Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus - FILOMENO MAYINGQUE, GREGORIO MAYINGQUE, and TORIBIO
MAYINGQUE y SANICO, Defendants-Appellants. |
G.R.
No. 179709 Present: CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA, JR.,
JJ. Promulgated: July 6,
2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Appellants Toribio Mayingque alias Loloy (Toribio), Gregorio
Mayingque alias Gorio (Gregorio), and
Filomeno Mayingque alias Boy Roti (Filomeno)
appeal the decision promulgated on June 15, 2007 by the Court of Appeals (CA)[1]
affirming their conviction for murder that the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 275, in Las Piñas City handed down, penalizing each with reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay P50,000.00 to the heirs
of deceased Edgardo Sumalde Tusi (Edgardo), and P20,000.00 as burial
expenses to the wife of Tusi. [2]
The
appellants and one Edwin Macas (Edwin) were indicted for the murder of Edgardo under
the amended information dated
That on or about the 30th day of May, 1999, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without justifiable motive with intent to kill and by means of treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one EDGARDO SUMALDE TUSI, with deadly weapons (knife and bolo), hitting the victim on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple mortal stab wounds, which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
At arraignment, the appellants
pleaded not guilty to the information,
as amended. Edwin remained at large to this date.[4]
Evidence of the Prosecution
The Prosecution presented Salvacion Tusi
(Salvacion), wife of Edgardo, the victim, who testified that she knew the
appellants because they usually had their drinking sessions on Sundays at Edwin’s
place, which was beside her residence at
Pedro Sabido Street, BF Resort Village, Las Piñas City; that in one such drinking
session, Edgardo, annoyed by the noise made by the appellants and Edwin, was prompted
to admonish them to tone down their voices; that the appellants and Edwin
resented Edgardo’s admonition;[5] that
while she and Edgardo were resting in front of their house at around 5 pm on May 30, 1999, Toribio arrived and without
saying anything stabbed Edgardo twice on his side; that she shouted for help,
but her cousin Ruben Bernal could not do anything because Edwin, Filomeno and
Gregorio had meanwhile joined Teofilo in assaulting Edgardo.[6]
Ruben Bernal and Jaime Bernal corroborated
Salvacion’s recollection of the assault on Edgardo. According to them, the
appellants ganged up on Edgardo, with Teofilo wielding a kitchen knife with
which he stabbed Edgardo twice and Gregorio hacking Edgardo on the head with a
bolo while Filomeno and Edwin restrained Edgardo. They heard Edwin tell the
appellants to ensure that Edgardo was lifeless before leaving him.[7]
Dr.
Romeo T. Salen, Medico Legal Officer of the Western Police District (now
Manila Police District) Crime Laboratory, appeared in court in representation
of Dr. Emmanuel L. Aranas, and brought the following documents: (a) Request for
Examination on the Cadaver of the deceased transmitted by the Las Piñas Police and
received by Dr. Aranas; (b) Certification of Identification and Consent for
Autopsy signed by the brother of Edgardo;
(c) Post Mortem Examination or Anatomical Sketch; (d) Medico Legal Report;
and (e) Death Certificate of Edgardo prepared
by Dr. Aranas.[8]
Dr. Salen explained that based on Dr.
Aranas’ written findings, Edgardo had sustained 12 wounds in the head, neck and
chest, eight of which had been fatal.[9]
Evidence of the Defense
For the Defense, the three appellants
and one Agustin Tano (Tano) were presented as witnesses.
