SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
123917
December 10, 2003
-versus-
ARTEMIO ELLORABA,
ARTURO MANAOG
AND ZOSIMO MIRANDA,
Accused.
ZOSIMO MIRANDA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
On December 11,
1987, at about 7:00 a.m., Antonio Ladan was walking along Barangay
Liwayway,
MacArthur, Leyte, on his way back home from the house of his cousin
Juanito
Tisten. Antonio had just spoken with Juanito regarding the sale of his
property located in Barangay San Roque. Leticia Galvez, the wife of
Barangay
Captain Dominador Galvez, was hanging laundry near the house of her
brother-in-law,
and was chatting with Epifania (Panyang) Advincula. Pelagio Mediona's
residence
was located near the houses of Dominador and Antonio. As Antonio passed
by, he saw Dominador in front of Pelagio's house. Antonio was shocked
when,
from behind and on Dominador's left, he saw Artemio Elloraba point his
shotgun at Dominador and shoot the latter once on the back. Dominador
fell
to the ground face down. When she heard the gunshot, Leticia looked
towards
the direction of the gunfire and saw her husband fall. She saw Artemio
swing his shotgun from left to right, and vice-versa. Arturo Manaog,
who
was armed with a small bolo (pisao), turned Dominador's body face up,
and
stabbed him more than once with the bolo. Zosimo Miranda followed suit
and stabbed Dominador once with his bolo. The three then fled from the
scene, towards the direction of Baliri river.
At the time of the
shooting, Marcelino Ngoho, Dominador's brother-in-law, was travelling
along
the road of Barangay Liwayway on his motorcycle. As he neared Pelagio's
house, he saw Dominador in the yard. He then saw Artemio Elloraba shoot
Dominador from behind once with a shotgun. He also saw Arturo Manaog
turn
the body of the fallen Dominador face up, and stab the latter with his
pisao. Marcelino then turned his motorcycle around and sped away
towards
Barangay Abuyog.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The assailants were
all known to the Spouses Dominador and Leticia Galvez. Zosimo Miranda
was
a neighbor of the Spouses Galvez and was Dominador's nephew. Miranda
even
used to borrow kettle from the couple. Manaog had been Leticia's
student,
while Artemio was a drinking buddy of Dominador.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 11, 1984,
Dr. Lorenzo Tiongson performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Dominador
and
prepared his Report thereon, which contained his post-mortem findings,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FINDINGS:
1. Lacerated wound
at
the left side of the forehead extending vertically measuring 2 ½
inches in length.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Stab wound at
the
left side of the face, ½ inch lateral to the outer corner of the
left eye measuring ½ inch in length.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Stab wound at
the
left anterior portion of the thorax, at the same level of the left
nipple
and ½ inch lateral to the mid-sternal line, measuring 1 inch in
length. The wound has a slightly upward direction and the heart beneath
was also wounded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Stab wound at
the
right anterior portion of the thorax, ½ inch below the level of
wound No. 3 and 1/3 inch lateral to the mid-sternal line measuring
¾
of an inch in length. The wound is non-penetrating.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. Stab wound at
the
right anterior portion of the thorax, 1/3 of an inch below the level of
wound No. 4 and along the mid-clavicular line (right) measuring
¾
inch in length. The wound is penetrating and the lung beneath was also
wounded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. Stab wound at
the
anterior portion of the thorax, just below the zyphoid process of the
sternum
measuring 1/3 inch in length. The wound is penetrating and the
diaphragm
beneath was also wounded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. Stab wound at
the
left side of the anterior portion of the thorax same level with wound
no.
6 and 1/3 inch lateral to it, measuring ¾ inch in length. The
wound
is also penetrating.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. Circular wound
at
the left lateral portion of the neck, 4 inches below the level of the
left
ear, measuring 1/3 in diameter. The wound is surrounded by a blackish
coloration
(contusion collar).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. Lacerated wound
at
the right posterior portion of the thorax, 1 inch lateral to the
mid-scapular
line and ¾ inches in length. The edge of the wound has a
blackish
coloration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
10. Lacerated
wound
at the right posterior portion of the thorax, ¼ inch lateral to
wound no. 9 measuring 1 inch in length.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
11. Circular wound
at
the left posterior portion of the thorax, 2 inches lateral to the left
mid-scapular line and 1 inch above the level of the left axial
measuring
¼ inch in diameter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Profuse
hemorrhage due to shot-gun wounds, cut and multiple stab wounds.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 11, 1987,
Leticia Galvez gave a sworn statement to the police investigators. It
turned
out that Elloraba had a pending warrant in connection with another
criminal
case. On December 24, 1987, a composite team of police operatives from
MacArthur and Abuyog, Leyte, led by P/Lt. Paulino Matol and Sgt. Jose
Genobatin,
secured a copy of the said warrant and proceeded to the house of a
certain
Beyong Fernandez in Barangay Danao where Elloraba was staying. After
about
thirty minutes of negotiations, Elloraba decided to surrender to P/Lt.
