Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - LARRY TORRES, SR., Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 190317 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, SERENO,* JJ. Promulgated: August
22, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the September 24, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02630, which affirmed the August 18, 2006 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 87 in Rosario, Batangas, in Criminal Case
No. RY2K-086. Accused-appellant was convicted of Murder.
The Facts
An
Information charged accused Larry Torres, Sr. (Torres, Sr.), as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of January, 2000, at about 9:00 [in the evening], at Barangay Libato, Municipality of San Juan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an unlicensed short firearm, cal. 38 with intent to kill, with treachery and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm one Michael M. Santonia, suddenly and without warning, thereby inflicting upon the latter [a] gunshot wound on his head, which directly caused his death.
Version of the Prosecution
At the trial, the prosecution
presented Mitchell Santonia, Romeo Santonia, and Gregorio Carandang (Carandang)
as witnesses.
Mitchell
Santonia, brother of Michael Santonia (Santonia), testified that accused is
their neighbor in Barangay Libato,
Mitchell
Santonia rushed back to Perezs house with his parents. Santonia was still
lying on the ground when they arrived. They brought him to
Upon
stipulation the testimony of Santonias father, Romeo Santonia, was dispensed
with and the prosecution and the defense admitted certain facts he was going to
testify on:
(1) That the victim was brought to
(2) That the family spent PhP 20,000 as a
result of Michaels hospitalization; and
(3) Santonia was 24 years old at the time
of his death and earning PhP 25,000 a
month as a contract worker.[3]
Carandang
corroborated the testimony of Mitchell Santonia when he said that after
witnessing the accused and Santonia arguing, he advised them to defer for the
next day what they were fighting about. He thereafter advised Santonia to go
home. He testified that he heard a
gunshot as the Santonia brothers were on their way out of the house. He saw the
accused holding a short gun while just an arms length from Santonia. He added
that he was two arms length away from Santonia when the latter fell down. Fearing
for his safety, Carandang left after seeing Santonia lying on the ground.[4]
The
prosecution and defense entered into a stipulation on the existence and
authenticity of Santonias Death Certificate and Post-Mortem Examination issued
by Dr. Maria Divina Duque. Her testimony was thus dispensed with.[5]
Version of the Defense
The
defense offered the sole testimony of the accused. He testified that he was
drinking at Perezs house on January 19, 2000 at around 6:00 in the evening. He
was drinking with Goring Carandang, Raul Santoria, and Ben Perez while watching
a game of pool. The accused said that the Santonia brothers arrived later on
together with the accuseds son, Torres, Jr. He alleged that half an hour after
they arrived, Santonia poked a gun at him while he was about to take a shot of
alcohol. According to him, Santonia had his right hand on the firearm so he
tried to stop Santonia by placing his hand on the formers right hand. The gun
fired while the accused and Santonia were struggling for it. Accused then
noticed that Santonia had been hit. Upon further questioning, the accused
reiterated that he did not have any gun. He added that he had a good relationship
with the Santonia brothers. [6]
Ruling of the Trial Court
The
RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. It was convinced of the accuseds
guilt by the prosecution witnesses positive identification of accused and
their credible testimonies. It gave full
faith and credit to their testimonies as these corroborated each other on
material points. The trial court noted that the accuseds defense of denial was
not supported by any other evidence and was weak in the face of the positive
evidence established by the prosecution.
The
trial court ruled that treachery was present in the killing of Santonia, since
it was proved that Santonia, with his back turned, was suddenly shot without
warning as he was about to leave the premises.
The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision dated August 18, 2006 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and hereby sentences him to suffer the following penalties:
1. to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion perpetua and;
2. to pay the heirs of the victim:
a. P200,000.00 as actual damages;
b. P50,000.00 as indemnity for death;
c. P4,479,600.00 as loss of earning capacity of the victim.[7]
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On appeal, accused argued that the trial court erred in
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. He also averred that
treachery was incorrectly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
On
September 24, 2009, the CA affirmed accused-appellants conviction. According
to the appellate court, proof beyond reasonable doubt was established by the
prosecution in its presentation of documentary and testimonial evidence. The
elements of murder were proved by the Certificate of Death of the victim, the
Post-Mortem Report, and the eyewitness accounts of Mitchell Santonia and
Carandang.
Disagreeing
with the accused, the CA held that treachery was correctly appreciated by the
trial court. The victim, at the time of the attack, had his back turned and was
unarmed, leaving him unable to defend himself. He was shot in the head with no
warning. The appellate court consequently concluded that accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means, method and form of attack he
used in committing the crime.
On
the claim of self-defense, the appellate court ruled that none of its
requisites was present. It also modified the trial courts award of damages, as
no documentary evidence was presented to substantiate the loss of earning
capacity of the victim. Moral and exemplary damages were likewise awarded to
the victims heirs.
The
CA, thus, disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 August 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Rosario, Batangas, Branch 87 in Crim. Case No. RY2K-086 finding accused-appellant Larry Torres, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of P4,479,600.00 as loss of earning capacity of the victim is DELETED, and in addition to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death and P200,000.00 as actual damages, to be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of the victim Michael Santonia y Magnaye, accused-appellant is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[8]
The Issues
I
Whether the CA erred in finding that the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
II
Whether the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The Ruling of this Court
We
affirm accused-appellants conviction.
Culpability of Accused-appellant Established
Murder,
according to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as follows:
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.
The
elements of the crime of murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and
(4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[9] Treachery was alleged in the information as
qualifying circumstance for the charge of murder.
The charge of murder was established
by the prosecution through its documentary and testimonial evidence. Santonias
death and the treachery that qualified the killing to murder were established.