Tano was on his way home in late
afternoon of
Filomeno narrated that on the day
of the incident, he left his house at 9:00 am to attend the birthday party of his nephew in Golden Gate,
Moonwalk, Las Piñas City; that at 6:30 pm,
his wife arrived at Golden Gate, and begged him not to go home yet because Toribio
had been involved in a fight with Edgardo and in turn the family of Edgardo had
threatened to retaliate against Toribio’s relatives to avenge Edgardo’s death; that he
and his wife thus remained in Golden Gate from
May 30, 1999 to July 28, 1999 out of fear that Edgardo’s relatives might
retaliate against him although he had nothing to do with Edgardo’s death;[11] that it was when he visited Toribio
in detention when a police officer invited him for questioning regarding his supposed
involvement in the May 30, 1999 incident; and that he (Filomeno) was then immediately detained
in the police station, but was later transferred to the Las Piñas City Jail
without any investigation being conducted.[12]
Gregorio
attested that on the date of the incident, he was taking care of his two-month
old grandson, when his neighbor advised him to leave his house at once, because his son Toribio had
been involved in a fight; that he entrusted his grandson to the care of his
neighbor to go to Antipolo City, where his other son, Gregorio, Jr., was residing;
that he stayed in Antipolo City for two months because of fear of Toribio’s enemies
in Las Piñas City; that when he returned to Las Piñas City on July 28, 1999 to
fetch his wife and daughter,[13] policemen
invited him for questioning; and that he was then detained for his alleged
involvement in the killing of Edgardo.[14]
Toribio
stated that he was proceeding on foot towards Edwin’s place at around 5:00 pm on May 30, 1999, when he saw Edgardo,
Ruben and Jaime drinking together; that the three hailed him and invited him to
drink with them; that although he declined the offer initially, he relented after
Edgardo got mad at him; that Edgardo
then invited him to join them, but he declined the invitation and told them
that he was going somewhere else; that his refusal irked Edgardo, who warned him
not be a toughie; that Edgardo stood up and attacked him with a lead pipe, hitting
him in the left arm; that his injury left a scar of an inch on his left arm;[15] that
he ran towards Edwin’s place and stayed
there for about 20 minutes; that leaving Edwin’s house later on, he passed by
the three, who were still drinking; that Edgardo spotted him, held him by the collar,
and punched him; that Ruben and Jaime also hit him with a lead pipe and a
wooden club (dos por dos), injuring his left chest; that he parried
their blows until they reached the street, where he fell on a small table used for
selling Indian mangoes; that he was able to pick up a small knife used for
peeling the mangoes, and while he was about to stand up from a prostrate position, he stabbed Edgardo on the head,
neck and chest with the knife; that he did not report the incident to the
police, and, instead, went home; that he did not anymore submit himself for
medical attention, because his wounds were only slight; that he surrendered to
the Antipolo City police authorities eight days later, upon learning that the
other appellants had been implicated in Eduardo’s death and were being hunted
down by the police.[16]
Ruling of the RTC
In its P50,000.00 and to
the wife of the deceased P20,000.00
for the burial expenses.
The RTC supported
the verdict with the following findings:
The self defense version of accused Toribio Mayingque is against the eye witness account of prosecution witnesses who told the Court that about 5:00 in the afternoon of 30th day of May, 1999 Salvacion Tusi and her husband, the victim herein, were resting in front of their house located at Pedro Sabido St. BF Resort Village, Las Piñas City, together with a cousin, Ruben Bernal.
Accused Toribio “Loloy” Mayingque arrived and without saying anything stabbed the victim two times. Salvacion shouted for help while her cousin Ruben Bernal was about to help her husband but Roly, Edwin Macas and Gregorio arrived and helped in the killing of the victim (TSN, p. 5, Sept. 6, 1999).
The
four (4) continuously stabbed the victim with a bladed weapons (Ibid, p.
6). Three were positively identified in
court as the perpetrators, to wit: accused Toribio, Gregorio and Filomeno, all
surnamed Mayingque. Salvacion incurred
expenses in the amount of P20,000.00 as a result of the death of the
victim.
The reason why they stabbed and killed the victim was because they resented the admonition by the victim to them. Toribio, Filomeno and Gregorio always had a drinking spree in the place of Edwin Macas every Sunday and were very noisy. The victim asked them not to be noisy (Ibid, p. 9).
