Republic of the
Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROSENDO REBUCAN y LAMSIN, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182551
Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: July
27, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO DE CASTRO, J.:
Assailed before this Court is the Decision[1]
dated August 21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00282,
which modified the Decision[2]
dated November 3, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara,
On January 23, 2003, the accused-appellant was charged with
the crime of double murder in an Information, the accusatory portion of which
reads:
That on or about
the 6th day of November, 2002, in the Municipality of Carigara,
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound FELIPE LAGERA Y
OBERO, 65 years old and RANIL TAGPIS Y LAGERA, 1 year old, with the use of a
long bolo (sundang) which the accused had provided himself for the purpose,
thereby inflicting upon Felipe Lagera:
Hypovolemic shock,
massive blood loss and multiple hacking wounds upon Ranil Tagpis:
Hypovolemic
shock, massive blood loss and hacking wound, head[,] which wounds caused the
death of Felipe Lagera y Obera and Ranil Tagpis y Lagera, immediately
thereafter.[3]
When arraigned on February 10, 2003, the accused-appellant
pleaded
not guilty to the charge.[4] Trial, thereafter, ensued.
The
prosecution presented as witnesses: (1) Dr. Ma. Bella V. Profetana, Municipal
Health Officer of Carigara, Leyte; (2) Carmela Tagpis, the 5-year-old granddaughter
of the victim Felipe Lagera and sister of the victim Ranil Tagpis, Jr.;[5]
(3) Adoracion Lagera, the wife of Felipe Lagera; and (4) Alma Tagpis, the
daughter of Felipe Lagera and mother of Ranil Tagpis, Jr.
Dr.
Profetana testified that she conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of
the victim Felipe Lagera on November 6, 2002.
She stated that Felipe sustained three hacking wounds, the first of
which was located at his right arm and was about 23x2x4 centimeters. The said wound was fatal and could have been
caused by a sharp instrument such as a bolo.
The second wound was located at Felipes nose maxillary area,[6]
measuring 13 centimeters, with an inverted C shape. The second wound was not fatal and could have
been caused by a sharp-edged instrument like a bolo. The third wound was located at Felipes left
arm and was measured as 9x1x1.5 centimeters.
The said wound was fatal and could have likewise been caused by a
sharp-edged instrument. Dr. Profetana
concluded that the causes of death of Felipe were hypovolemic shock, massive
blood loss and multiple hacking wounds. She
also conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Ranil Tagpis, Jr. on
the aforementioned date. The results revealed
that Ranil sustained a hacking wound at the fronto-temporal area[7]
with a skull fracture. In the case of
Ranil, the cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to massive blood
loss secondary to [the] hacking wound to the head.[8] The instrument that was most likely used was
sharp-edged like a bolo.[9]
Carmela
Tagpis testified as an eyewitness to the incident in question. She pointed to the accused-appellant as the
Bata Endong[10]
(Uncle Endong) who hacked her grandfather and brother. She stated that Ranil was hit in the forehead,
while Felipe was hit on the face, the left shoulder and the right
shoulder. After Felipe was hacked by the
accused-appellant, the former was still able to walk outside of his house, to
the direction of the coconut tree and thereafter fell to the ground. Carmela said that she saw that a long bolo
was used in the killing of Felipe and Ranil.
She related that Felipe also owned a bolo but he was not able to use the
same when he was attacked. She was then
inside the house with Felipe and her two younger brothers,
On
cross-examination, Carmela stated that at the time of the incident, she was playing
with a toy camera inside the house and she was situated beside a chicken cage,
near a bench. Felipe was also there near
the bench and he was carrying Ranil in his right arm. When asked whether the accused-appellant came
inside the house in a sudden manner, Carmela answered in the affirmative. She insisted that Ranil was indeed carried by
Felipe when the accused-appellant entered the house. She said that no fight or altercation occurred
between Felipe and the accused-appellant.
