Republic of the
Supreme Court
PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 182918
Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,Chairperson, BRION, *PERALTA, *BERSAMIN, *ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR. and *SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated: June 6, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We decide the appeal filed by accused Marcelino Ruiz Nimuan (appellant)[1] from the November 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02352.[2]
The Factual Antecedents
On
At
about 6:00 p.m. of September 22, 2004, Eulalia Garcia was tending her sari-sari store along the National
Highway in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union when the appellant and Lamberte came
to borrow her gas lamp. She noticed that both were drunk and armed. They said
they were looking for a bullet that fell on the ground. After finding the
bullet, she asked them where they were going and they answered, We are going
to kill the doctor. The two then waited under a mango tree. Shortly
thereafter, the victim (Dr. Jose Villanueva), on board a truck, passed by Garcias
store on the way to his poultry farm. The appellant and Lamberte followed on
foot. Ten (10) minutes later, Garcia heard two (2) gunshots coming from the
direction of the poultry farm.[9]
It
appears that the victim arrived at his poultry farm at around
Subsequently, the workers heard gunfire coming from the victims direction. Manolong went down to investigate. On hearing a second shot, Manolong ran towards the parked truck and saw the victim lying on the ground with a gunshot wound in his stomach. Manolong called his companions, yelling that the victim had been shot.[11]
On hearing Manolongs cries for help, Yaranon and Anasario ran toward Building 5. On the way, they met the appellant and Lamberte. The appellant kicked Yaranon three times and hit him on the stomach with the butt of the carbine he was holding, while Lamberte poked a shotgun at Anasario. The appellant and Lamberte threatened Yaranon and Anasario with harm should they tell anyone that they (the appellant and Lamberte) were responsible for the killing of the victim. The appellant and Lamberte then left, going northward in the direction of the mango plantation, owned by Atty. Paulino Cases, where both worked as security guards.[12]
A
postmortem examination confirmed that the victim died from shotgun wounds in
the back.[13] The victims widow, Dr.
Eufemia Villanueva, presented in court the official receipts, amounting to P56,500.00,
for the victims funeral and burial,[14]
and the victims 2003 and 2004 income tax returns to establish loss of earning
capacity.[15]
The appellant denied any participation in the killing of the victim, and pointed to Lamberte as the person solely responsible. He claimed that he merely accompanied Lamberte to the victims farm when the latter suddenly shot the victim; Lamberte threatened him with death if he (appellant) did not escape with him.[16]
The RTC Ruling
In
its P3 million in
lost income, P8 million as moral damages, P2 million as exemplary
damages, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P60,000.00 as actual
damages.[17]
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA fully agreed with the RTCs appreciation of the adduced evidence. While the appellate court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the appellant was shot at the back, it disregarded nighttime as an aggravating circumstance because it is absorbed by treachery. The CA appreciated evident premeditation because the accused had sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of their acts from the time they told Garcia that they would kill the victim to the time of killing. It likewise appreciated in the appellants favor the mitigating circumstance of intoxication because Garcia testified that the accused were drunk. Since the mitigating circumstance of intoxication offsets the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, the CA sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On
civil indemnity, the appellate court modified the amounts awarded by the RTC. Civil
indemnity and moral damages were reduced to P50,000.00 each, while the
amount of exemplary damages was reduced to P25,000.00, consistent with
prevailing jurisprudence. The amount of actual damages was reduced to P56,150.00,
based on actual receipted expenses.[18]
The amount for loss of earning capacity was reduced to P622,453.95,[19]
based on the victims income tax returns[20]
from 2002 to 2004.[21]
From
the CA, the case is now with us for final review.
Our Ruling
We affirm the appellants conviction for murder.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly prove that a conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. Garcia testified that the appellant and Lamberte had the common design of killing the victim. The fact that each one was armed with a firearm shows that they acted with the singular purpose of killing the victim. Both accused threatened workers Manolong, Yaranon and Anasario with harm should they tell anyone that they (accused) killed the victim. Under these facts, it does not matter who actually shot the victim because of the conspiracy that existed. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; each of the accused is equally guilty of the crime committed.[22]
The CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery as the victim was shot at the back.[23] The attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; it afforded the unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself.[24]
Nonetheless, we find that the CA misappreciated the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[25]
In this case, there is dearth of evidence on when the accused first conceived of killing the victim and that they were afforded sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of their contemplated crime before its final execution. Moreover, the span of time (less than thirty minutes), from the time the accused showed their determination to kill the victim (when they told Garcia that they were going to kill the doctor) up to the time they shot the victim, could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed.[26] Thus, the circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.