Paulino Matol. He also surrendered the shotgun he used in shooting
Dominador.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Elloraba, Manaog and
Miranda were charged with murder in the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog,
Leyte, Branch 10, in an Information the accusatory portion of which
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 11th to day of December 1987, in the Municipality of
MacArthur,
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and
mutually
helping each other, and with the use of superior strength, did then and
there willfully and lawfully and feloniously and with treachery and
evident
premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
DOMINADOR
GALVEZ, by then and there shooting the latter on the different parts of
the body with the use of a home-made shot gun, thereby inflicting upon
the latter mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of
his
death shortly thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO
LAW.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon their arraignment,
all the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Accused
Zosimo denied inflicting
any injuries on the victim. He testified that aside from being the
Barangay
Captain of Barangay Liwayway, Dominador was an Informer of the
Philippine
Constabulary against the New People's Army. He alleged that Dominador
had
a grudge against, him. There was a donation of 35 pieces of galvanized
sheets for the repair of the barangay chapel, but Dominador used only
20
pieces for the chapel and used the rest for the roofing of his house.
Zosimo
reported the matter to Doroteo Galvez, the father of Dominador, and
Leonilo
Pelagio, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dominador was summoned
to a barangay meeting regarding the matter, but failed to attend. At
one
time, Dominador was drunk and blocked Zosimo's way. Dominador told him,
"Boboy, I am angry at you. Why did you do something to me?" Zosimo
replied,
"I do not know why you are accosting me."
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 11, 1987,
at 6:00 a.m., he went to the house of his aunt, Zosimo's mother, Susana
Candelaria, about ½ kilometer away from his house in Barangay
Liwayway.
At 8:00 a.m., the spouses brought him to their farm to harvest rice.
The
spouses left him there and went back home. At about 10:00 a.m.,
Fernando
Arado arrived and informed him that his brother, Leonardo Miranda, was
being hunted down by Dominador and that Leonardo's life was in peril.
Zosimo
returned home after asking permission from the Spouses Candelaria. When
he arrived home, he was informed by Dingding that Philippine
Constabulary
soldiers were on the lookout for him. Zosimo then rushed to the house
of
Barangay Captain Diosdado Mentis where he stayed and tarried for a
while.
A policeman later arrived and placed him under arrest for the killing
of
Dominador.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Susana Candelaria corroborated
the testimony of Zosimo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Arturo Manaog also denied
any involvement in the killing of Dominador. He testified that on
December
8, 1987, Dominador poked an armalite at him. He told his older brother,
Cristito Manaog, and their parents about the incident. On December 11,
1987, at 7:00 a.m., Arturo was in the house of his brother Cristito,
about
200 meters away from the house of Pelagio Mediona. He was ill with flu
at the time and stayed in bed. A policeman later arrived and brought
him
to the police station for the killing of Dominador. Maria Manaog,
Cristito's
wife, corroborated the testimony of Arturo Manaog.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Castor Mones testified
that he and Artemio Elloraba went to work for Benyong Fernandez in the
latter's coconut farm in Sitio Limon, Barangay Danao, MacArthur, Leyte.
Benyong was already old and his children were all women. During the
period
of December 5 to December 11, 1987, he and Artemio were in the farm of
Benyong, harvesting coconuts. On December 9, 1987, he was able to
gather
5,000 coconuts. By December 10, 1987, he had finished splitting the
coconuts.