After Felipe was hacked, he immediately ran outside of the house. Carmela and
Adoracion
Lagera testified that at 4:00 p.m. on November 6, 2002, she was at the house of
a certain Justiniano Rance. After
arriving there, she was fetched by a little boy who told her to go home because
Felipe had been hacked. She ran towards
the direction of her house. When she got
there, she saw the lifeless body of Felipe sprawled on the ground. She then went inside the house and found her
daughter, Alma Tagpis, cuddling the body of Ranil whose head was wounded. She told
Alma
Tagpis testified that at about 4:00 p.m. on November 6, 2002, she was in Brgy.
Sogod, having their palay (unhusked
rice grain) milled. Shortly thereafter,
she went home and proceeded to the house of her father, Felipe, where she left
her children. She then met a person
looking for her mother who was about to tell the latter that Felipe was hacked. When she rushed to Felipes house, she saw him
lying in the grassy place, wounded and motionless. She asked Felipe who hacked him, but he was
not able to answer anymore. She went
inside the house and saw blood on the floor and the feet of her son Ranil. Thinking that the killer was still inside, she
went to the back of the house and pulled a slot of board on the wall so she
could get inside. Upon seeing the body
of Ranil, she took him and ran towards the road. She was able to bring Ranil to the hospital,
but the doctor already pronounced him dead.
Her other two children, Carmela and
Thereafter,
the prosecution formally offered the following documentary evidence, to wit:
(1) Exhibit A the Post-mortem Examination Report on Felipe;[15]
(2) Exhibit B the sketch of the human anatomy indicating the wounds sustained
by Felipe;[16]
(3) Exhibit C the Certificate of Death of Felipe;[17]
(4) Exhibit D the Post-mortem Examination Report on Ranil;[18]
(5) Exhibit E the sketch of the human anatomy indicating the wounds sustained
by Ranil;[19]
and (6) Exhibit F the Certificate of Death of Ranil.[20]
The
defense, on the other hand, presented the following witnesses, namely: (1)
Raymond Rance, the stepson of the accused-appellant; (2) Renerio Arminal,[21]
the barangay chairperson of Brgy. Canlampay,
Carigara, Leyte; (3) Arnulfo Alberca, a member of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) stationed at Carigara, Leyte; and (4) the accused-appellant
Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin.
Raymond Rance testified that his
mothers name is Marites Rance. The
accused-appellant is not his biological father but the former helped in
providing for his basic needs. He
narrated that on the night of July 18, 2002, he saw Felipe Lagera inside their
house. Felipe placed himself on top of
Raymonds mother, who was lying down.
Raymond and his younger sister, Enda, were then sleeping beside their
mother and they were awakened. His
mother kept pushing Felipe away and she eventually succeeded in driving him
out. In the evening of July 20, 2002, at
about 11:00 p.m., Raymond recounted that he saw Felipes son, Artemio alias
Timboy, inside their house. Timboy was
able to go upstairs and kept trying to place himself on top of Raymonds
mother. The latter got mad and pushed
Timboy away. She even pushed him down
the stairs. The accused-appellant was
working in
Renerio Arminal testified that on
November 6, 2002, the accused-appellant surrendered to him. The latter came to him alone and told him
that he (the accused-appellant) fought with Felipe Lagera. Arminal then ordered the human rights action
officer, Ricky Irlandez, and the chief tanod,
Pedro Oledan, to bring the accused-appellant to the police station. Afterwards, the police officers came to his
place and he accompanied them to the house of Felipe.[23]
Arnulfo Alberca was likewise called
upon to the witness stand to prove that the voluntary surrender of the
accused-appellant was entered into the records of the police blotter. He was asked to read in open court the Police
Blotter Entry No. 5885 dated November 6, 2002, which recorded the fact of
voluntary surrender of the accused-appellant.
