Madam
Witness, prior to the hitting of the bat of victim Anthony Hudo, can you please
tell to this Honorable Court his position in relation to Jaylord?
A He was
facing Jaylord, ma’am.
Q Who were
the companions of Jaylord, if any?
A Bunso
and Allan, ma’am.
COURT:
Q Who is
Bunso?
A Lloyd,
Your Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q What
were these two (2) doing during that time?
A They were,
likewise, standing by.
Q And
while Jaylord was hitting Anthony Hudo with a base ball ba[t], what were these
two (2) persons, Allan and Lloyd doing?
A Bunso
was also hitting Anthony with a stone in his face.
Q Can you
tell before this Honorable Court the size of the stone used by Lloyd Peter
alias Bunso in hitting Anthony Hudo?
COURT:
Can
you please stipulate the size of the stone?
PROS. LAZARO:
We
stipulate, Your Honor, eight (8) inches in length and six (6) inches in width.
COURT:
Okay.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q. And how
many times did this Lloyd Peter or alias Bunso hit Anthony Hudo with a stone?
A For
several times, ma’am.
Q And
which parts of Anthony Hudo were hit?
A On the
face, ma’am.
COURT:
Q What
else?
A At the
body, Your Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q And
what happen (sic) to Anthony Hudo after he was hit by a stone by Lloyd Peter?
A He
could not anymore stand up, ma’am.
Q Can you
please describe this Lloyd Peter before this honorable Court?
A With
long hair, dark complexion.
Q Do you
know his height?
A Like
the height of Jaylord, ma’am.
Q About
the shape of his face?
A Long
face, ma’am.
Q Do you
personally know hit (sic) Lloyd Peter alias Bunso?
A He is,
likewise, our friend, ma’am.
Q How
long have you been friends with Lloyd Peter?
A Like
Jaylord, ma’am.
Q If this
Lloyd Peter alias Bunso is here in court, would you be able to identify him?
A Yes,
ma’am.
Q Is he
here in court?
A None
(sic), ma’am.
PROS. LAZARO:
We
would like to manifest, Your honor, that Lloyd Peter Asurto is still
unarraigned.
Q How
about Allan, Madam Witness, what was he doing that time?
A He
stabbed Tokoy, ma’am.
COURT:
Q With
what?
A With a
knife, Your Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q Can you
describe the knife before this honorable Court?
A It is
one (1) foot long.
COURT:
Q Including
the handle?
A Yes,
Your Honor.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q Would
you know the family name of this Allan, Madam Witness?
A
Q Do you
know him?
A Yes,
ma’am.
Q Why do
you know him?
A He is
the husband of my friend, ma’am.
Q If
Allan Del Prado is here in court today, would you be able to identify him?
A Yes,
ma’am.
Q Kindly
look around and tell this Honorable Court if he is present.
A Yes,
ma’am. He is present.
Q Can you
please identify him by stepping down and approach him? Tap him lightly on his shoulder.
INTERPRETER:
Witness
goes down the gallery and tap the shoulder of the male person seated on the
first row who when asked identified himself as ALLAN DEL PRADO y CAHUSAY.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q. How
many times did accused Allan del Prado stab victim Anthony Hudo with a knife?
A Two (2)
times, ma’am.
Q Which
body parts of Anthony Hudo were hit?
INTERPRETER:
Witness
pointing to her upper left chest.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q What
other body parts, Madam Witness?
INTERPRETER:
Witness
pointing to center upper rib.
PROS. LAZARO:
Q What
happened to Anthony Hudo after he was stabbed by Allan del Prado?
A He
failed to stand up.
Q What
word or words, if any, Madam Witness, were uttered by the three (3) accused during
this incident?
A They
were hurling invectives, ma’am.
Q What
else, if any?
A Nothing
more, ma’am.
Q To whom
were these invectives addressed?
A To
Tokoy, ma’am.
Q How
about victim Anthony Hudo alias Tokoy, what word or words, if any, were uttered
by him during this incident?
A Nothing,
ma’am.
Q Can you
please describe the physical condition of Anthony Hudo while he was sprawled to
the ground?
A He was
facing up, ma’am.
Q What
was his physical appearance at that time?
A He was
bleeding, ma’am.
Q So,
after seeing that situation, Madam Witness, what did you do, if any?
A We ran
outside of the basketball court and we called our friends, ma’am.
Q Whom
did you call?
A Our
friends and the cousins of Tokoy.
Q Would
you know the name of the cousins of this Anthony Hudo?
A Pony
and the brother of Pony, ma’am.
Q After
you called your friends and the cousins of Anthony Hudo, what happened next?
A They
went to the basketball court and lifted Anthony Hudo.
Q Where
did they bring Anthony Hudo?
A They
boarded Anthony Hudo in a tricycle and brought him to the
Q How
about you, Madam Witness, what did you do after that?
A We went
to the city hall, ma’am.
Q Who
were with you when you went to the city hall?
A Angela
and Teresa, ma’am.
Q What
particular office of the city hall did you go to?
A At the
CIU, ma’am.
Q Why did
you go to the CIU, Madam Witness?