At 5:00 a.m. of December 11, 1987, Artemio smoked the coconuts, while
Castor
gathered the coconut husks for the fire. At 10:00 a.m., Leonila
Elloraba,
Artemio's wife, brought their breakfast. According to the witness, it
would
take more than one hour for one to negotiate the distance between Sitio
Limon to Barangay Liwayway, on foot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Leonila corroborated
the testimony of Castor in part. She testified that when she delivered
breakfast for Artemio and Castor on December 11, 1987, she told them
that
Dominador had been killed. When Artemio asked who the culprit was, she
replied that the word was that he was killed by NPAs.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the court
rendered judgment convicting all the accused for murder, the decretal
portion
of the decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
the prosecution having proven the guilt of these three (3) accused
beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused ARTEMIO ELLORABA, ARTURO
MANAOG and ZOSIMO MIRANDA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of MURDER as charged and each is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION
PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of DOMINADOR GALVEZ the sum of FIFTY
THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS and to pay the costs.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Only Zosimo
Miranda
appealed from the decision of the trial court, contending that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS
(D.1)
THE COURT A QUO
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED WHEN IT COMPLETELY ACCEPTED AS GOSPEL TRUTH THE VERSION OF THE
PROSECUTION
ABOUT THE TRAGIC SHOOTING AND STABBING INCIDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
IRRECONCILIABLE
CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE ALLEGED THREE PROSECUTION EYEWITNESSES,
WITH PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS, MARCELINO NGOHO, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF
DOMINADOR
GALVEZ, EXCULPATING HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT, AND CASTING DOUBT ON THE
PRESENCE OF ANTONIO LADAN AND LETICIA GALVEZ AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(D.2)
THE COURT A QUO
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT
THAT THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE OF APPELLANT HEREIN.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(D.3)
THE COURT A QUO
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED WHEN IT APPRECIATED THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONSPIRACY
AND
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH WHEN THE SAME WERE NEVER PROVEN BY THE
PROSECUTION
INSOFAR AS HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS CONCERNED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(D.4)
THE COURT A QUO
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED WHEN IT ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DIRECTED HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT
CIVILLY
LIABLE TO THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY NOTWITHSTANDING HIS
NON-PARTICIPATION
IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree with
the
appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no discordance
between the testimony of Ngoho on one hand, and those of Ladan and
Leticia
on the other. In point of fact, the testimonies of Ngoho, Ladan and
Leticia
Galvez complement each other. What differentiates the testimony of
Ngoho
and those of Ladan and Leticia is that Ladan and Leticia Galvez saw the
entire episode of Dominador's killing; whereas Ngoho witnessed the
killing
of Dominador by Elloraba and Manaog, and left the situs criminis
without
seeing the stabbing of Dominador by the appellant. According to his
testimony,
Ngoho left the scene after seeing Elloraba shoot Dominador and while
Manaog
was stabbing the victim. Ngoho returned to the scene of the crime only
after the culprits had already fled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are in full accord
with the disquisitions of the Office of the Solicitor General:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant
Zosimo
Miranda contends that court a quo erred in its appreciation of the
evidence
presented before it. He points to a certain alleged inconsistencies
between
the testimony of prosecution witness Marcelino Ngoho, on the one hand,
and Leticia Galvez and Antonio Ladan on the other. The inconsistencies,
appellant avers, are enough to create reasonable doubt as to his guilt
of the crime charged. (Appellant's Brief, p. 6)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In particular,
appellant
points to the testimony of Marcelino Ngoho that he only saw Artemio
Elloraba
and Arturo Manaog attack the victim. This testimony, appellant claims,
is at odds with that of the testimonies of Antonio Ladan and Leticia
Galvez
pointing to him as the third attacker. He concludes that the said
conflicting
testimonies cast doubt as to his presence and participation in the
crime
(id., pp. 9–13).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A perusal of the
testimonies
adverted to show no conflict or inconsistency. Marcelino Ngoho
testified
that he fled the scene right after he saw the shooting by Artemio
Elloraba
and the hacking by Arturo Manaog.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When you saw
Artemio
Elloraba at that time, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. He was carrying
a
firearm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What did he do
with
that weapon?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. He fired and
when
he fired it, Dominador Galvez fell. He fired it from behind.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q. After Artemio
Elloraba
fired his firearm, what next did you observe?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. After he fired,
he
moved backwards and Arturo Manaog approached the fallen Dominador
Galvez
and turned the victim face up and stabbed.
(TSN, Feb. 16,
1989,
pp. 6 and 9)
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q. After Arturo
Manaog
had delivered stabbing blow on Dominador Galvez, after he was turned
face
upwards, what next transpired?