His testimony was no longer presented, however, since the prosecution already
admitted the contents of the blotter.[24]
The accused-appellant testified that
he arrived in Carigara, Leyte from
The accused-appellant further
testified that when he reached the house of Felipe, the latter was feeding
chickens. When Felipe asked him what was
his business in going there, he confronted Felipe about the alleged sexual
abuse of his wife. Felipe allegedly claimed
that the accused-appellant had a bad purpose for being there and that the
latter wanted to start a fight. Accused-appellant
denied the accusation and responded that Felipe should not get angry, as it was
he (Felipe) who committed a wrong against him and his wife. Felipe allegedly got mad and hurled the cover
of a chicken cage at him, but he was able to parry it with his hand. The accused-appellant then drew his long bolo
and hacked Felipe on the left side of the abdomen, as the latter was already
turning and about to run to the house. He
also went inside the house since Felipe might get hold of a weapon. When they were both inside and he was about
to deliver a second hacking blow, Felipe held up and used the child Ranil as a
shield. As the second hacking blow was
delivered suddenly, he was not able to withdraw the same anymore such that the
blow landed on Ranil. When he saw that
he hit the child, he got angry and delivered a third hacking blow on Felipe,
which landed on the right side of the latters neck. Thereafter, Felipe ran outside. He followed Felipe and hacked him again,
which blow hit the victims upper left arm.
At that time, Felipe was already on the yard of his house and was about
to run towards the road. He then left
and surrendered to the barangay chairperson.[26]
During his cross-examination, the
accused-appellant said that he was a bit tipsy when he proceeded to Felipes
house, but he was not drunk. When Felipe
ran inside the house after the first hacking blow, the accused-appellant stated
that he had no intention to back out because he was thinking that the victim
might get a gun and use the same against him.
The accused-appellant also asserted that when he was about to deliver
the second hacking blow, Felipe simultaneously took Ranil who was sitting on a
sack and used him to shield the blow.
There was a long bolo nearby but Felipe was not able to take hold of the
same because the accused-appellant was chasing him. He admitted that he had a plan to kill Felipe
but claimed that when he arrived at the latters house on the day of the
attack, he had no intention to kill him.[27]
The defense also presented the
following documentary evidence: (1) Exhibit 1 the Police Blotter Entry No.
5885 dated November 6, 2002;[28]
and (2) Exhibit 2 the Civil Marriage Contract of Rosendo Rebucan and Marites
Rance.[29]
On
November 3, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision, convicting the accused-appellant
of the crime of double murder. The trial
court elucidated thus:
[In view of] the
vivid portrayal of Raymond on how [the wife of the accused] was sexually abused
by the father and son Lagera, the accused hatched a decision to avenge his
wifes sexual molestation. Days had
passed, but this decision to kill Felipe did not wither, instead it became
stronger, that on the 6th of November 2002, he armed himself with a
sharp long bolo known as sundang and went to Brgy. Canlampay, Carigara, Leyte
where the victim live[d]. Fueled by
hatred and the spirit of London gin after consuming one bottle with his
compadre Enok, he decided to execute his evil deeds by going to the house of
Felipe Lagera, in the guise of buying kerosene and once inside the house hacked
and wounded the victim, Felipe Lagera who was then holding in his arm his
grandson, one and half years 1 old, Ramil Tagpis, Jr.
The manner by
which the accused adopted in killing the victim, Felipe Lagera, and Ramil
Tagpis, Jr. was a premeditated decision and executed with treachery.
x x x x
There is credence to the testimony of the minor
eyewitness Carmela Tagpis that the victim, Felipe was holding in his arms her
younger brother, Ramil Tagpis, Jr. inside his house, when the accused entered,
and without any warning or provocation coming from the victim, the accused
immediately delivered several hacking blows on the victim giving no regard to
the innocent child in the arms of Lagera.
With this precarious situation, the victim who was unarmed has no
opportunity to put up his defense against the unlawful aggression of the accused,
moreso, to retaliate. Moreover, what defense could an innocent 1 1/2
years old Ramil Tagpis, Jr. put up against the armed and superior strength of
the accused, but to leave his fate to God.
The circumstance
that the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victims, unarmed, were caught
totally unprepared to defend themselves qualifies the crime committed as
murder. x x x.
After the
incident, the accused Rosendo Rebucan immediately went to the house of Brgy.
Chairman, Renerio Arcenal at sitio Palali, Brgy. Canlampay, Carigara,
Clearly, the act
of the accused in surrendering to the authorities showed his intent to submit
himself unconditionally to them, to save the authorities from trouble and
expenses that they would incur for his capture.