The multiple wounds suffered by the victim even belies a any pretension of self defense. The victim suffered 10 stab wounds and 2 incised wounds. In all, the victim suffered 12 wounds, to wit:
No. 1 Stab Wound, parietal region, measuring 4 by 0.5 cm right of the mid-sagittal line which is on the right part of the head measuring 4 x .5 cm which is a superficial wound because there was no other organ damaged and it is not a fatal injury. This is caused by a sharp bladed weapon and that he pointed injury No. 1 in the Anatomical Sketch;
No. 2 Stab Wound, parietal region, measuring 2.5 by 0.2 cm, 10 cm right of mid-sagittal line, he described that this wound is a superficial wound which is almost the same size of injury No. 1 which was likewise caused by a sharp bladed weapon;
No. 3, stab wound, right orbital region, measuring 4 by 0.4 cm. 4 from the anterior midline, 6 cm deep, directed posterior wards and downwards, piercing the optic nerve and the adjacent soft tissues and muscles which means from front to back and it pierced the optic nerve which is responsible for the movement and for the eyes to see. Wound No. 3 is very damaging because it will cause blindness to the right eye and if the bleeding is profuse and if no medication is done, the patient could die. This is a fatal injury and is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch;
No. 4, Incised wound, right temporal region, measuring 5 by 0.7 cm, 8 cm anterior midline. This is an incised wound also a superficial injury caused by a sharp bladed instrument;
No. 5, Incised Wound, submental region, measuring 3 by 0.5 cm, 4 cm left of the anterior midline. This wound is located on the chin a superficial and non fatal injury and this injury is indicated in Exhibit “L” as injury No. 5;
No. 6, Stab wound, neck, measuring 1.5 by 1.5 cm, along the anterior midline, 7 cm deep, directed posterior wards, downwards, and lateral wards, piercing the upper lobe of the left lungs. This injury is located on the left side of the neck directed posterior ward or front to back and the upper lobe of the left lung was destroyed. This wound is fatal and caused the death of the victim. This injury is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch as Wound No. 6 and the injury was caused by sharp bladed instrument;
No. 7, Stab Wound, neck, measuring 3.5 by 1.5 cm, along the anterior midline, 7 cm deep, directed posterior wards, downwards and lateral wards, piercing the upper lobe of the left lung. This injury is located on the middle part of the neck and injured a major organ which is the lung and fatal, this is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch as Injury No. 7 and caused by a sharp bladed instrument;
No. 8, Stab Wound, left supraclavicular region, measuring 2.5 by 1.5 cm, 12 cm from the anterior midline, 5 cm deep, directed posterior wards, downwards and medial wards, piercing the upper lobe of the left lung. This wound is located at the clavicular which is the bone of the chest and directly behind the clavicular is the lungs and this injury is fatal and could cause the death of the victim and said injury is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch and the injury was caused by a sharp bladed instrument;
No. 9, Stab wound, left clavicular region, measuring 2 by 0.5 cm. 9 cm. From the anterior midline, 6 cm deep, directed poster wards, down wards and medial wards, passing thru the 1st left intercostals space, piercing the upper lobe of the left lung. This injury is located at the clavicular region and destroys the upper lobe of the left lung and this is a fatal wound caused by a bladed weapon. This injury is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch as Wound No. 9;
No. 10, Stab wound, left infraclavicular region, measuring 2 by 1 cm. 12 cm from the anterior midline, 10 cm deep, directed posterior wards, downwards and medialwards passing thru the 2nd left intercostals space, piercing the upper lobe of the left lung. This injury is located at the clavicular region directly behind is the lung and this injury is fatal caused by a bladed instrument and the same is indicated in the Anatomical Sketch as Wound No. 10.
No. 11. Stab wound, sternal region, measuring 3 by 0.6 cm. Along the anterior midline, 10 cm. Deep, directed posteriorwards, downwards and lateralwards, piercing the upper lobe of the right lung. This injury is on the external region so from the center to the outside it hits the upper lobe of the right lung and this is a fatal wound and also indicated as Injury No. 11 in the anatomical sketch.
No. 12, Stab wound, right mammary region, measuring 3 by 2.5, 4 cm from the anterior midline, directed posteriorwards, downwards and to the right, fracturing the 3rd right thoracic rib, piercing the pericardium and the right ventricle of the heart. This injury is located on the right chest directed posteriorwards, downwards and fractured the third right thoracic rib and hit the pericardium and the right ventricle of the heart on the middle and this wound was very fatal and caused by a sharp bladed instrument and this injury is likewise indicated in the Anatomical Sketch
According to Dr. Talen, the relative position of the assailant in inflicting wounds No. 7 to 10 most probably was facing the victim and the trajectory is directed downwards and the infliction came from above. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were inflicted in any position. Wound No. 3 was inflicted from up to down. Multiple stab wounds, head, neck and chest caused of death of the victim.
The foregoing 12 injuries of the victim belie the self defense of accused Toribio Mayingque. The multiple injuries of the victim support the claim of conspiracy by the prosecution. Dr. Salen told the Court that the different sizes of the wounds show that indeed more than one assailant inflicted the wounds and more than one instrument used (TSN, pp. 32-33, Feb. 14, 2001). Moreover, all three have been positively identified in court as the perpetrators. Thus, the Court can not accept the denial and alibi by the other two co-accused, namely: Gregorio Mayingque and Filomeno Mayingque.
It
is clear from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the accused
treacherously attacked the victim. They
suddenly assaulted the victim. As held:
“it is necessary to show that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to
secure advantage from their superiority in strength. (People v. Casey, see note 63, supra at 34
[1981] citing People v. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 365.)
There must be proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors
and the assaulted party or proof that the accused simultaneously assaulted the
deceased.” (People v. Casey, see note
63, supra at 34 [1981] citing People v. Bustos, et al., 51 Phil. 385; People
vs. Rubia, et al., 52 Phil. 172, 176 [1928].)”
(G.R. Nos. 120394-97,
Ruling of the CA
Through its decision dated
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The testimonies of Salvacion, Ruben, and Jaime positively pointing to accused-appellant Loloy as the one who stabbed Tusi twice with a kitchen knife along with accused-appellants Gorio as the one who hacked Tusi on the head with a bolo and Boy Roti, as the one who held Tusi while the latter was being hacked, which are bolstered by the medico legal findings that eight (8) out of twelve (12) stabs and incise wounds sustained by Tusi are fatal wounds, belie accused-appellant Loloy’s assertion of self defense.
Another factor which militates against accused-appellant Loloy’s claim of self defense are the facts that he confessed his guilt in the course of his testimony before the lower court when he stated that he surrendered to the Antipolo City Police authorities because he was conscience stricken by the fact that he allegedly violated the penal and the divine laws when he stabbed Tusi successively to get even with the latter, Ruben, and Jaime who were allegedly hitting him with a lead pipe and wooden club, which is tantamount to retaliation rather than self defense; that he did not submit the injuries on his left arm and chest to medical examination to at least clearly and convincingly substantiate the alleged unlawful aggression on his person by Tusi, and that he pleaded not guilty during the arraignment because his counsel advised him to do so, but deep inside his conscience, he felt guilty as charged.
xxx when the accused invokes self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. xxx
xxx
Moreover,
the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the
assertion of self-defense since the gravity of the said wounds is indicative of
a determined effort to kill and not just defend. The number of wounds was
established by the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth
and ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. xxx
The
distance between accused-appellant Boy Roti’s alleged whereabouts on
Accused-appellant Gorio’s alleged act of fleeing for safety from Las Piñas City to Antipolo City in order to allegedly avoid involvement in a neighborhood fight involving his son accused-appellant Loloy, entrusting his two (2)-month old grandchild to the care of a neighbor who was not that familiar to him, leaving his wife and daughter behind in Las Piñas City exposed to the purported wrath of the family of Tusi, and leaving his son, accused-appellant Loloy, to fight his alleged aggressors without doing anything to protect his son, are incredible, and contrary to human nature and experience. His conduct could no less than be construed as an implied admission of guilt.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for accused-appellants Loloy and Gorio to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed. They must likewise prove that they could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial.
On the other hand, Tano’s testimony was incongruent with the testimonies of the other defense witnesses as regards the actual date of the occurrence of the offense, and the identity of Tusi. Said testimony cast doubt on his credibility as an eyewitness and it fails to overcome the evidence for the prosecution clearly and convincingly.
