Republic
of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PEDRO ORTIZ, JR. y LOPES, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. NO. 188704 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 7, 2010 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal[1]
from the April 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA),[2]
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31164, affirming the June 7, 2007 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila (RTC)
which found accused Pedro Ortiz, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder for the killing of one Loreto Cruz.
Accused
Pedro Ortiz, Jr., along with his nephew, Jojo Ortiz, was charged with murder
for the killing of Loreto Cruz in two (2) consolidated cases before the
Regional Trial Court,
Criminal Case
No. 03-215663
(People v. Jojo
Ortiz y Quitada)
“That on or
about June 22, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating with one another whose true name, identity and
present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping each other, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified
by treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal
violence upon the person of one LORETO CRUZ Y CRUZ, by then and there suddenly
shooting the latter with a .38 revolver bearing Serial No. 47970 with
trademarks Armscor on the right cheek, thereby inflicting upon said LORETO CRUZ
Y Cruz mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his
death thereafter.
Contrary to
law.”
Criminal Case
No. 03-219216
(People v.
Pedro Ortiz)
“That on or
about June 22, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines the said accused
conspiring and confederating with one JOJO ORTIZ Y GUTABA, who was already
charged with the same offense before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-215663, and mutually helping each other, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill,
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of one LORETO CRUZ Y CRUZ, by then and there
suddenly shooting the latter with a .38 caliber revolver bearing Serial No.
47970 with trademarks Armscor on the right cheek, thereby inflicting upon said
LORETO CRUZ Y CRUZ, a mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate
cause of his death thereafter.
Contrary
to law.”[3]
As
culled from the evidentiary records, it appears that on
Although the accused pleaded not guilty during the
arraignment, he admitted killing Loreto Cruz in the course of the trial because
he was not satisfied with the way the victim dealt with his sons’ case. According to the accused, his sons were
merely playing “kara y kruz” but were detained for illegal drug use. As the Executive Officer, the victim promised
that his sons would be released from detention after three to four months. Five months passed and his sons remained in
jail. On his part, Jojo Ortiz denied any participation in the commission of
the crime and only admitted the fact
that he helped his uncle when he saw him being grabbed by the barangay
officials.
On
In
acquitting Jojo Ortiz, the RTC ruled that “Pedro Ortiz shot the victim
alone. The killing was carried out
without the participation of Jojo Ortiz who did not personally hit or harm the
victim. Nothing in the testimonies
conveyed a coordinated action, concerted purpose or community of design to
commit the criminal act.”[6] Thus, the decretal portion of the RTC
Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the court finds
accused Pedro Ortiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Loreto Cruz the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Accused Jojo Ortiz is acquitted of the crime
charged.
SO
ORDERED.”[7]
The accused appealed to the Court of
Appeals and assigned the following errors:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER.”[8]
The
accused argued that the RTC erred in appreciating the element of treachery as
an aggravating circumstance. He insisted
that the victim knew all along that there was a threat to his life but chose to
ignore it.[9] He likewise stressed that the presence of three
Barangay tanods outside the barangay hall did not render Loreto Cruz totally
defenseless from any possible attack against his life.[10]
In its Brief,[11]
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that there was treachery
because of the suddenness of the attack while the victim was watching
television. It wrote: “Even if Cruz was
aware of the accused’s threat against him, the suddenness of the attack
deprived him of any real chance to defend himself or to retaliate. The weapon used and the nature of the injury
inflicted, which pertained to the lone gunshot fatally wounding the victim,
clearly shows that accused deliberately and consciously adopted the particular
mode of attack to ensure the commission of the offense with impunity.”[12] The OSG likewise prayed that exemplary and
temperate damages be added to the award of damages.[13]
On April 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals
agreed that there was treachery and affirmed the ruling. It pointed out that the accused, with a
firearm in hand, barged into the Barangay hall, called out “Ex-O,” and suddenly
shot the victim at close range, evident of his intent to ensure the success of
his attack with no risk to himself. The
CA also added that while it is true that the accused called Loreto Cruz “Ex-O”
as he shot the latter, “he did so only to make sure that the person he would
shoot was his intended target and not to afford his victim a chance to defend
himself.”[14]
Hence,
this appeal.
The
only issue before this Court is whether or not the accused employed treachery
or alevosia
so as to qualify the killing of one Loreto Cruz to murder.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “there is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.”
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real
chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to
the aggressors, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victims.[15]
In
this case, the accused purposely sought the unsuspecting victim with intent to
inflict a mortal wound on him. He
shouted “Ex-O” just in time for the victim to turn towards his line of
fire. When the victim faced him, the
accused instantly pulled the trigger hitting him on the left side of his
face. The way it was executed made it
impossible for the victim to respond or defend himself. He just had no
opportunity to repel the sudden attack, rendering him completely helpless.
The
accused argues that there could not have been any treachery because the victim
knew the threat to his life. The Court
has consistently held that treachery can still be appreciated even though the
victim was forewarned of the danger[16]
because what is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the
victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[17] In this case, although it is true that the
victim knew that the accused had a grudge against him, he never had any inkling
that he would actually be attacked that night.
In fact, records reveal that the victim was preoccupied with watching
television with his back turned against the accused when the latter suddenly
barged into the barangay hall. Accused,
moreover, used a firearm to easily neutralize the victim, which was undeniably
a swift and effective way to achieve his purpose. Lastly, but significantly,
the accused aimed for the face of the victim ensuring that the bullet would
penetrate it and damage his brain.
It is likewise true that the victim was
with two other barangay officials at the time of the shooting. It should be emphasized though that these two
barangay officials were also watching television and were also caught by
surprise. The accused had already shot
the victim before they could even react.
These acts are distinctly indicative of the
treacherous means employed by the accused to guarantee the consummation of his
criminal plan. Thus, as treachery
attended the killing of Loreto Cruz, such circumstance qualified the killing as
murder, punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. [18]
When death results due to a crime, recovery of these awards
are allowed: (1) civil indemnity ex
delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages;
(3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[19]
The RTC only awarded P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court deems it proper to award
exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 following
precedents.[20] “Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code,
exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances, in this case, treachery. This is intended to serve as deterrent to
serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion
of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct. The imposition of exemplary
damages is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set
an example for the public good.”[21]
The Court likewise grants P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in keeping with current jurisprudence allowing it where the
funeral and burial expenses spent for the victim cannot be fully substantiated
or there is no proof of actual damages.[22]
WHEREFORE, the April 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 31164 is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the accused is further ordered to pay P30,000.00
as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 23-25.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Rollo, p. 19.
[15]
People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 169082,
[16]
People v. Rodas, G.R. No. 175881,
[17] People v. Mara, G.R. No. 184050, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 839.
[18] 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; x x x
[19] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, February 04, 2010 citing People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385,
[20]
People v. Mortera, G.R. 188104,
[21] People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 177134, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 304, 313.
[22]
People v. Se, G.R. No. 152966,