For this reason, he has complied with the requisites of voluntary
surrender as a mitigating circumstance[.] x x x.
From the
circumstances obtaining, the mitigating circumstances of admission and
voluntary surrender credited to the accused are not sufficient to offset the
aggravating circumstances of: a) evident
premeditation; b) treachery
(alevosia); c) dwelling the
crime was committed at the house of the victim; d) intoxication the accused fueled himself with the spirit of London
gin prior to the commission of the crime; e) abuse of superior strength; and f) minority, in so far as the child victim, Ramil Tagpis, Jr. is
concerned, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. x x x.
x x x x
In the mind of
the Court, the prosecution has substantially established the quantum of
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[30]
The RTC, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, pursuant to Sec. 6, Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended and further amended by R.A. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), the Court
found accused ROSENDO REBUCAN y LAMSIN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of DOUBLE MURDER charged under
the information and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, and to pay civil indemnity to
the heirs of Felipe Lagera and Ramil Tagpis, Jr. in the amount of Seventy-Five
Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos
for each victim and moral damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos to each; and
Pay the Cost.[31]
(Emphases ours.)
The case was originally elevated to this Court on
automatic review and the same was docketed as G.R. No. 161706.[32] The parties, thereafter,
submitted their respective appeal briefs.[33] In
our Resolution[34] dated July 19, 2005, we ordered the transfer
of the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate disposition, pursuant to
our ruling in People v. Mateo.[35] Before the appellate court, the case was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00282.
The
Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed decision on August 21, 2007,
modifying the judgment of the RTC. The
appellate court adopted the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the felonious acts of the
accused-appellant resulted in two separate crimes of murder as the evidence of
the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a complex crime of double
murder. The Court of Appeals subscribed
to the findings of the RTC that the killing of Felipe Lagera was attended by
the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. With respect to the ensuant mitigating
circumstances, the Court of Appeals credited the circumstance of voluntary
surrender in favor of the accused-appellant, but rejected the appreciation of
intoxication, immediate vindication of a grave offense and voluntary
confession. As for the death of Ranil,
the appellate court also ruled that the same was attended by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Thus, the Court of Appeals
disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision
appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. As modified, accused-appellant is hereby
adjudged guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of murder for the
deaths of Felipe Lagera and Ramil Tagpis, Jr., and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for each count of murder he has
committed.
The award of
civil indemnity is reduced to P50,000.00 for each victim; the award of
moral damages is likewise reduced to P50,000.00 for each victim. Further, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
is awarded to the heirs of each victim.[36]
The accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[37]
of the above decision. In a Resolution[38]
dated February 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals ordered that the records of the
case be forwarded to this Court.
On June 18, 2008, we resolved to accept the appeal
and required the parties to file their respective supplemental
briefs, if they so desire, within thirty days from notice.[39] Thereafter, both parties manifested that they
were adopting the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals and will no
longer file their respective supplemental briefs.[40]
The
accused-appellant sets forth the following assignment of errors:
I
THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER.
II
THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III
THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE INTOXICATION AS A MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
IV
THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF DWELLING,
ABUSE OF
The accused-appellant admits to the killing of
Felipe but denies that the crime was committed with treachery and evident
premeditation. He argues that there is
doubt as to the presence of treachery given that there was no eyewitness who categorically
stated that the accused-appellant attacked the victims suddenly, thereby
depriving them of the means to defend themselves. He brushed aside the testimony of Carmela
Tagpis, insisting that she was not in a position to say that there was no
altercation between him and Felipe, which could have put the latter on guard. The prosecution allegedly failed to prove
that the accused-appellant intentionally waited for the time when Felipe would
be defenseless before initiating the attack.
The fact that he voluntarily surrendered to the barangay chairperson and the police and admitted the killings supposedly
showed that it was not intentional and he did not consciously adopt the method
of attack upon the two victims. The
accused-appellant similarly rejects the finding of the RTC that there was
evident premeditation on his part since the prosecution failed to prove that he
deliberately planned the killing of Felipe.