The testimony of Dr. Salen as regards the Anatomical Sketch, and Medico Legal Report, among other things, prepared by Dr. Aranas falls under the exception to the hearsay rule because the said sketch and report are entries in official records made by Dr. Aranas in the performance of his duty as a Medico Legal Officer of the WPD Crime Laboratory. Dr. Aranas had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him the said sketch and report relative to the nature and number of wounds sustained by Tusi because he was the one who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of Tusi. Dr. Salen acquired such facts from the sketch and report made by his predecessor, Dr. Aranas, who had a legal duty to turn over the same to him as his successor. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records, hence, the entries in said sketch and report are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and are admissible under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
As an officer having legal custody of the said sketch and report, Dr. Salen attested that the copies presented in the lower court were the original ones prepared by Dr. Aranas.
The findings on the wounds sustained by Tusi as found on the medico legal report was written in a technical language which is not well understood by the lower court, and said matter required the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by Dr. Salen as a Medico Legal Officer of the WPD Crime Laboratory to give to the lower court the meaning of the technical language used, particularly, whether or not the wounds described therein were fatal. Hence, the lower court could receive in evidence Dr. Salen’s interpretation of Dr. Aranas’ findings.
The testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable to a successful prosecution for murder. While the autopsy report of a medico legal expert in cases of murder, or homicide, is preferably accepted to show the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, it is not the only competent evidence to prove the injuries and the fact of death. The testimonies of credible witnesses are equally admissible regarding such injuries and the surrounding circumstances thereof.
On the non-offer of evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the medical legal report and the anatomical sketch were not formally offered, they are nonetheless, admissible because –
x x x Evidence not formally offered can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves been incorporated in the records of the case. All the documentary and object evidence in this case were properly identified, presented and marked as exhibits in court x x x. Even without their formal offer, therefore, the prosecution can still establish the case because witnesses properly identified those exhibits, and their testimonies are record. Furthermore, appellant’s counsel had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses who testified on the exhibits.
In this case, the counsel of accused-appellants Loloy, Gorio, and Boy Roti had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Salen, but did not do so, insisting that the latter is not qualified as a medico legal expert, and that his testimony is hearsay.
Records show that Edgardo Tusi was not in a position to put up any kind of defense considering the fact that he was seated and resting underneath a tree infront of his house immediately before accused-appellant Loloy suddenly appeared and stabbed him twice with a kitchen knife.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and method or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.
The participation of accused-appellants Gorio and Boy Roti in killing Tusi was shown when accused-appellant Gorio subsequently hacked Tusi on the head with a bolo, while accused-appellant Boy Roti assisted by holding Tusi right after the stabbing by accused-appellant Loloy to especially ensure the stabbing and hacking without risk to themselves.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the absence of direct proof of conspiracy, it may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
Hence, the lower court correctly held that treachery and conspiracy attended the killing of Tusi.
Even if the voluntary surrender of accused-appellant Loloy to the Antipolo City Police would be appreciated, he would still be punished by reclusion perpetua, which is an indivisible penalty with a fixed duration, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code because the pertinent portion of Article 63 of the said Code provides that:
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
Hence, the lower court correctly
sentenced accused-appellants Loloy, Gorio, and Boy Roti to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.[20]
Hence,
this appeal, in which the appellants urge that the CA committed the following
errors, namely:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT TORIBIO MAYINGQUE’S THEORY OF SELF-DEFENSE.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS CONSPIRED TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF MURDER
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHICH BECAME THE BASIS FOR THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
IV
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY, THE COURT A QUO, GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AND IN FINDING THAT THE CRIME WAS ATTENDED BY TREACHERY.
On
On
Ruling
The
appeal has no merit.
I
The appellants would have the Court review the CA’s
affirmance of their conviction by attacking the appellate court’s supposed
failure to accord credence to Toribio’s plea of self-defense, and by assailing
the appellate court’s appreciation of the evidence.
The
Court cannot accept the appellants’ urging.
To begin with, it is fundamental that
the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when
affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as
great respect, if not conclusive effect.[23] Such
determination made by the trial court proceeds from its first-hand opportunity
to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under
grilling examination,[24] thereby
placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses’
credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[25]
In view of the foregoing, we sustain
the CA’s affirmance of the conviction. We have not been shown any fact or
circumstance of weight and influence that the CA and the RTC overlooked that,
if considered, should affect the outcome of the case.
