Republic of the
Supreme
Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, - versus - BENANCIO
MORTERA y BELARMINO,
Appellant. |
|
G.R. NO.
188104 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: April 23, 2010 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.:
This is an appeal from the
January 23, 2009 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Zamboanga City (RTC), in Criminal
Case No. 19311, which found accused Benancio[3]
Belarmino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the killing
of one Robelyn Rojas.
The accusatory portion of the Amended
Information[4] charging
the accused with murder reads:
That on or about August 25, 2002,
in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, armed with a knife, by means of
treachery and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, assault, attack and stab from behind with the use of said weapon
that he was then armed with, at the person of ROBELYN ROJAS y MALLARI,
employing means, manner and form which tended directly and specially to insure
its execution without any danger to the person of the accused, and as a result
of which attack, the said Robelyn Rojas y Mallari sustained stabbed wound on
the fatal part of the latter’s body which directly caused his death to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on
At the trial, the
prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Ramil Gregorio, an
eyewitness; (2) Jovel Veñales, another eyewitness; (3) Dr. Jamella Marbella,
examining physician; (4) Leticia Rojas, mother of Robelyn; and (5) PO1 Yaser
Hakim.
The
prosecution’s version of the incident, as found by the trial court and adopted
by the Office of the Solicitor General, appears in the Appellee’s Brief[6] as
follows:
Robelyn Mallari Rojas, 23 years
old, single, was stabbed and killed on
1. Penetrating wound,
clean edges, 2-5 cm width 1.5 cm. gaping located at 5 cm. from spine below the
left sub-scapular region. 19 cm. deep upward towards axilla, and 11 cm. deep
downward towards left flank region.
2. Linear abrasion 5.5
cm. in length at the left lateral aspect of left arm (Ex. “B”).
The cause of his death was cardio
pulmonary arrest probably secondary to hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab
wound, penetrating left back (Exh. “A-1”).
Prosecution
witness Ramil Gregorio y Toribio, 24 years old, single, testified that on
Jovel
Veñales y Bandian, 23 years old, who was drinking together with Ramil Gregorio,
Archie Saavedra, John Carpio, Plong Siano and Alberto Rojas, in the afternoon
of
Mrs.
Leticia Rojas y Mallari, 48 years old, married, is the mother of Robelyn Rojas
y Mallari. She testified that Robelyn is
one of her eight children. xxx She was at work at
Although
the accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned,[7]
during the trial, he admitted having stabbed the victim whom he referred to as
Tonying, but claimed self-defense.[8] By his account, after leaving his uncle’s
house at Gov. Camins, he passed by a corner and saw a group of people drinking.
They were Ramil Gregorio, Jonel Veñales and Tonying. Upon seeing him, Tonying ran away and called
his brother, Alberto Rojas. When the
accused was about to reach the main road, Alberto Rojas, Tonying and a certain
“Duk” (brother-in-law of Tonying) accosted him and asked him for liquor
money. When he refused, the three men
got angry. After telling them that he
had to go, Tonying hit him with a spray gun (for painting), causing him to fall
down. While he was in a supine position, Tonying attempted to hit him
again. It was at that point that he was
able to get hold of his knife and thrust it forward and hit someone. He did not know who got stabbed. He then immediately fled to Ayala and later
to Lintangan, Zamboanga del Norte.[9]
The defense witness, Roden Macasantos,
claimed that he was drinking with the group of Alberto Rojas when he saw the
accused having an argument with Jomer Diaz.
After they had pacified the two, he saw Diaz run away. Later, he returned with Robelyn Rojas. Robelyn also argued with the accused, and
they were likewise pacified by the others in the group. The dispute apparently
settled, the group left Robelyn and the accused alone. After about five minutes, they heard women
shouting. When they went to find out
what it was all about, they saw Robelyn wounded. He, however, did not see the person who
stabbed him.[10]
On
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the accused BENANCIO MORTERA, JR. Y BELARMINO GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder, as principal, for the unjustified
killing of Robelyn Rojas y Mallari and SENTENCES said accused to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and its accessory penalties, to pay the heirs of
the victim Php50, 000.00 as indemnity for his death; Php50,000.00 as moral
damages; Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages; Php38,653.00 as actual damages; and
to pay the costs.
SO
ORDERED.