The accused-appellant maintains that at the time of
the incident, he was still unable to control his anger as he just recently
discovered that his wife was sexually abused by Felipe and the latters son,
Timboy. He also avers that he was a bit
intoxicated when the crime took place so that he was not in total control of
himself. He claims that he is not a
habitual drinker and that he merely consumed the alcohol prior to the incident
in order to appease his friend. He
likewise argues that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should not have
been appreciated inasmuch as the same was not alleged in the information. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated since he did not deliberately
harm or attack Ranil Tagpis, Jr. and the death of the latter was accidental. The accused-appellant prays that he should
only be found guilty of the crime of homicide with the mitigating circumstances
of voluntary surrender, immediate vindication of a grave offense and
intoxication.
The appeal lacks merit.
Basic
is the rule that in order to affirm the conviction of an accused person, the
prosecution must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[42] Ultimately, what the law simply requires is
that any proof against the accused must survive the test of reason for it is
only when the conscience is satisfied that the perpetrator of the crime is the
person on trial should there be a judgment of conviction.[43] A finding of guilt must rest on the strength
of the prosecutions own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of
evidence for the defense.[44]
In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution
established the fact that the killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by treachery,
thus qualifying the same to murder.
According to Article 248[45]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, any person who shall kill another shall
be guilty of murder if the same was committed with the attendant circumstance
of treachery, among other things, and that the situation does not fall within
the provisions of Article 246.[46] 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.[47] The
essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, offering an unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. There is treachery even if the attack is
frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, with the victims having no opportunity
to repel it or defend themselves, for what is decisive in treachery is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves
or to retaliate.[48]
In the case at bar, the RTC gave more weight to the
testimony of Carmela Tagpis in establishing the presence of treachery in the
manner with which the accused-appellant carried out the violent killings of
Felipe and Ranil. In this regard, we reiterate
the established doctrine articulated in People
v. De Guzman[49]
that:
In the resolution of the factual
issues, the court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the
witnesses and their credibility. Having
the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect
that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere
reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. x x x.[50]
Moreover, we have oftentimes ruled that the Court
will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the
credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance
of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which
has been misinterpreted.[51]
Carmela testified as follows:
PROS. TORREVILLAS:
Q: Do you have a brother
named Ranil Tagpis, Jr?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Where is he now?
A: He is dead.
Q: Do you know the
circumstance of his death?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Why did he die?
A: Because he was hacked by
Bata Endong.
Q: Do you know also your
grandfather Felipe Lagera, Jr?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Where is he now?
A: He is dead also.
Q: Why did he die?
A: Because he was hacked by
Bata Endong.
Q: Is the person your Bata
Endong here in the court room who hacked your brother and your grandfather?
A: Yes sir.
COURT INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a person when asked of his name identified himself as
Rosendo Rebucan.
x x x x
Q: What instrument did the
accused use in killing your [brother and] your grandfather?
A: Long bolo, sundang.
Q: Were you able to see that
long bolo?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
Q: Was your grandfather armed
that time?
A: He has his own bolo but he
placed it on the holder of the long bolo.
Q: Was that long bolo used by
your grandfather?
A: No sir.
x x x x
Q: How far were you to the
incident, when this hacking incident happened?
A: (witness indicating a distance
of about 4 meters).
x x x x
COURT:
Cross.
ATTY. DICO:
Q: You stated awhile ago that
your brother
A: Yes sir.
Q: You mean to say that there
were no other persons present in that house other than you four (4)?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
Q: So, you were playing that
toy camera inside the room of your papo Felipe?
A: No sir, I was playing then
at the side of the chicken cage.
Q: Is that chicken cage was
inside or outside the house of your papo Felipes house?
A: Inside the house of my
grandfather.
x x x x
Q: Was your brother Ranil
carried by your grandfather Felipe?
A: Yes sir.
He was carried by his
right arm.
Q: So, you mean to say that
your uncle Endo went inside, it was so sudden?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Because it was sudden, you
were not able to do anything, what did you do?
A: I then cried at that time.
x x x x
Q: But you are sure that when
your uncle Endo entered as you said that your brother Ramil was carried by your
papo Felipe?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did your uncle Endo and
your papo Felipe fight or was there an altercation?
A: No sir.[52]
As can be gleaned from the above testimony, Carmela firmly
and categorically pointed to the accused-appellant as the person who entered
the house of Felipe. She clearly stated
that the attack was not preceded by any fight or altercation between the
accused-appellant and Felipe. Without
any provocation, the accused-appellant suddenly delivered fatal hacking blows to
Felipe. The abruptness of the unexpected
assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of any opportunity to repel
the attack and retaliate. As Felipe was
carrying his grandson Ranil, the child unfortunately suffered the same fatal
end as that of his grandfather. In the
killing of Ranil, the trial court likewise correctly appreciated the existence
of treachery. The said circumstance may
be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom
the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of
the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become
aware of it.[53] Furthermore, the
killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of assault
is not shown. For the weakness of the
victim due to his tender years results in the absence of any danger to the
accused.[54]
Although
the accused-appellant painted a contrasting picture on the matter, i.e., that the attack was preceded by a
fight between him and Felipe, the Court is less inclined to be persuaded by the
accused-appellants version of the events in question. Indeed, the Court has ruled that the testimony
of children of sound mind is more correct and truthful than that of older
persons and that children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of
incidents which take place within their view than older persons, and their
testimonies are likely more correct in detail than that of older persons.[55] In the instant case, Carmela was
cross-examined by the defense counsel but she remained steadfast and consistent
in her statements. Thus, the Court fails
to see any reason to distrust the testimony of Carmela.
Incidentally,
the testimony of the accused-appellant not only contradicts that of Carmela, but
some portions thereof do not also conform to the documentary evidence admitted
by the trial court. The testimony of Dr.
Profetana and the sketch of the human anatomy of Felipe, which was marked as
Exhibit B for the prosecution, stated that Felipe sustained three hacking
wounds that were found on his right arm, at his nose maxillary area[56]
and on his left arm. On the other hand,
the accused-appellant testified that he delivered four hacking blows on Felipe,
the three of which landed on the left side of the victims abdomen, the right
side of his neck and on his upper left arm.
When confronted on the said apparently conflicting statements, the
accused-appellant did not offer any explanation.[57]
Therefore,
on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, we sustain the ruling of
the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the circumstance of treachery qualified
the killings of Felipe and Ranil to murder.
The Court finds erroneous, however, the trial courts
and the Court of Appeals appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation. For
evident premeditation to aggravate a crime, there must be proof, as clear as
the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements: (1) the time when
the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating
that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time, between
determination and execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.[58] It is not enough that evident premeditation
is suspected or surmised, but criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious
outward acts evidencing determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of
the offense, the circumstance must not merely be premeditation; it must be
evident premeditation.[59] In the case at bar, the evidence of the
prosecution failed to establish any of the elements of evident premeditation
since the testimonies they presented pertained to the period of the actual
commission of the crime and the events that occurred thereafter. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence
that tended to establish the exact moment when the accused-appellant devised a
plan to kill Felipe, that the latter clung to his determination to carry out
the plan and that a sufficient time had lapsed before he carried out his plan.
Likewise, the trial court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, minority and
intoxication. When the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in
the latter.[60] On the other hand, dwelling, minority and
intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant
case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the
information that was filed on January 23, 2003.
Under
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
a generic aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated by the Court unless
alleged in the information. This requirement
is laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, to wit:
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The
complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged
as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to
pronounce judgment.
With regard to the conflicting rulings of the RTC
and the Court of Appeals vis--vis
the nature of crimes committed, we agree with the appellate court that the
accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder,
not the complex crime of double murder.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that [w]hen
a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in
its maximum period. There are, thus, two kinds of complex crimes.
The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies.
