FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
125898
April 14, 2004
-versus-
RODOLFO RAMOS Y
ENRIQUEZ,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On appeal is the Decision
dated May 21, 1996 of the Court of Appeals finding appellant Rodolfo
Ramos
y Enriquez guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer
the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.[1]
The information under
which appellant was charged states, as follows:
That on or about October
6, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill and
with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use
personal
violence upon one ERWIN PUNZALAN Y MERCADO, by then and there stabbing
the latter with a bladed weapon on the different parts of his body,
thereby
inflicting upon him mortal stab wounds which were the direct and
immediate
cause of his death thereafter.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his arraignment on
February 26, 1992, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty
to
the charge of murder.[3]
Appellant’s conviction
was principally based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, Rigor
Almodovar.cralaw:red
On October 13, 1991,
Rigor Almodovar voluntarily reported to the Homicide Division of the
Western
Police District (WPD), disclosing his knowledge of a stabbing incident
he witnessed on the night of October 6, 1991. He executed a sworn
statement[4]
wherein he related that at around 11:00 p.m. of the same date, he was
riding
his bike on his way home when he noticed a man being stabbed in front
of
Alhambra Cigarette Factory at the corner of Tayuman and Juan Luna
Streets.
He witnessed the assailant stab the victim three times with a bladed
weapon.
He was unable to get a close look at the victim, but was able to
describe
the assailant as 5’5” to 5’7” in height, with burly built, fair
complexion
and wavy hair. He narrated therein that the assailant kept
stabbing
the victim even as the latter was running away. It was only when
the victim fell down to the ground that the assailant fled towards
Tayuman
Street. Almodovar further stated that his sleepless nights spent
thinking that he could suffer the same fate had prompted him to
volunteer
information on the incident. He was thereafter asked by the police
investigator
to look at the detainees at the station. Upon seeing appellant as
one of the detainees lined up, Almodovar pointed to him as the
assailant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the witness stand,
Almodovar testified[5]
that from a distance of 3 meters, and with the light coming from the
electric
post, he was able to observe that the victim, then surrounded by four
men,
was facing appellant when the stabbing occurred. He recalled
seeing
appellant use a knife with a 6-inch blade. He saw blood coming
out
of the victim’s body, but was unable to recognize the latter’s
face.
He declared that he did not have personal knowledge of the victim’s
identity
and only learned thereof when he saw the incident reported in the
newspapers.
Neither was he acquainted with appellant. He also stated that he
never talked to anyone about what he witnessed until two weeks after,
when
he reported to the police out of his own volition. On
cross-examination,
he stated that he did not mention in his sworn statement that the
assailant
was accompanied by three other men because appellant was the only one
he
recognized.cralaw:red
David Mercado,[6]
the victim’s uncle, testified on the medical and funeral expenses he
incurred,
the receipts of which were allegedly kept by the victim’s mother who
resides
abroad.cralaw:red
PO3 Rafael Melencio,[7]
police officer from the WPD, was initially assigned as the investigator
of the case. He testified that at 11:35 p.m. of the night in
question,
he received information that an unidentified person was found dead
along
Tayuman Street in front of Alhambra Cigarette Factory. He
proceeded
to the crime scene and found the victim’s lifeless body with stab
wounds
on the chest and hand. No eyewitness surfaced, but he gathered
from
his investigation that the victim just came from the house of the
latter’s
girlfriend who resided 30 meters away. He prepared an Advance
Information
Report, which the prosecution submitted as documentary evidence.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pfc. Alfredo Salazar,[9]
an investigator of the WPD, Homicide Division, testified that on
October
13, 1991, a witness by the name of Rigor Almodovar personally came to
their
office to volunteer information on the stabbing of Erwin Punzalan.
Salazar
took Almodovar’s statement, prepared the Progress Report, and presented
the witness to the Inquest Prosecutor, who charged appellant with
murder.
He thereafter prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of
appellant,
who was then already being detained for a separate charge.cralaw:red
Sr. Inspector Florante
Baltazar,[10]
Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police, conducted an
autopsy
on the cadaver of the victim. He testified on his findings as
indicated
in the Autopsy Sketch[11]
and Medico-Legal Report[12]
he submitted. His examination disclosed that the victim suffered
two fatal stab wounds on the chest and one stab wound on the left hand,
which he opines to be a defense injury. Finding no injuries at
the
back of the victim, he stated that the relative position of the victim
and the assailant was more likely to be frontal.cralaw:red
As the sole witness
for the defense, appellant Rodolfo Ramos[13]
interposed the defense of alibi. He declared that on October 6,
1991,
from 8:00 a.m. until 11:30 p.m., he was in the company of his four
friends
in his residence at Franco Street, Tondo, Manila, arranging T-shirts
for
sale. About five to seven days later, while selling at the Pritil
Market, he was picked up by the police authorities and was brought to
the
police station. He claimed that the police officers attempted to
extract a confession from him by beating him up at the police station,
as a result of which his dentures got broken and he sustained
contusions
and abrasions on different parts of his body. He further
testified
that there was no police line-up during the investigation, for he was
then
standing alone outside the detention cell when he was identified by the
witness Almodovar.cralaw:red
On April 18, 1994, the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, rendered a decision finding
appellant guilty of murder. It rejected the defense of alibi in
light
of appellant’s failure to present other witnesses to substantiate
it.
