Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - CECILIA LAGMAN y PIRING, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 197807 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: April 16, 2012 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the May 14, 2010 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03289, which affirmed the January 18, 2008 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 in Manila, in Criminal Case No. 02-200106
for Murder and Criminal Case No. 02-200107 for Frustrated Murder.
The Facts
Two
Informations[3] charged
accused Cecilia Lagman as follows:
Criminal Case No. 02-200106
That on or about February 24, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago, by then and there stabbing him with a knife with an approximate length of 6 inches (blade and handle) hitting his neck and trunk, thereby inflicting upon said Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago stab wounds which are necessarily fatal and mortal, which were the direct cause of his death immediately thereafter.
Criminal Case No. 02-200107
That on or about February 24, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Violeta Sicor y Sapitula, by then and there stabbing her hitting her buttocks, thereby inflicting upon the said Violeta Sicor y Sapitula mortal wounds which were necessarily fatal, thus, performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of her will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Violeta Sicor y Sapitula which prevented her death.
During
her arraignment, the accused gave a negative plea to both charges.
At the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: Donna Maniego (Maniego), Violeta Sicor
(Sicor), Police Officer 3 Ricardo M. Alateit (PO3 Alateit), and PO3 Ronaldo
Samson (PO3 Samson).
On
February 24, 2002, at about 1:30 p.m, Maniego was in front of her banana cue
store on
After
receiving the information from Maniego, the accused was arrested and brought to
police headquarters.[7]
On
cross-examination, Maniego testified that she had known the accused for almost
ten years and had a close relationship with her. She stated that the accused
got angry with her when she eloped with
Sicor,
Maniegos mother, corroborated Maniegos testimony. She saw the accused punch
Maniego several times while they were inside the sidecar on February 24, 2002. The
accused then grabbed her and stabbed her in her buttocks with a small knife. She
said that after she was stabbed, two sidecar boys came to her aid and brought
her to the hospital. She added that she was released from the hospital two
hours after receiving treatment.[9]
PO3
Alateit testified that on the day of the incident, he was riding his motorcycle
on his way home. While he was on the corner of Juan Luna and Moriones Streets,
it was reported to him that a stabbing incident had taken place. He headed
towards an area where a crowd was causing a commotion. He then saw a woman who
looked like a lesbian running towards him. Her head was bloodied. He handcuffed
the injured woman after he was informed that she had stabbed someone. At the
time of her arrest, a sharp object fell from the womans waist. He confiscated
the item and brought the woman to the police station and to Gat Andres
Bonifacio Hospital. He identified the woman as the accused.[10]
Both
the prosecution and the defense stipulated that Senior Police Officer 2 Edison
Bertoldo was the police investigator in the case against the accused and that
he prepared the following:
(1) Sworn Statement of Maniego, Exhibit
A;
(2) Affidavit of Apprehension of PO3
Alateit, Exhibit C;
(3) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report,
Exhibit E;
(4) Crime Report dated February 25, 2002,
Exhibits F, F-1 and F-2; and
(5) Request for Laboratory Examination
dated February 27, 2002, Exhibit F-3.[11]
The
last witness for the prosecution, PO3 Samson, testified that on the date of the
incident, he was assigned at the Western Police District Crime Laboratory
Division. He presented before the court the sharp object used in stabbing the
victim (Exhibit M) and the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit
M-1).[12]
For
their part, the defense offered the testimonies of the accused and Dr. Mario
Lato.
Chiefly
relying on denial as her defense, the accused claimed that on the date of the
stabbing incident, she confronted Maniego and asked her if it was true that she
had been spreading the rumor that the accused was insane. Maniego answered in
the affirmative. Angered, the accused slapped Maniego and left, leaving Santiago,
Sicor, and Maniego in pursuit. Santiago then hit her with a lead pipe. Since she
needed medical treatment after the attack, she was brought to
At
the police station, the accused denied killing Santiago. She averred that
nothing was found on her body when she was frisked. She said that the knife
recovered by PO3 Alateit was not hers and that there were other people in the
area where it was found. She added that she had an argument only with Maniego,
not with Sicor or
Dr.
Mario Lato testified that on February 24, 2002, he treated the accused, who had
a laceration on the head which was possibly caused by a hard object such as a
pipe. He said that the accused sustained a two-centimeter laceration in her
mid-pectoral area.[15]
Ruling of the Trial Court
On
January 18, 2008, the RTC convicted the accused of Murder in Crim. Case No.