The second is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other.[61]
The Court finds that there is a paucity of evidence to prove
that the instant case falls under any of the two classes of complex
crimes. The evidence of the prosecution
failed to clearly and indubitably establish the fact that Felipe and Ranil were
killed by a single fatal hacking blow from the accused-appellant. The eyewitness testimony of Carmela did not
contain any detail as to this material fact. To a greater degree, it was neither proven that
the murder of Felipe was committed as a necessary means for committing and/or
facilitating the murder of Ranil and vice
versa. As the factual milieu of the
case at bar excludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the
accused-appellant should be made liable for two separate and distinct acts of
murder. In the past, when two crimes
have been improperly designated as a complex crime, this Court has affirmed the
conviction of the accused for the component crimes separately instead of the
complex crime.[62]
In the determination of the penalty to be imposed on the
accused-appellant, we uphold the trial courts ruling that the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated. For voluntary surrender
to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must concur: (1) the
offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrenders himself to
a person in authority or to the latters agent; and (3) the surrender is
voluntary.[63] To be sufficient, the surrender must be
spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused
to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge their guilt or
wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily
be incurred in searching for and capturing them.[64] The accused-appellant has duly established in
this case that, after the attack on Felipe and Ranil, he surrendered
unconditionally to the barangay chairperson
and to the police on his own volition and before he was actually arrested. The prosecution also admitted this
circumstance of voluntary surrender during trial.
We reject, however,
the accused-appellants contention that the trial court erred in failing to
appreciate the mitigating circumstances of intoxication and immediate
vindication of a grave offense.
The third paragraph of Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that the intoxication of the offender shall be
taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has
committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is
habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The Court finds that the accused-appellant is
not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication since his own
testimony failed to substantiate his claim of drunkenness during the incident
in question. During his
cross-examination, the accused-appellant himself positively stated that he was
only a bit tipsy but not drunk when he proceeded to the house of Felipe.[65] He cannot, therefore, be allowed to make a
contrary assertion on appeal and pray for the mitigation of the crimes he
committed on the basis thereof.
As
regards the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave
offense, the same cannot likewise be appreciated in the instant case. Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code
requires that the act be committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing the felony (delito),
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication
of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity.[66] In the case at bar, the accused-appellant
points to the alleged attempt of Felipe and Timboy Lagera on the virtue of his
wife as the grave offense for which he sought immediate vindication. He testified that he learned of the same from
his stepson, Raymond, on November 2, 2002. Four days thereafter, on November 6, 2002, the
accused-appellant carried out the attack that led to the deaths of Felipe and
Ranil. To our mind, a period of four
days was sufficient enough a time within which the accused-appellant could have
regained his composure and self-control.
Thus, the said mitigating circumstance cannot be credited in favor of
the accused-appellant.
Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the
crime of murder. In this case, apart
from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the prosecution failed to prove
the existence of any other aggravating circumstance in both the murders of
Felipe and Ranil. On the other hand, as the
presence of the lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was
properly established in both instances, Article 63, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal
Code[67]
mandates that the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua for each of the two
counts of murder.
Anent
the award of damages, 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) attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[68]
The
RTC awarded in favor of the heirs of Felipe and Ranil the amounts of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages for each set of
heirs. The Court of Appeals, on the other
hand, reduced the aforesaid amounts to P50,000.00 and further awarded
the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the
victim.
Civil
indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of
proof other than the commission of the crime.[69] Similarly, moral
damages may be awarded by the court for the mental anguish suffered by the
heirs of the victim by reason of the latters death. The purpose for making such an award is not
to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their
feelings.[70] The award of exemplary damages, on the other
hand, is provided under Articles 2229-2230 of the Civil Code, viz:
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example
or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil
liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines
and shall be paid to the offended party.
In
People v. Dalisay,[71]
the Court clarified that [b]eing corrective in nature,
exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230
prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the
main provision, lays down the very basis of the award.[72]
Thus,
we affirm the Court of Appeals award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The award of exemplary damages is, however, increased to P30,000.00
in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. As held in People v. Combate,[73] when
the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper
amounts that should be awarded are P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In
lieu of actual or compensatory damages, the Court further orders the award of P25,000.00
temperate damages to the heirs of the two victims in this case. The award of P25,000.00
for temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of
burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code,
temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of
the victim suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact amount was not proven.[74]
WHEREFORE,
the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated August
21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00282. The
accused-appellant Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin is found GUILTY of two (2) counts of murder for the deaths of Felipe Lagera
and Ranil Tagpis, Jr. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count. The
accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the respective heirs of the victims
Felipe Lagera and Ranil Tagpis, Jr. the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages for each victim, plus legal
interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% from the date of the finality
of this decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-28; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Agustin S. Dizon and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 69-83; penned by Presiding Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Id. at 17.