We also find that the CA erred in crediting the appellant with the mitigating circumstance of intoxication simply because Garcia testified that the accused were both drunk.[27] For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the willpower of the accused that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.[28]
In this case, there is no convincing proof of the nature and effect of the appellants intoxication. The mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be appreciated in the appellants favor merely on the testimony of a prosecution witness that he was drunk during the incident.[29] Such testimony does not warrant a conclusion that the degree of the accuseds intoxication had affected his faculties.[30]
The
penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua
to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Since neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony,
the proper imposable penalty on the appellant is reclusion perpetua.
Lastly,
we find it necessary to increase to P30,000.00 the amount of exemplary
damages, to conform with recent jurisprudence.[31]
WHEREFORE,
the November 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02352
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Marcelino Ruiz
Nimuan is found guilty of murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is
further ordered to pay the heirs of Dr.
Jose Villanueva P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P56,150.00
as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P622,453.95
as indemnification for loss of earning capacity.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD 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 Courts Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T
I O N
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated additional member per raffle
dated
* Inhibit.
* Designated additional member vice Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, per Special Order
No. 997, dated
* Sick Leave.
[1] Alias Celine.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, and concurred in by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag of the Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 2-25.
[3] Alias Kalbo.
[4] Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law.
[5] Docketed as Criminal Case No. A-5111; original records, p. 92.
[6] Original records, p. 99.
[7] The accusatory portion of
the Amended Information reads:
That on or about the 22nd day
of September 2004, in the Municipality of Aringay, Province of La Union,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill and conspiring, confederating and mutually
aiding each other and being then armed with a highpowered firearm, a 12-gauge
shotgun, did then and then (sic) willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot with
the said firearm one DR. JOSE VILLANUEVA, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds on
various parts of the latters body that were the direct and immediate cause of
his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the aforenamed DR. JOSE
VILLANUEVA.
That in the commission of the offense,
the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are present
as evidenced by the suddenness of the
attack upon the person of the deceased victim which eliminated any possibility
of his defense and that the accused employed means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof specially to ensure its execution without risk to themselves
and that the killing was carefully planned by the accused.
That the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of nighttime is present as the accused specially sought and took
advantage of the darkness of the night and it facilitated the commission of the
crime.
That
the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm is present as the
accused used an unlicensed 12-gauge shotgun in shooting the victim as provided
for under Section 1, paragraph 3 of the (sic) Republic Act No. 8294.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Original records, pp. 103-104).
[8] Original records, p. 107.
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13] Exhibit A, original records, p. 141.
[14] Exhibits E and F, original records, p. 144.
[15] Exhibits C and D, original records, pp. 142-143.
[16] TSN,
[17] Original records, pp. 185-223.
[18] Supra note 14.
[19] The
appellate court computed the amount as follows:
Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80-57) x (P81,207.29 40,603.65)
=
2/3(23) x 40,603.65
=15.33 x 40,603.65
=P622,453.95
(Rollo, p. 24.)
[20] The
net income for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were P99,206.63, P78,408.64,
and P66,006.61, or an average net income of P81,207.29; supra
note 15.
[21] The
dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 267 dated
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 24-25.)
[22] People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793,
[23] Per police sketch marked Exhibit G, original records, p. 10.
[24] People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682,
[25] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173477, February 4, 2009, 578 SCRA
54, 66; and People v. Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912,
[26] See People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, March 27, 2008, 549 SCRA 541, 563, citing People v. Discalsota, 430 Phil. 407.
[27] Rollo, p. 21.
[28] Licyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 598, 613; and People v. Nabong, G.R. No. 172324, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 437, 456.
[29] Licyayo v. People, supra. See also People v. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 270; People v. Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999, 307 SCRA 591; and People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10, 1992, 208 SCRA 55, 61-62.
[30] Licyayo v. People, supra.
[31] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA
738, 752; and People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602,