A To
narrate the incident, ma’am.[11]
In
People v. Teehankee, Jr.,[12]
we enumerated the factors for determining the credibility of a witness’
identification: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time
of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the
accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of
certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of
time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of
the identification procedure.
In
the case at bar, Tubigan witnessed the incident in a well lighted place from
barely seven meters away. She positively
identified Del Prado as one of the assailants on the same day of the
incident. Her testimonies are adequately
supported by her affidavit, taken on the day of the incident, which she
identified in open court. Furthermore,
her account was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Freyra, whose
identification of the wounds sustained by Hudo matches those which were stated
by Tubigan in her testimony and affidavit.
Finally,
there is also nothing on the record to show that Tubigan was actuated by bias,
prejudice or improper motive. It is
settled that where there is no evidence and there is nothing to indicate that
the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the
presumption is that the witness was not so actuated, and his testimony is
entitled to full faith and credit. Indeed,
if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime, it is against the
natural order of events and of human nature and against the presumption of good
faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.[13]
Circumstances Qualifying the Crime to Murder
Del
Prado argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder, since the
prosecution allegedly failed to establish the presence of the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.[14]
Del
Prado’s argument is misleading. Firstly,
the Information did not allege the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The qualifying circumstances alleged therein
are abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation. Secondly, the trial court did not rule that
either treachery or evident premeditation was present in the case at bar. The only circumstance found by the trial
court to have qualified the killing to murder was abuse of superior strength:
Apart from the foregoing, the testimony
of witness Sheryll Ann Tubigan is plain and unambiguous in that the accused
resorted to the use of superior strength in order to ensure the success of
their concerted attack against the deceased victim. The deliberate intent of the accused to use
excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the victim is
clearly evident because at the time of the attack the victim had no means
available to defend himself but his bare hands.
Clearly then, the accused took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the commission of the crime and therefore the aggravating
circumstance of superior strength may be applied to increase the penalty the
accused shall serve for the commission of the crime of murder.
Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code
states that any person who, not falling within the provision of Art. 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 … taking advantage of superior strength… As regards the
abuse of superior strength as aggravating circumstance, what should be
considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants as against one
victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. To take
advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force out of proportion to
the means available to the person attacked to defend himself, and 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.[15]
We
agree in the findings of the trial court that Del Prado, together with his
co-accused, abused their superior strength in killing Hudo. Hudo was unarmed and defenseless at the time
Del Prado and his co-accused bludgeoned his head and body with a baseball bat,
hit him with a stone, and stabbed him twice.
The number of assailants and the nature of the weapons used against Hudo
show a notorious inequality of force between Hudo and his aggressors. The actuations of Del Prado and his
co-accused in inflicting injury successively furthermore show that they
purposely used excessive force to ensure the killing of Hudo.
Liability of Accused-Appellant for Civil Damages
The
trial court awarded the following to Hudo’s heirs: (1) P14,300.00 as actual damages;
and (2) P50,000.00
as moral damages. The Court of Appeals
modified the award of civil damages by adding the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and replacing the award of P14,300.00 as actual damages with the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate
damages.
We
sustain the modifications made by the Court of Appeals.
Article
2206[16]
of the Civil Code authorizes the award of civil indemnity for death caused by a
crime. Current jurisprudence[17]
sets the award at P50,000.00.
The
Court of Appeals was likewise correct in replacing the award of P14,300.00 as actual damages
with the amount of P25,000.00
as temperate damages. In People v. Dela Cruz,[18] this Court declared that when actual damages proven by
receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, such as in the
present case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00, is
justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. This Court ratiocinated therein that it was
anomalous and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried but succeeded in
proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 only would be in a worse
situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would be
entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.
This Court, however,
deems it necessary to include an award of exemplary damages in favor of the
heirs of Hudo. An aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party
to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230[19]
of the Civil Code.[20] The award of P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages is therefore, proper under current jurisprudence.[21]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals on
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02216 dated 30 September 2008 affirming with modifications
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City finding
accused-appellant Allan del Prado y Cahusay
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is hereby AFFIRMED, with the further MODIFICATION that Allan del Prado y
Cahusay is additionally ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the 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.
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justcice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente concurring; rollo, pp. 2-20.
[2] CA rollo, p. 10.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 19.
[5] People v. Tio, 404 Phil. 936, 947 (2001).
[6] People v. Merino, 378 Phil. 828, 844 (1999).
[7] People v. Rubio, 327 Phil. 316, 324 (1996).
[8] People v. Deunida, G.R. Nos. 105199-200,
[9] People v. Acuña, id.; People v. Deunida, id.
[10] G.R. No. 101584,
[11] CA rollo, pp. 86-94.
[12] 319 Phil. 128, 180 (1995).
[13] People
v. Grefaldia, G.R. No. 121787,
[14] CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
[15]
[16] Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give
support according to the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an
heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate
succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period
not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
[17] People v. Callet, 431 Phil. 622, 637 (2002); People v. Muñez, 451 Phil. 264, 274 (2003).
[18] 461 Phil. 471, 480 (2003).
[19] Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[20] People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 120-121 (2001); see People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 741.
[21] People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162, 24 April 2009; People v. Anguac, G.R. No. 176744, 5 June 2009; People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, 8 May 2009.