In
rejecting the claim of self-defense, the trial court stated that it was not
worthy of belief as it was belied by the credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.[11]
The accused appealed to the Court of
Appeals raising the issues of denial of due process of law and his right to an
impartial trial. He claimed that the
trial court judge, Judge Jesus Carbon, was hostile towards him and prejudged
his guilt as could be inferred from his “prosecutor-like” conduct. The accused likewise reiterated his claim of
self-defense.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC
with modification as to the civil liability of the accused. The CA ruled that the trial judge did not
transgress the standard of “cold neutrality” required of a magistrate and added
that the questions he propounded were “substantially clarificatory.” The claim of self-defense was rejected for
failure to prove the element of unlawful aggression by clear and convincing
evidence. With respect to his civil
liability, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 was awarded, in
lieu of the actual damages awarded by the trial court, for failure of Leticia
Rojas to substantiate her claim with official receipts. The amount of exemplary
damages was likewise reduced to P25,000.00. Specifically, the dispositive portion of the
decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision
dated January 16, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 19311 finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties is hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs
of victim Robelyn Rojas the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages; and costs.
SO ORDERED.
Still not satisfied, the accused now
comes before this Court.[12] In seeking his acquittal, he has
assigned three errors for the court’s resolution, to wit: (i) there was a
denial of his right to due process and of his right to have an impartial trial;
(ii) there was no appreciation of the justifying circumstance of self defense; and
(iii) assuming that not all the requirements of self-defense were present,
there was no appreciation of the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete
self-defense.
After an assiduous assessment of the
records, the Court finds no reason to reverse the judgment of conviction or even
appreciate the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. We, thus, affirm.
For a better grasp of the assertion of
the defense that he was denied his right to due process of law and his right to
an impartial trial, we quote at length the transcript of stenographic notes.
Thus:
DIRECT
EXAMINATION ON THE WITNESS VENANCIO MORTERA, JR.
COURT:
Q: During the arraignment you said you did
not kill this Robelyn Rojas. Did you say that?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
And, it’s here where the accused
interposed a negative defense because, you said you have nothing to do with the
death of Robelyn Rojas.
WITNESS:
As far as I could remember Your
Honor, he hit me then I fell down then he still approached me so what I did, I
was able to thrust my knife.
COURT:
Q: You were suggesting that you
might have killed him in self-defense?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: As if there is something wrong to your
story last February 6, 2004, you invoked a negative defense?
A: Not intentional.
Q: So, you are changing your story now? …
From a negative defense you are now asserting affirmative defense?
A: He hit me first then I fell down just the
same he continued approaching me so I was able to do it?
COURT:
In effect, while you were in the middle of the
river you are changing boat and when you change boat in the middle of the
river, sometimes you get drowned. Because you told even your own lawyer Atty.
Mendoza, said that you interpose a negative defense that is why we did not have
reverse trial. You were not even telling the truth to Atty. Mendoza. Because
had you told him the truth, it could have been…
Q: Why did Atty. Mendoza, invoke negative
defense?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY.
Yes, Your Honor, I insisted that,
in fact, he told me that he don’t [sic]
know that person by that name…
COURT:
Well, if he had nothing to do with
the death of said person, negative defense. So, if you are not telling the
truth to your lawyer, how would I know now that you are telling the truth?…
Anyway if you killed a person you will have to pay for it Mr. Mortera, do you
agree also?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
So, cross-examination.
PROSECUTOR LEDESMA: CROSS EXAMINATION ON THE WITNESS VENANCIO MORTERA,
Jr.
Prosecutor Ledesma:
xxx
Q: And you said earlier that it was this
Tingay [deceased] who attacked you with this spray gun then you fell down?
A: Yes. Then he still approached me and at
the same time asked money and I asked “for what?” … Then he said, for their
vices.
Q: You were having this conversation while
you were down?
A: Not yet.
Q: He was holding the spray gun on his hand,
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said while you were down you
were able to thrust your knife upward, correct?
A: Well, after hitting me, when I was
already down he was still approaching me and wanted to hit me again.
Q: Yes, approaching you and in the process
of hitting you, that was the time that you thrusted [sic] the knife, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And it was you, who advanced personally
that you were able to hit him, correct?
A: Yes.
COURT:
Q: You felt the blade of the knife slicing a
person?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: As if the knife hit a pig you were used
to selling?
A: That knife is stainless used in cutting
rope.
Q: It’s a long white knife?
A: Not so long Your Honor
Q: But, enough to kill a person?
A: Somewhat like that Your Honor.
Q: But, not enough to kill a pig?
A: No, Your Honor. That is only used in cutting rope.
Q: Where is that evil knife?
A: Well, it is in the place at Bagsakan where
we are having a place.
COURT:
You tell them to throw it away or
bury that knife because that is a bad knife.
So long as that knife is there the one in possession of that will always
have bad luck. It is cursed. Eventually,
Tingay is already dead.
Q: Did your uncle also tell you that Tingay,
sustained a single wound at his back?
A: Yes.
COURT:
Q: So, when you stabbed him he was trying
to hit you with a very small spray gun. How was it that he was hit at the back?
A: Well, when he was in the act of hitting
me again, I thrusted [sic] the knife to… shall we say towards him Your
Honor.
Q: That is why, it is impossible because
if he was trying to hit you with a spray gun, you thrusted [sic] the knife towards him, how was it that he was
hit at the back?
A: He was hit Your Honor, when he was in the
act of hitting me again.
COURT:
Proceed, Atty. Ledesma.
xxx
COURT:
Robelyn Rojas, was 23 years old when
you killed him.
WITNESS:
I do not know the age.
COURT:
Of course, you do not know. The
life span of a Filipino now is about 70 years old, Fiscal? .. Because we expect
that long. So, if you did not kill him he will still have 47 years to live.
PROSECUTOR LEDESMA:
I believed [sic] 80 years Your Honor.
COURT:
80 for purposes of compensation.
PROSECUTOR LEDESMA:
Yes.
COURT:
He has 57 years more to live. That
is the trouble of killing people because you are depriving the person of his
right to live and even if what you are saying is true, you could not have been
killed with that small spray gun… You have no right to stab him. Besides, that is not what your witness said
even your own witness here is not supporting your story. Who is that witness?
WITNESS:
Denden Macasantos…
COURT:
Yes, Denden Macasantos. He did not declare what you are saying
now. You are just making a story.
Q: So, even the story of your witness who I
think was telling the truth, don’t [sic]
support your story Mr. Mortera… Your story now is different… Did you hear
Denden?
A: Yes.
Q: They did not tell the same story as you
are saying now about the spray gun being used to hit you?
A: I do not know with them Your Honor, but
in my case I was really hit with that spray gun.
Q: Were you injured?
A: No.
Q: That’s the whole trouble. Why will you
have injury when you were not hit?
A: I was hit Your Honor.
Q: You were hit?
A: Yes, I fell down and he continued
approaching me.
COURT:
You did more than what Robelyn, did
to you. You killed him. Proceed.
PROSECUTOR
LEDESMA:
Q: You did not report to the police that
incident involving Tingay and his group, correct?
A: Yes, I did not.
Q: Instead, you immediately left for Ayala?
A: Well, after the incident I ran away
towards Ayala.
COURT:
Q: By your running away because you were
afraid, you were committing something wrong?
A: That is why, I ran away I have done
something I was able to kill somebody.
Q: Why did you run to Ayala then run to
Lintangan then return to
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Robelyn, has seven brothers and sisters?
… So, maybe you should have some vacation in Jail you are supposed to serve?
A: Yes. (Italics supplied)
Citing
the foregoing as basis, the accused argues that Judge Jesus Carbon, Jr.
displayed his hostility towards him and condemned him even before the defense
could rest its presentation of evidence.
By saying that he was “just making a story,” the judge already concluded
his guilt during trial.
The Court is not unaware of the case of Tabuena
v. Sandiganbayan,[13]
where it was written:
The Court has acknowledged the
right of a trial judge to question witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind
upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over
which he presides. But not only should
his examination be limited to asking clarificatory questions, the right should
be sparingly and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court should stay
out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the
conduct of trial… hardly in fact can one avoid the impression that the
Sandiganbayan had allied itself with, or to be more precise, had taken the
cudgels for the prosecution in proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta…. The
“cold neutrality of an impartial judge” requirement of due process was
certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness,
assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate… A substantial portion of the TSN was
incorporated in the majority opinion not to focus on “numbers” alone, but more
importantly to show that the court questions were in the interest of the
prosecution and which thus depart from the common standard of fairness and
impartiality. (emphasis added)
The
situation in the case at bench is, however, different.