02-200106 and Less Serious Physical Injuries in Crim. Case No. 02-200107. The
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Cecilia Lagman y Pring guilty of Murder in Crim. Case No. 02-200106. She is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim Jondel Lari Santiago, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity. In Crim. Case No. 02-200107, this court finds same accused guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries. She is sentenced to suffer six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay Violeta Sicor the amount of P25,000 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for not
considering the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of
prosecution witness Maniego. She also
averred that the same witness credibility was improperly appreciated, as the
judge who heard the case was different from the one who rendered the decision.
The CA
affirmed the findings of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the totality
of the prosecutions evidence showed that accused-appellants guilt was proved
beyond reasonable doubt. It added that accused-appellant failed to show any ill
motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against her.
The dispositive portion of the May 14, 2010 CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18 in Criminal Case Nos. 02-200106 and 02200107 is AFFIRMED.[17]
Hence, We have this appeal.
The Issues
I
Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
II
Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecutions witness despite patent inconsistencies
III
Whether the CA erred in finding that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery
The
defense reiterates previous arguments calling for an acquittal of
accused-appellant. It casts doubt on Maniegos testimony, claiming that it has
irreconcilable inconsistencies which affected her credibility.
The
defense also calls attention to the fact that Maniego testified before Judge
Romulo A. Lopez, while the Decision was penned by Judge Myra Garcia-Fernandez.[18] It
is further contended that Maniego did not actually witness
Moreover,
it is pointed out by the defense that the victim was 58 in height and of
average built while accused-appellant is only 411. It is, thus, incredible that she could have
inflicted fatal wounds on the victim.
Lastly,
the defense argues that the prosecution was unable to prove that the killing of
Santiago was accompanied by treachery. Assuming that accused-appellant did stab
the victim, the defense claims that it was not proved that she deliberately and
consciously adopted her mode of attack. The encounter was even preceded by a
confrontation between accused-appellant and Maniego, and it was Sicor and
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal, but modify the CA
Decision.
Elements of Murder Established
The
elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
infanticide.[19]
The
prosecution was able to clearly establish that
Maniegos
testimony proved the presence of treachery in this case, as follows:
Q What did you do after Cecilia Lagman punched you in your face?
A I went outside of the side car x x x, and I went to the barangay hall to ask help x x x.
Q And what happened after that?
x x x x
A Papauwi na po ako sa bahay ng biyenan ko sakto po ng pagpunta ko ho doon nasalubong po ni Cecilia Lagman si Jondel Mari wala hong sabi sabi inundayan po niya ng saksak si Jondel Mari. (When I went home to the house of my mother-in-law because the barangay chairman was not in the barangay hall Jondel Mari meet [sic] Cecilia Lagman and without any word Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Mari.)
Q And in what place was that where Cecilia Lagman suddenly stabbed Jondel Mari Santiago?
A At Asuncion, Lakandula [in Tondo Manila] x x x.
Q When you saw Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Santiago how far were you?
A (Witness demonstrating 5 to 6 meters away).
x x x x
Q What was Jondel Santiago doing when he was stabbed by Cecilia Lagman?
A He was lighting a cigarette x x x.
Q And what was the reaction of Jondel Santiago when he was stabbed by Cecilia Lagman?
A Nabigla po kasi hindi naman niya alam na sasaksakin siya eh. [He was shocked because he did not know he was going to be stabbed.]
Q What part of the body of Jondel Santiago was hit when he was stabbed?
A One at the chest and two at the back and one at the neck. x x x
Q x x x [I]f the person who boxed you on the face is in court, will you be able to identify her?
A Yes x x x.
x x x x
x x x [Witness pointing to a woman, Cecilia Lagman]
Q x x x [I]f the person whom you saw stabbed Jondel Santiago four times is in court will you be able to identify him or her?
A Siya rin po. [She is the same
person.][20]
In
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.[21] The essence of treachery is that the attack
is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.[22] These
elements were present when accused-appellant stabbed Santiago. We quote with
approval the appellate courts finding on the presence of treachery:
In the case at bar, the victim was caught off guard when appellant, without warning, stabbed him four times successively leaving the latter no chance at all to evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from appellants onslaught. Thus, there is no denying that appellants act of suddenly stabbing the victim leaving the latter no room for defense is a clear case of treachery.[23] x x x
Regardless
of the alleged disparity in height between accused-appellant and the victim, We
affirm the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that
accused-appellants method of inflicting harm ensured that she would fatally
wound Santiago without risk to herself. The perceived advantage of the victim
in terms of height was of no use to him as accused-appellant employed treachery
in attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as accused-appellant
suddenly started stabbing him repeatedly with an improvised knife.