[5] Also referred to as Ramil Tagpis, Jr. and Ranel Tagpis, Jr. in other parts of the records.
[6] TSN, February 18, 2003, p. 5.
[7] Id. at 8.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 3-9.
[10] TSN, February 24, 2003, p. 3.
[11] Id. at 3-5.
[12] Id. at 6-9.
[13] TSN, March 4, 2003, pp. 3-5.
[14] TSN, March 21, 2003, pp. 3-6.
[15] Records, Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
[16] Id. at 2.
[17] Id. at 3.
[18] Id. at 4.
[19] Id. at 5.
[20] Id. at 6.
[21] Also referred to as Reinerio Arminal, Penerio Arminal and Renerio Arcenal in other parts of the records.
[22] TSN, April 9, 2003, pp. 4-15.
[23] TSN, June 24, 2003, pp. 3-4.
[24] TSN, July 21, 2003, p. 3.
[25] TSN, July 31, 2003, pp. 2-11.
[26] Id. at 11-16.
[27] TSN, August 1, 2003, pp. 27-32.
[28] Records, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 7-8.
[29] Id. at 9.
[30] CA rollo, pp. 80-83.
[31] Id. at 83.
[32] Id. at 35.
[33] Id. at 50-68 and 116-156.
[34] Rollo, p. 3.
[35] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[36] Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[37] Id. at 29.
[38] Id. at 32-33; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.
[39] Id. at 35.
[40] Id. at 36-37 and 39-42.
[41] Id. at 52-53.
[42] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2.
[43] People v. De La Cruz, 358 Phil. 513, 519 (1998).
[44] People v. Reyes and Llaguno, 349 Phil. 39, 58 (1998).
[45] The
entire provision states:
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 of 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. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659.)
[46] Art. 246. Parricide. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659.)
[47] Revised Penal Code, Article 14, par. 16, as amended.
[48] People v. Badriago, G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 820, 833.
[49] G.R. No. 76742, August 7, 1990, 188 SCRA 407.
[50] Id. at 410-411.
[51] People v. Gutierrez, 393 Phil. 863, 874 (2000).
[52] TSN, February 24, 2003, pp. 3-9.
[53] People v. Iligan and Basao, 369 Phil. 1005, 1038 (1999).
[54] People v. Cabarrubias, G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993, 223 SCRA 363, 369.
[55] People v. Bisda, 454 Phil. 194, 224 (2003).
[56] TSN, February 18, 2003, p. 5.
[57] TSN, August 1, 2003, p. 29.
[58] People v. Cual, 384 Phil. 361, 380 (2000).
[59] People v. Torejas, 150 Phil. 179, 195-196 (1972).
[60] People v. Caballero, 448 Phil. 514, 536 (2003).
[61] People v. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 76, 88.
[62] See
People v.
Pantoja, 134 Phil. 453, 455-456 (1968); People
v. Tilos, 141 Phil. 428, 431 (1969); People
v. Bermas, 369 Phil. 191, 237-238 (1999); People v. Latupan, 412 Phil. 477, 487-488 (2001).
[63] Ladiana v. People, 441 Phil. 733, 756-757 (2002).
[64] Id.
[65] TSN, August 1, 2003, p. 27.
[66] People v. Palabrica, 409 Phil. 618, 630 (2001).
[67] Art.
63. Rules for the application of
indivisible penalties. 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.
In all cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof:
x x x x
3. When the commission of the act
is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[68] People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 671, 699.
[69] People v. Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 592.
[70] People v. Flores, 466 Phil. 683, 696 (2004).
[71] G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 807.
[72] Id. at 820.
[73] G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010. See also People v. Sabella, G.R. No. 183092, May 30, 2011.
[74] People v. Lusabio, Jr., supra note 69 at 593.