A. Artemio
Elloraba
was swinging his gun side to side and when he turned it towards me, I
made
a "u-turn" of my motorcycle and left proceeding to my house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. After that,
what
else transpired?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. When I noticed
that
the criminals were not there anymore, I returned and loaded the victim
on my motorcycle, going to Abuyog.
(TSN, Feb. 16,
1989,
p. 11)
Ngoho could not have
witnessed
appellant's attack on the victim because he was no longer at the scene,
having fled when he felt his life threatened when Elloraba pointed the
gun at him. He returned only after the assailants left.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
His testimony thus covered
only a stage or portion of the event. Appellant's participation in the
crime was established through the testimonies of Antonio Ladan and
Leticia
Galvez who were present throughout the attack on the victim. Both their
eyewitnesses' testimonies were consistent that appellant delivered a
single
hacking blow to the head of the victim after the latter was shot by
Elloraba
and stabbed and hacked by Manaog (TSN, Feb. 9, 1989, pp. 6–9, 15 Sept.
27, 1989, pp. 6–7). This is consistent with the physical evidence (Exh.
"A"; Cf. People v. Tuson, 261 SCRA 711 [1996].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant failed to
adduce evidence to show why Ladan and Galvez would implicate him in the
commission of the crime. As earlier pointed out, appellant is a nephew
of the victim. He also related to Antonio Ladan who is a cousin of his
father (TSN, Sept. 8, 1989, p. 9). It is thus inconceivable for the
victim's
widow and appellant's own uncle to point to him as one of the attackers
if it were not the truth. When there is no evidence to show any dubious
reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify
falsely
against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the
said
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit (People v. Cristobal, 252
SCRA 507 [1997]).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant attempts to
cast doubt on the presence of Ladan at the scene. He claims that no one
noticed nor testified as to his presence while the crime was being
committed.
But even assuming, arguendo, that Ladan was not present and did not
witness
the crime, his testimony is merely corroborative since there was
another
eyewitness in the person of the victim's widow.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In an attempt to further
discredit the testimony of Ladan, appellant wonders why the former
failed
to note the presence of Ngoho at the scene. He points out the same
"omission"
in the testimony of Leticia Galvez. The testimonies of Ladan and Galvez
dwelt only on the attack on the victim. Both Ladan and Galvez cannot be
expected to recall or name all the persons who were at or near the
scene
who had nothing to do with the killing.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to the
perception
of the appellant, conspiracy is not a qualifying circumstance.
Conspiracy
may be a felony by itself when the law defines it as a crime with an
imposable
penalty therefor or is merely a mode of increasing criminal liability.
Examples of conspiracy to commit a crime per se include conspiracy to
sell
illicit drugs under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6485, conspiracy to
bribe voters under Section 261 (b) of the Omnibus
Election Code and conspiracy to commit any violation under Article
115 of the Revised
Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the conspiracy
was alleged in the Information as a mode of increasing criminal
liability.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime
and
desire to commit it.[6]
Direct evidence is not required to prove conspiracy. It may be proved
by
circumstantial evidence. It is not even required that they have an
agreement
for an appreciable period to commence it.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What is important is
that all participants performed specific acts with such cooperation and
coordination bringing about the death of the victim.[8]
When conspiracy is present, the act of one is the act of all.[9]
In this case, Elloraba, Manaog and the appellant acted in concert to
achieve
a common purpose, i.e., to kill the victim. Elloraba shot the victim at
close range. Manaog followed suit and stabbed the victim with a pisao.
The appellant later stabbed the victim with his own bolo. The three
fled
from the scene together, carrying their weapons with them. Indubitably,
the three acted in concert; hence, all are guilty for the killing of
Dominador.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime is qualified
by treachery. The victim was unarmed. Elloraba shot the victim from
behind.
Manaog turned the body of the victim, face upward, and stabbed him. The
appellant followed suit, stabbing the victim while the latter was lying
on the ground, defenseless.[10]
Abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court failed
to award moral and exemplary damages. The decision of the trial court
has
to be modified. The heirs of the victim, Dominador Galvez, are entitled
to P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
appellant
is ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim, Dominador Galvez, the
amount
of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs
against the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Exhibit "A," Records, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 137.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 84–85.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 160–163.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Article 8, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
People vs. Quijon, 325 SCRA 453 (2000); People vs. Alo, 348 SCRA 702
(2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People vs. Arizobal, 348 SCRA 143 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People vs. Crisostomo, 222 SCRA 93 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People vs. Aglipa, 337 SCRA 181 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |