Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - DINNES OLASO and ROLLY
ANGELIO, Accused. ROLLY ANGELIO, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 197540
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February
27, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
This
is an appeal from the decision[1]
dated February 24, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03770.
The CA affirmed with modification the decision[2]
dated August 1, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 122, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.[4]
The Facts
The
appellant and one Dinnes Olaso[5]
were charged with murder under the following information:
That on or about the 25th day of May 2004, in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding with (sic) one
another, without any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously attack, assault and stab with bladed weapons on the vital parts
of his body one NARCISO PATINGO Y
CAMAYMAYAN, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries,
which injuries directly caused the victims death.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[6] (emphasis supplied)
Only the appellant was apprehended and
when arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits
thereafter ensued. The prosecutions case was anchored on the eyewitness
testimony of the victims brother, Jimmy Patingo (eyewitness), who saw the
appellant and Olaso flag down the tricycle driven by the victim. According to
the eyewitness, the appellant rode at the back of the drivers seat while Olaso
went inside the tricycle. The appellant suddenly embraced the victim while
Olaso repeatedly stabbed him. Both the appellant and Olaso fled when they saw
the eyewitness approaching. The victim died on his way to the hospital. The
eyewitness testified that he incurred expenses in the amount of P120,000.00 for the burial and wake of the victim.
The autopsy report showed that the victim suffered
stab and incise wounds located mostly on the left portion of his body.[7]
Two stab wounds were inflicted on his heart.[8]
The victim died due to loss of blood secondary to multiple stab wounds in the
trunk.[9]
The appellant denied any participation in the stabbing
incident. He claimed that he merely directed Olaso to the victim when he was
asked about the identity of the driver of the tricycle that Olaso was then
looking for. The appellant admitted that
Olaso was his childhood friend but denied any knowledge of the motive behind
the stabbing and why he (the appellant) became involved in the case.
In
its decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
based on the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The RTC also ruled that there was conspiracy
between the appellant and Olaso to kill the victim. The RTC sentenced the
appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount
of P50,000.00.[10]
The
CA, on appeal, affirmed the appellants conviction with modification of the
imposed civil liability. The CA rejected the appellants argument that the
inconsistency between the sworn affidavit (that he and Olaso stabbed the
victim) and the testimony of the eyewitness (that it was only Olaso who stabbed
the victim) created doubt as to his participation in the stabbing. The CA held
that the testimony of the eyewitness was only more detailed with respect to the
appellants participation than what was stated in the sworn affidavit. The CA
observed that both the sworn affidavit and the testimony of the eyewitness
established the collective effort of the appellant and Olaso to kill the
victim.[11]
In
addition, the CA ruled that the RTC correctly appreciated the attendant
conspiracy and treachery in the victims killing, explaining that the overt
acts of the appellant and Olaso demonstrated their clear intent to kill the
victim. The CA further held that the
appellants participation in embracing the victim while Olaso repeatedly
stabbed him was indispensable in the commission of the crime as it left the
victim defenseless and unable to resist the attack.[12]
With
respect to the award of damages, the CA increased the civil indemnity ex delicto from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
The CA also awarded P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages, pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code, as amended. Likewise, the
CA awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages, holding that the award was
mandatory in a murder case, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, since
the killing was attended with treachery.
Hence,
the present appeal.
The Issues
The
appellant attacks his conviction by raising two issues involving the
appreciation of the testimony of the eyewitness on the extent of his
participation and the nature of the crime committed.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
maintains the credibility of the narration made by the eyewitness against
whom no ill-motive was established. The OSG insists that the extent of the
appellants participation as co-conspirator in the killing of the victim was
clearly proven by the evidence. Likewise
fully established was the treacherous manner in the way the two men ganged up
and killed the victim through their concerted efforts.
The Courts Ruling
We find no reason to overturn the conviction of the appellant.
The factual findings of the RTC, when
affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[13]
When the credibility of the eyewitness is at issue, we give due deference and
respect to the assessment made by the RTC, absent any showing that it had
overlooked circumstances that would have affected the final outcome of the
case.[14]
Thus, once a guilty verdict has been rendered, the appellant has the burden to
clearly prove on appeal that errors in the appreciation of the evidence
committed by the lower courts.
We agree with the CAs finding giving
credence to the eyewitness account which firmly and positively identified the
appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. The records failed to show any ill-motive on
the part of the eyewitness to falsely testify against the appellant. On the
other hand, the appellant draws attention to the inconsistent statements made
by the eyewitness in his sworn affidavit and in his court testimony regarding
his participation in the crime. It is settled that discrepancies between the statements of
the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not
necessarily discredit [the said witness] since ex parte affidavits are generally
incomplete, and are generally subordinated in importance to testimony in open court.[15] In other words,
the existence of discrepancies between the sworn affidavit and the testimony of
the eyewitness in court does not render his account of the antecedent events
unreliable.