As
correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, although the trial judge might
have made improper remarks and comments, it did not amount to a denial of his right
to due process or his right to an impartial trial. Upon perusal of the transcript as a whole, it
cannot be said that the remarks were reflective of his partiality. They were
not out of context. Not only did the accused
mislead the court by initially invoking a negative defense only to claim
otherwise during trial, he was also not candid to his own lawyer, who was kept
in the dark as to his intended defense.
The
accused having admitted the killing, a reverse order of trial could have
proceeded.[14] As it turned out, the prosecution undertook
to discharge the burden of proving his guilt, when the burden of proof to
establish that the killing was justified should have been his.[15]
Most
probably, the trial judge was peeved at the strategy he adopted. The trial judge cannot be faulted for having
made those remarks, notwithstanding the sarcastic tone impressed upon it. The sarcasm alone cannot lead us to conclude
that the trial judge “had taken the cudgels for the prosecution.
The invocation of Opida[16]
fails to persuade us either. The facts
therein are not at all fours with the case at bench. In Opida, we did not fail to notice
the “malicious,” “sadistic” and “adversarial” manner of questioning by the
trial judge of the accused therein, including their defense witness. In Opida, the accused never admitted
the commission of the crime, and so the burden of proof remained with the
prosecution.
In his second assigned error,
the accused invokes self-defense. By asserting it, however, it became incumbent
upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed had acted in
defense of himself. The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent
it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.[17]
The issue of whether or not
the accused acted in self-defense is undoubtedly a question of fact, and it is
well entrenched in jurisprudence that findings of fact of the trial court
command great weight and respect unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or
where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence.[18]
In the present case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of
the trial court, as modified by the CA.
In debunking his claim, we quote with approval the ruling of the CA.
In the instant
case, accused-appellant claims that there was unlawful aggression on the part
Robelyn Rojas when the latter allegedly hit him with a spray gun. However, except this self-serving statement,
no other evidence was presented to prove that indeed he was hit by
Robelyn. Accused-appellant failed to
show where he was hit and what injuries he sustained, if any. Moreover, his own defense witness Roden
Macasantos did not see him being hit by a spray gun. On the contrary, the prosecution has clearly
shown that before Robelyn was stabbed, the two even discussed with each other
and accused-appellant even shook hands with him. Moreover, if indeed it was true that Robelyn
was carrying a spray gun and tried to hit him, accused-appellant, while he was
in a supine position, could have easily just flaunted his knife to scare his
alleged attackers away. On the other hand, even if we assume to be true that he
was in a supine position when he thrust the knife at his attacker, it is
however impossible that the back of Robelyn would be hit, unless the latter
could also fell (sic) on his back, which is again far from reality. In a myriad of cases, it has been ruled that
the location, number or seriousness of the stab or hack wounds inflicted on the
victim are important indicia which may disprove accused’s plea of self
defense. In the instant case, it is
clear that the victim was stabbed at the back negating any indication that
accused-appellant acted in self defense.
Finding the primordial requisite of
unlawful aggression wanting, the Court cannot appreciate the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense.
As regards damages,
we affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals. Considering that only P14,653.50
of the P38,653.00 actual damages awarded by the trial court is supported
by receipts, the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.[19] We, however, reinstate the amount of
exemplary damages to P30,000.00 to be in accord with current
jurisprudence.[20]
WHEREFORE,
the
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
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 write5r of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
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]Penned by Justice Rodrigo F. Lim Jr. and concurred in
by Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Ruben C. Ayson, CA rollo, pp.126-146.
[2]Penned by Judge Jesus C. Carbon, Jr.
[3]Appellant’s Brief, CA rollo, p. 1, supra note
1.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5]
[6]CA rollo,
pp. 55-57.
[7]Records, p. 20.
[8]TSN,
[9]
[10]TSN,
[11]Records, pp. 107-108.
[12]Both the accused and the
OSG 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 CA.
[13]G.R. Nos. 103501-03, G.R. No. 103507,
[14]Rule 119,
Section 11. The trial shall proceed in the following order:
x x x x
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission
charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the
order of trial may be modified.
[15]People v.
Unarce, G.R. No. 120549,
[16]G.R. No. L-46272,
[17]Novicio v. People, G.R. No. 163331,
[18]People v. Barriga, G.R. No. 178545
[19]People
v. Se, G.R. No. 152966,
[20]People
v. Elmer Peralta y Hidalgo, G..R. No. 187531,