Secondly, the essential elements of
self-defense are: (a) unlawful
aggression; (b) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.[26]
By invoking self-defense, the accused must
prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense.[27] The
rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused
admitted that he was the author of the death of the victim and his defense was
anchored on self-defense, it becomes
incumbent upon him
to prove the
justifying circumstance to the
satisfaction of the court.[28] The
rationale for this requirement is that the accused, having admitted the felonious
wounding or killing of his adversary, is to be held criminally liable for the
crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of
self-defense. Thereby, however, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the
end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi has shifted
to him, because self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be
established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[29] He
must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence,
not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, for, even if the Prosecution’s
evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved in view of the accused’s admission
of the killing.[30]
Both the trial court and the CA rejected
Teofilo’s plea of self-defense. We hold that they did so correctly. Teofilos’s
evidence on self-defense was not persuasive enough, and lacked credibility.
Simply stated, such evidence did not prevail over the clear showing by
Salvacion and the Bernals that Teofilo and his co-conspirators had ganged up on
Edgardo with a knife (Teofilo) and bolo (Gregorio) while the other two had held
Edgardo to render him defenseless. Indeed, we agree with the conclusion of both
lower courts that the plea of self-defense was belied by the number (12) and
the different sizes of the wounds inflicted on Edgardo. The presence of a large
number of wounds on the victim’s body negated self-defense, and indicated,
instead, a determined effort to kill the victim.[31]
Toribio did not convincingly establish,
first of all, that there was unlawful aggression against him. His claim that
Edgardo and the Bernals had attacked him with a lead pipe and wooden club,
which impelled him to stab Edgardo, became implausible to the lower courts, and
to us, too, because Toribio did not even submit himself to any medical
attention. He should have done so, if, truly, he had sustained injuries at the
hands of the victim and his group. At any rate, the question as to who between
the accused and the victim was the unlawful aggressor was a question of fact best
addressed to and left with the trial court for determination based on the
evidence on record.[32]
Alibi is an
inherently weak and unreliable defense, because it is easy to
fabricate and difficult to disprove.[33] To establish alibi, the accused
must prove: (a) that he was actually in
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (b) that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime when the crime was perpetrated.[34] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime
transpired and the place where the crime was committed, as well as to the
facility of access between the two places.[35]
II
Penalties and Damages
As the consequence of the foregoing
conclusion, the appellants are found guilty of murder, and accordingly punished
with reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[36]
There is a need to correct the award
of damages.
The CA did not state whether the
amount of P50,000.00 was for death indemnity or moral damages. Nonetheless,
the CA should have awarded both damages, considering that they were of different
kinds.[37] For death indemnity, the amount of P50,000.00
is fixed pursuant to the current judicial policy on the matter,[38] without
the need of any evidence
or proof of
damages.[39]
Likewise, the mental anguish of
the surviving family should be assuaged by the award of appropriate and
reasonable moral damages.[40] Although the surviving family’s mental
anguish is not ever quantifiable with mathematical precision, the Court must
nonetheless determine the amount to which the heirs of the deceased are
entitled. In this case, the Court holds that the amount of P50,000.00 is
reasonable, which, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[41] is
awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional
suffering, simply because human nature and experience have shown that:
xxx a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them.[42]
The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in
criminal cases as part of the civil liability “when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances.”[43] The Civil Code allows such damages to be awarded “by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.”[44] In this regard, the CA and the RTC committed the plain error of failing
to recognize the right of the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages
by virtue of the attendance of treachery. The plain error, even if not assigned
in this appeal, demands immediate rectification as a matter of law due to the
killing being attended by treachery.
That
treachery, being an attendant circumstance, was inseparable from murder did not
matter. As well explained in People v. Catubig:[45]
The term “aggravating circumstances” used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified
otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a
two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the
other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which
is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the
accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of
the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the
offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or
qualifying, in its commission. Unlike
the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of
damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended
party who suffers thereby. It would make
little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended
party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it
is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating
circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the
criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the
case, 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 of the Civil
Code.
Accordingly,
P30,000.00
is awarded as exemplary damages. We hold that true exemplarity will not be
served by a lesser amount.
Lastly,
the Court retains the award of P20,000.00 for burial expenses, as the CA
and RTC fixed, considering that the appellants have not assailed such amount.
There can be no question that burial expenses were the reasonable consequence of the criminal act of
the accused.
WHEREFORE, appellants TORIBIO MAYINGQUE and FILOMENO MAYINGQUE are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, and each is sentenced to suffer
reclusion perpetua.
The appellants are ordered to pay to the heirs of Edgardo Tusi P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as actual damages, and P20,000.00
as burial expenses.
Costs of suit to be paid by the
appellants.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional member as per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-21.
[2] CA Rollo, pp. 13-21.
[3] Original Records, p. 3
[4] CA Rollo, p. 18.
[5] TSN
[6]
[7] TSN
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] Original Records, pp. 259-267.
[18] Original Records, pp. 265-267
[19] CA rollo, pp. 102-120; the decision was penned by Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, and concurred in by Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas (retired).
[20]
[21] Rollo, pp. 65-69.
[22]
[23] People
v. Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-52,
[24] Gulmatico
v. People, G.R. No. 146296,
[25] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 306; People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, 12
February 2007, 515 SCRA 537; People v.
Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219; Perez v. People, G.R. No. 150443, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 209; People v. Tonog, Jr., G.R. No. 144497,
June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 13; People v.
Genita, Jr., G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 343; People v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887,
March 2, 2004, 424 SCRA 164; People v.
Abolidor, G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 260; People v. Santiago, G.R. Nos. 137542-43,
January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 248; People v.
Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000, 335 SCRA 232; People v. Alarcon, G.R. Nos. 133191-93, July 11, 2000, 335 SCRA 457.
[26] Art. 11 (1), Revised Penal Code.
[27] People v. Calabroso, G.R. No.
126368,
[28] People v. Camacho, G.R. No. 138629,
June 20, 2001, 359 SCRA 200; People v.
Quiño, G.R. No. 105580, May 17, 1994, 232 SCRA 400; People v. Capisonda, 1 Phil. 575 (1902); People v. Baguio, 43 Phil. 683 (1922); People v. Silang Cruz, 53 Phil. 625 (1929); People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609 (1929); People v. Embalido, 58 Phil. 152 (1933); People v. Dorico, G.R. No. 31568, November 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172; People v. Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No.
L-23249,
[29] People
v. Gelera, G. R. No. 121377,
[30] People v. Molina, G.R. No. 59436, August 28, 1992, 213 SCRA 52; People v. Alapide, G.R. No. 104276, September 20, 1994, 236 SCRA 555; People v. Albarico, G.R. Nos. 108596-97, November 17, 1994, 238 SCRA 203; People v. Camahalan, G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995, 241 SCRA 558.
[31] People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001, 362 SCRA 338, 343; People v. Rivero, G.R. No. 112721, March 15, 1995, 242 SCRA 354; People v. Nuestro, G.R. No. 111288, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 221.
[32] Garcia
v. People , G.R. No. 144699,
[33] People
v. Batidor, G.R. No. 126027,
[34] People v. Saban, G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36, People v. Reduca, G.R. Nos. 126094-95, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 516, 534.
[35] People v. De Labajan, G.R. Nos. 129968-69,
[36] 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.
2. In
consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion
of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident
premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
[37] Heirs
of Castro v. Raymundo Bustos, L-25913,
[38]
[39] Article 2206, Civil Code:
Article 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.
[40] Article 2206, (3), in relation to Article 2217 and Article 2219, Civil Code, and Article 107, Revised Penal Code.
[41] People v. Berondo, G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 547; People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009, 580 SCRA 436, 456-457; People v. Osianas, G.R. No. 182548, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 319, 340; People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 367-368; People v. Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002, 373 SCRA 55, 69.
[42] People
v. Panado, G.R. No. 133439,
[43] Article 2230, Civil Code.
[44] Article 2229, Civil Code.
[45] G.R. No. 137842,