In this case, the inconsistencies
pointed out are too trivial to have any material bearing in the determination
of the appellants guilt. We take note that the eyewitness sworn affidavit and
court testimony implicated the appellant in the killing of the victim.
Moreover, both statements of the eyewitness can be reconciled by a scrutiny of
the court testimony which only provided a more detailed account of the
antecedent events and of the appellants actual participation in killing the
victim.
We also find that the inconsistencies
pointed out to be inconsequential, given the presence of conspiracy between the
appellant and Olaso in killing the victim. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[16] The presence of conspiracy may be inferred from the
circumstances where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the
commission of the offense.[17] Conspiracy is sufficiently established when the
concerted acts show the same purpose or common design and are united in its
execution.[18] Moreover, when there is conspiracy, it is not important who delivered
the fatal blow since the act of one is considered the act of all.[19] It matters not who among the
accused actually killed the victim as each of the accused is equally guilty of
the crime charged.[20]
As testified to by the eyewitness,
the overt acts of the appellant and Olaso showing their conspiracy to kill the
victim are: (1) the appellant and Olaso flagged down the tricycle being driven
by the victim; (2) the appellant seated himself at the back of the drivers
seat while Olaso went inside the tricycle; (3) the appellant and Olaso
simultaneously assaulted the victim the appellant embracing the victim while
Olaso stabbed him; and (4) both men immediately fled the scene after the
stabbing. The above circumstances
plainly show the common design and the unity of purpose between the appellant
and Olaso in executing their plan to kill the victim.
On the issue
of the nature of the killing, we find that the CA correctly appreciated the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. 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 especially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.[21]
To establish treachery,
two elements must concur: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously
adopted the particular means of attack employed.[22]
The
records show that the victim was attacked while driving his tricycle.
Similarly, the autopsy findings show the lack of defensive wounds on the
victims body which indicated how sudden and unexpected the attack had been and
how the unsuspecting victim was unable to put up any defense. These same records
also show that the attack was the result of deliberate and careful planning
between the appellant and Olaso, as demonstrated by the evidence showing: (1)
the designation of the respective roles that the two men would play in
committing the crime; and (2) the act of carrying a weapon to be used against
the victim. Treachery can be clearly
inferred under the circumstances of the perpetrators plan which ensured the
execution of the killing without risk of any possible harm to the appellant and
Olaso.
Accordingly, we find that the records
amply support with moral certainty the appellants guilt for the crime of
murder. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Code), as amended, provides:
[a]ny 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 x x x.
Murder was committed, considering the
use of treachery in a killing that does not fall within the definition of
parricide under Article 246 of the Code.
Thus, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant,
absent any attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.[23] In this regard, we also uphold the CAs award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages for the death of the victim.[24]
However, we modify the other awards given by the CA to conform to prevailing
jurisprudence.
First, the award of civil indemnity
is reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. We held in People of the Philippines v. David Maningding[25] that when the
circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper
amount should be P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Second, we increase the award of temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in accordance with
current jurisprudence.[26]
And lastly, we increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00
to P30,000.00 since the killing was attended with treachery.[27]
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision dated February 24, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03770 finding appellant
Rolly Angelio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. We MODIFY the
awards of damages in that appellant Rolly Angelio is ORDERED to PAY the heirs
of the victim
Narciso Patingo the
following amounts:
1) P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity;
2) P50,000.00 as moral
damages;
3) P30,000.00 as temperate
damages; and
4) P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
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 Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution 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] Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga (retired) and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 2-15.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Calixtro O. Adriatico; CA rollo, pp. 13-19.
[3] Supra note 1, at 14.
[4] Ibid.
[5] At large.
[6] Supra note 1, at 5.
[7] Supra note 2, at 15.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10]
[11] Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[12]
[13] People
of the
[14] Ibid.
[15] People v. Mationg, 407 Phil. 771, 788 (2001).
[16] People v. Bi-Ay, Jr., G.R. No. 192187,
December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 828, 836.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19]
[20] Ibid.
[21] REVISED
PENAL CODE, Article 14, paragraph 16, as amended.
[22] People of the
[23] The second paragraph of Article 63 of the Code, as amended, provides:
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[24] People of the
[25] Ibid., citing People v. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 797, also cited in People of the Philippines v. Allan Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011; and People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999, 313 SCRA 254.
[26] The
People of the
[27] People of the