Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- SAMSON
ESCLETO,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 183706 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: April
25, 2012 |
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
On appeal is the
Decision[1]
dated December 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01003, which affirmed an earlier Decision[2] dated
March 2, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, of Calauag, Quezon
in Criminal Case No. 3471-C, finding accused-appellant Samson Escleto (Samson) guilty
of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
In an Information dated
That on or about the 4th day of November
1999, at sitio Maligasang, Brgy. Villahermosa, Municipality of Lopez, Province
of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, and with evident pre-meditation and
treachery, armed with a fan knife, (balisong), did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said balisong one
ALFREDO MARCHAN, thereby inflicting upon the latter a stab wound on his body,
which directly cause his death.
When arraigned on January 23, 2001, Samson pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.[4]
During trial, the prosecution presented the following
witnesses: (a) Merly Marchan (Merly), the widow of the victim Alfredo Marchan
(Alfredo); (b) Benjamin Austria (Benjamin), a barangay tanod, who was personally present during the stabbing; and
(c) Dr. Jose Mercado (Mercado), who conducted the postmortem examination of
Alfredos body.
According to the prosecution, Alfredo and Merly
attended the birthday party of the son of Jaime Austria (Jaime) on
FINDINGS:
-
Stab wound 2.5
cm. 4th Intercoastal Space (L) midclavicular line penetrating
directed downward.
CAUSE OF
DEATH
Cartio-Respiratory
Arrest
2o
Severe hemorrhage
Due to stab
wound[5]
Samson and his wife Florentina
Escleto (Florentina) testified for the defense.
The defense presented a totally
different version of the events that took place on November 4, 1999. Samson and Florentina arrived at Jaimes
house at around
The RTC promulgated its Decision on
March 2, 2005, finding Samson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. The RTC gave full credence to
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which were given in clear, straightforward
manner and have the ring of truth[;] " as opposed to Samsons testimony
which was was self-serving, a pure hogwash and evidently a concoction in order
to exculpate himself from criminal liability.[6] The RTC further found that Samson employed treachery
in killing Alfredo, therefore, qualifying the crime committed to murder. The disposition portion of said RTC decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing
considerations, this Court finds the accused Samson Escleto GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder and in the absence of any aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim Alfredo Merchan the sum
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
The accused is to be credited of his preventive
imprisonment, if proper and any, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. No. 6127 and E.O. No. 214.[7]
Insisting on his innocence, Samson
appealed to the Court of Appeals.[8]
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28,
2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of
Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the
Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.[9]
Refusing to accept the verdict of the RTC and Court of
Appeals, Samson comes before this Court via the instant appeal. Both the People[10] and Samson[11]
waived the filing of supplemental briefs and stood by the briefs they had already
filed before the Court of Appeals.
Samson made the following assignment
of errors in his appeal:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3471-C, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER.
III
ASSUMING FURTHER THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED, THE
Samsons appeal has no merit.
There are two entirely different versions of the events
of November 4, 1999: The prosecution asserts
that it was Samson who stabbed Alfredo, while the defense maintains that it was
Benjamin who actually stabbed Alfredo.
The RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, gave credence to the evidence
of the prosecution, mainly consisting of witnesses testimonies, and found Samson
guilty of murdering Alfredo.
We emphasize that the assessment by the trial court of
a witness' credibility, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is conclusive
and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight or influence. This
is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better
position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses
themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of
testifying under grueling examination. [12]
When it comes
to the matter of credibility of a witness, settled are the guiding rules, some
of which are that (1) the appellate court will not disturb the factual
findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance
that would have affected the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial
court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect
since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the
witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth
or not; and (3) a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward,
spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a
credible witness.[13]
There is no compelling reason for us to depart from
the foregoing rules. We are bound by the
factual findings of the RTC absent any showing that it overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance
that would have affected the result of the case. The prosecution witnesses positively
and categorically identified Samson as the person who stabbed Alfredo to death.
Merly candidly recounted the stabbing incident on the
witness stand:
Q After
you left the house of Jaime Austria, what happened next?
A We
passed in front of the house of Benjamin Austria and Samson Escleto was there
and he called my husband.
Q According
to you, Samson Escleto was in the house of Benjamin Austria, was Samson Escleto
inside the house of Benjamin Austria?
A He
was in the balcony.
Q When
your husband was called by Samson Escleto, what did your husband do, it he did
anything?
A He
approached Samson Escleto.
Q At
the time he approached Samson Escleto, was this Samson Escleto stayed (sic) in
the balcony of the house of Benjamin Austria?