Finally,
the killing of
Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
We
see no reason to overturn the findings on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. It has been long settled that when the issues raised concern the
credibility of a witness, the trial courts findings of fact, its calibration
of testimonies, and its assessment of the testimonies probative weight,
including its conclusions based on said findings, are generally given
conclusive effect. It is acknowledged that the trial court has the unique
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to
discern whether they are telling the truth.[24]
Furthermore, accused-appellant failed to show why Maniego and her mother would
falsely accuse her of committing a terrible crime. Maniego was the common-law
spouse of the victim and she would naturally want to seek justice for his death
as well as the injury sustained by her mother.
An
examination of the records shows that there is no truth to the allegation of
accused-appellant that Maniego did not witness the stabbing of
On the other allegation of accused-appellant, We have earlier
held that the fact that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who
heard the witnesses does not adversely affect the validity of conviction.[26] That the trial judge who rendered judgment was
not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the
judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to
support its conclusion.[27]
Alibi as a Defense
The defense of alibi is likewise unconvincing.
Accused-appellant was positively identified by eyewitnesses. She herself
admitted that she confronted one of the eyewitnesses, Maniego, moments before
she was seen attacking Maniego,
Elements of Less
Serious Physical Injuries Not Established
We modify the conviction of
accused-appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 02-200107. Originally charged with frustrated murder, accused-appellant
was convicted of less serious physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 02-200107.
The RTC reasoned that the stabbing injury sustained by Sicor was not on a vital
part of the body and she was able to leave the hospital two hours after
receiving medical treatment. The RTC properly ruled that the crime committed
was not frustrated murder as it was not shown that there was intent to kill.[29] However,
while the RTC correctly ruled that the accused-appellant is not guilty of
frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200107, the records do not support a
conviction for less serious physical injuries.
Art. 265 of the RPC provides, Any person who
shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described [as serious physical
injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten
(10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period,
shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor. Nothing in the records, however, supports the
finding that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten (10) days or more or
that she required medical attention for the same period. After the wound on her buttocks was treated,
Sicor was released two hours after she was admitted to the hospital.[30] She later returned to the hospital for the
removal of the suture on her wound, according to the RTC, after a certain
period of time.[31] The
Medico-Legal Report on Sicor (Exhibit H) does not indicate how many days of
medical treatment her injury would need.[32] Sicor, however, testified that she lost two
(2) days of work on account of the injury she sustained.[33] The
testimony of her attending physician, Dr. Christian Dennis Cendeno, on the
other hand, was dispensed with following a stipulation by the parties on his
testimony.[34] The
prosecution was, therefore, unable to establish that the injury sustained by
Sicor falls under less serious physical injuries absent the requirement that
her injury required medical attention for 10 days or incapacitated her for the
same period.
The
Court can, thus, only convict accused-appellant of slight physical injuries.
Under par. 1, Art. 266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor when the offender has
inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for
labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the
same period. There being no modifying circumstances to be appreciated, and in
accordance with par. 1 of Art. 64,[35]
accused-appellant should be meted a penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor in its medium period,
which has a duration of eleven (11) to twenty (20) days under Art. 76 of the
RPC.
Pecuniary Liability
The
CA affirmed the award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No.
02-200106 and PhP 25,000 as temperate damages in Criminal Case No. 02-200106.
People
v. Combate[36]
reiterated the rule on civil indemnity and 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) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6)
interest, in proper cases. In People v.
Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be
applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the
Court in several cases such as
In
accordance with the rules cited above, We modify the award of damages. In line
with prevailing jurisprudence,[37] the
award of civil indemnity ex delicto
of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of
We
delete the award of PhP 25,000 in temperate damages to Sicor, since only slight
physical injuries were committed and no proof of medical expenses was presented
during trial.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 03289 finding accused-appellant guilty of Murder in Criminal Case No.
02-200106 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is ordered
to indemnify the heirs of the late Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago the sum of PhP
50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, PhP 30,000 as exemplary
damages, and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the finality of judgment until fully paid. With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-200107,
accused-appellant is convicted of SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES and is sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto menor. The award of temperate
damages is DELETED.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE
CATRAL
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro.
[19] People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011; citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 746.
[21] People v. Manulit, G.R. No. 192581,
November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 426, 438; citing People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, March 9, 1998, 287
SCRA 229, 238.
[22] People v. Barangay Capt. Tomas, Sr.,
G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011; citing People v. Rosas, G.R. No.
177805, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 117, 133.
[24] People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 208-209; citing People v. Lalongisip, G.R. No. 188331, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 169.
[28] People v. Sally, G.R. No. 191254, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 293, 304; citing People v. Sobusa, G.R. No. 181053, January 21, 2010, 610 SCRA 538, 558.
[35] Paragraph 1 of Art. 64 states that When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, [courts] shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.