Santonia was shown to have died of internal hemorrhage caused by a gunshot
wound.[10] The person who caused the gunshot wound was
positively identified as the accused-appellant. The trial court noted that
Mitchell Santonia and Carandang, the prosecution witnesses, both gave a
thorough account of the incident at Perezs house. Their testimonies on how
accused-appellant shot Santonia from behind materially corroborated each other.
They both testified that Santonia and Mitchell Santonia were on their way out of
Perezs house when they heard a gunshot. Santonia then fell down and it was
accused-appellant whom they saw holding a gun, showing beyond doubt that he is
the killer. All the elements of the
crime of murder were duly proved.
For his defense, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution was not able to prove through its evidence the presence of treachery which qualified the killing of Santonia to murder. He maintains that treachery did not attend the killing of Santonia, because there was an altercation between him and the victim, making it impossible for the latter not to have been forewarned of any danger to himself. He avers that an attack from behind is not necessarily treacherous unless it appears that the method of attack was adopted by the accused deliberately with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without any risk to the assailant from the defense that the party assaulted may make.[11] He further avers that his conviction must depend on the weight of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or
forms in its execution which tend directly and especially to ensure its
execution, without risk to himself or herself arising from any defense which
the offended party might make.[12] The elements of treachery are: (1) the
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was
deliberate or consciously adopted.[13]
That
the killing of Santonia was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code was adequately proved. As
observed by the trial court, Santonia was not afforded any means of defending
himself or an opportunity to retaliate. We agree with the Office of the
Solicitor General in its argument[14]
that the attack on Michael was sudden, unexpected and without warning. Before the
shooting, Mitchell Santonia had already convinced his brother to go home and
they were on their way out of Perezs house. Santonia, thus, had his defenses down and had
no reason to feel that his life was in danger.
He could not have protected or defended himself as his back was turned
when he was suddenly shot from behind. He could not have prepared himself for
an attack as he had no inkling of what was about to occur. He had heeded the
advice that he should just defer arguing with accused-appellant and headed home
instead. As shown by the testimony of Carandang, accused-appellants act of
shooting Santonia was so swift that no one had any time to react or try to stop
the attack. Clearly, the strategy
employed by accused-appellant and the means he used to accomplish the act
ensured that the killing of Santonia would be without risk to himself.
As
to the issue raised on the weight of the prosecutions evidence, the matter
boils down to the credibility of the witnesses against accused-appellant. The
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter
best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe
the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under
grilling examination.[15] We adhere to the rule that when the trial courts findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and
binding upon this Court,[16]
unless the trial court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and significance which, if
considered, would have altered the result of the case.[17] An examination of the records shows that none
of the aforementioned circumstances applies.
The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that accused-appellants uncorroborated testimony is weak in light of the positive identification by two credible witnesses. The defense noticeably failed to present any of the other men present at their drinking session who could corroborate accused-appellants version. Even accused-appellants son, who was also present at the time of the incident, did not provide any supporting testimony for the defense.
The
trial court said:
The Court finds no irregularity in the manner the two prosecution witnesses testified. Their testimonies are likewise deserving of faith and credit from the court as [these] gave a detailed account of what transpired on the night of the incident. The testimony of witness Gregorio Carandang corroborated the testimony of Mitchell (brother of the victim) on material points. The testimon[ies] of the prosecution witnesses deserv[e] full faith and credit.
On the other hand, the accused claims simple denial in that he claims that he has nothing to do with the death of Michael as the gun accidentally fired and hit Michael when they were in the act of grappling for [it].[18]
In
sustaining the findings of the trial court, We uphold settled jurisprudence
that denial, like alibi, constitutes self-serving negative evidence which
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[19]
Penalty Imposed
The
penalty for murder absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance is reclusion perpetua, which is the lesser penalty for murder in conformity with
Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. We affirm the penalty imposed on
accused-appellant, as neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance was
present in the instant case.
Damages Awarded
When
death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil
indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or
compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys
fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[20]
In
cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded
automatically. Indeed, such
awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death
of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[21] When the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua, the damages to be
imposed are: PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and
PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.[22] These amounts are proper since there
are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
crime in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned
from January 19, 2000, which is the date of the killing, up to the finality of
the judgment should be imposed on the damages.[23] In addition, interest at 12% per annum shall
be imposed on said damages from finality of judgment until paid.
The
CA awarded PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, PhP
25,000 as exemplary damages, and PhP 200,000 as actual damages.
To
conform to jurisprudence, exemplary damages are raised to PhP 30,000. The award of PhP 200,000 in
actual damages is affirmed as this was stipulated by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 02630 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) Exemplary damages are awarded in the
increased amount of PhP 30,000;
(2) Interest at the rate of 6% per annum
on the civil indemnity and moral, actual, and exemplary damages from January
19, 2000 up to the finality of this Decision, and interest at 12% per annum on
said damages from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid shall
likewise be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of Michael Santonia.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
MARIA
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
Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
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 Chairpersons
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
[8] Rollo, p. 29. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Priscilla J. Balatazar-Padilla.
[9] People v. Sameniano, G.R. No. 183703, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 840, 850; citing L.B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law Book One 463 (2001).
[12] People v. Continente, G.R. Nos. 100801-02, August 25, 2000, 339 SCRA 1, 34; citing People vs. Elijorde, G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 188, 198.
[13] People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 799; citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174371, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 708, 721.
[15] People v. Bi-ay, G.R. No. 192187, December 21, 2010; citing People of the Philippines v. Jerry Bantiling,
420 Phil. 849, 862-863 (2001).
[16] People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 187; citing People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 730.