A He
was already downstairs.
Q What happened when Samson Escleto and your
husband met?
A Samson Escleto stabbed my husband.[14]
(Emphasis ours.)
Benjamin corroborated Merlys testimony:
Q At
that date and time and place at your house at Brgy. Villahermosa, Lopez,
Quezon, was there any unusual incident that happened?
x x x x
A Aflredo
Marchan and his wife passed by. They
were riding in a carabao.
Q When
the husband and wife passed by in your house, was there any incident that
happened?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
was that?
A Samson
Escleto called the couple that was in front of our house and Alfredo Marchan
went down in the carabao and he just would like to talk with Samson Escleto.
Q What
was the respon[se] of Aflredo Marchan?
A He
approached Samson Escleto and Samson Escleto went down from the balcony.
Q When Alfredo Marchan wait (sic) to Escleto
and Escleto went down from your house, what happened next?
A Samson Escleto suddenly stabbed Alfredo
Marchan in his chest.[15]
(Emphasis ours.)
In contrast, Samsons defense rests on his allegation
that it was Benjamin who stabbed Alfredo.
We agree with the RTC that the defenses version of the events of
November 4, 1999 was a mere concoction meant to exculpate Samson from criminal
liability. It was against human nature for
Samson to endure his arrest and imprisonment without informing police
authorities at all that it was actually Benjamin who stabbed Alfredo. It was just as unusual for Florentina, who
visited her husband Samson several times in prison, to withhold from police
authorities such a significant fact that supports her husbands innocence. Samson further failed to take any action, such
as the filing of a complaint against Benjamin to hold the latter liable for the
formers alleged injury (i.e., hand
wound) and Alfredos death. Lastly, although
Samson claimed that he sought medical assistance for his wound, which he also sustained
from Benjamins blow, Samson did not present as evidence the attending
physicians testimony and/or medical certification.
We likewise affirm the finding of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that
the stabbing of Alfredo by Samson was qualified by treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.[16]
We have also held that: [i]n order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two
elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence
of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to
defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without
risk of himself.[17]
While it is true that in this case the attack on Alfredo was frontal, the
same was so sudden and unexpected. Alfredo
was completely unaware of the imminent peril to his life. Alfredo was walking to meet Samson, expecting
that they would only talk. Alfredo was
unarmed while Samson had a knife. Alfredo
was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and repel Samsons attack. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:
The victim was not even able to offer any form of resistance. He never saw it coming that he would be
stabbed. He alighted from his carabao
and even waited for a while for assailant to come down the balcony only to be
surprised that the handshake was in the form of a knife being plunged towards
his chest that he could not even block the blow or dodge it. He just stood there in surprise as assailant
suddenly hacked him.[18]
Clearly, treachery attended
Samsons stabbing to death of Alfredo, hence, qualifying the crime to murder.
Article 248[19]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides for
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2,[20]
of the Revised Penal Code.
As to damages,
when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for
the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages;
(4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[21]
Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00
is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission
of the crime. Moral damages in the sum
of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental
and emotional suffering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a
violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victims family. Also under Article 2230 of the Civil Code,
exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances, like treachery, as in this case. Thus, the award of P30,000.00 for
exemplary damages is in order.[22]
As regards actual damages, Merly, Alfredos
widow, testified that she and her family incurred expenses for Alfredos burial
and wake; however, Merly failed to present receipts to substantiate her
claim. Where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be
ascertained due to the absence of receipts to prove them, temperate damages in
the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted in lieu thereof. 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 proved.[23]
In addition, and in conformity with
current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest
at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid.[24]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The
Decision dated December 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 01003 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Samson Escleto is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Appellant Samson Escleto is further ordered to pay the
heirs of ALFREDO MARCHAN the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00
as temperate damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest
at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice |
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 230-238; penned by Presiding Judge Mariano A. Morales, Jr.
[3] Id. at 2.
[4]
[6] Records, p. 236.
[7] Id. at 238.
[8] Records, p. 240.
[9] Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[10]
[11]
[13] People v. Clores, G.R. No. 82362, April
26, 1990, 184 SCRA 638, 642-643.
[14] TSN, May 31, 2001, pp. 5-6.
[15] TSN, May 31, 2001, pp. 15-16.
[16] Article 14, par. 16 of the Revised Penal Code.
[17] People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 496, 505.
[19] 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.
[20] 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
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[21] People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011.
[22] Id.
[23] Article
224 of the Civil Code.
[24] Supra note 17.