Hence it sentenced appellant, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, and in view
of all of the foregoing considerations, the accused RODOLFO RAMOS Y
ENRIQUEZ
alias Dupong, is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime
of MURDER defined and penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, it appearing that even as the victim was already
attempting
to run away, the accused pursued him and continued to stab him until he
fell on the ground. Consequently, the accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer
the penalty of imprisonment from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to
SEVENTEEN
(17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal, and to pay the
heirs
of the victim the sum of P15,000.00 for funeral expenses, P10,000.00
for
medical expenses and the sum of P50,000.00 for the life of Erwin
Punzalan
y Mercado, which the accused snuffed out from him.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[14]
Appellant sought recourse
to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the findings of the trial
court.
It however raised the penalty from reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua
and deleted the award of medical expenses. The dispositive
portion
of its May 21, 1996 Decision reads, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty
imposed upon accused-appellant, RODOLFO RAMOS y ENRIQUEZ, should be
raised
to, as he is hereby sentenced to suffer, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua,
and the award of P10,000.00 for medical expenses is deleted.cralaw:red
After the lapse of the
period for filing a motion for reconsideration, the Division Clerk of
this
Court, following Section 13, Rule 124, Revised Rules of Court, is
hereby
ordered to desist from entering judgment; instead she should elevate
this
case with its complete records to the Supreme Court for review.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[15]
Hence the instant appeal.
Appellant questions his conviction on the same grounds on which he
anchored
his appeal to the Court of Appeals:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE
FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION THAT ACCUSED WAS
THE
ASSAILANT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED.[16]
In addition, appellant
in his supplemental brief contests his conviction of murder despite the
prosecution’s failure to prove the attendance of treachery.[17]
Appellant argues that
the prosecution failed sufficiently to prove his identification as the
assailant. Claiming that it was the policemen who pointed to him
for the witness to identify, he puts emphasis on the following portion
of Almodovar’s testimony:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
How were you made to identify the accused at the Homicide Section?
A
I was told to describe and then they pointed to me.[18]
Appellant’s assertion
misleads. When seen in the context of the rest of the witness’s
testimony,
it can be gleaned that the aforecited statement was subsequently
clarified
by Almodovar himself, thus:
Q
Why[,] where was the accused at that time when you gave your statement?
A
He was already at the Homicide Section.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
While giving your statement all along you can see the accused from the
detention cell?
A
Yes sir.cralaw:red
Q
After giving that statement you were brought to the detention cell?
A
Yes sir.cralaw:red
Q
Or the accused [was] brought out from the detention cell?
A
They were asked to line up inside the prison cell and I was asked to
point.[19]
This Court sees no indication
of suggestive identification from the foregoing testimony. The
policemen
had asked Almodovar to identify the assailant from among the detainees
lined up, without suggesting to the witness whom to point to. As
correctly found by the Court of Appeals, he had already given a
detailed
description of the assailant before he was brought near the detention
cell
to view the detainees lined up.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, it bears stressing
that appellant gave no proof of ill-motive for Almodovar to testify
falsely
against him. Appellant himself admitted in court that he met the
witness for the first time only during the investigation.[21]
Absent any ill-motive, this Court can only conclude that his act in
imputing
the responsibility for the crime on appellant stemmed from a legitimate
desire to bring the perpetrator to justice.[22]
As held in numerous decisions, when there is no evidence that the
principal
witness for the prosecution is moved by improper motives, such witness
is entitled to full faith and credit.[23]
Against the positive
identification by the eyewitness, appellant offered nothing but the
lame
defense of alibi. Alibi is the weakest of defenses, as it is easy to
contrive
and difficult to disprove.[24]
To merit serious consideration, this defense must be supported by
credible
corroboration, preferably from disinterested witnesses.[25]
In the present case, not one of appellant’s four friends who were
allegedly
with him on the night of the incident came forward to corroborate his
alibi.cralaw:red
Moreover, for the defense
of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to show that the accused was
somewhere
else when the crime was committed. He must further demonstrate
that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime
at the time of the commission thereof.[26]
Appellant, who was allegedly in his residence within the area,
glaringly
failed in this regard. His unsubstantiated defense of alibi
therefore
fails to overturn the prosecution’s evidence proving his guilt.cralaw:red
Although the prosecution
sufficiently established that appellant inflicted the fatal stab wounds
on the victim, this Court holds that there was insufficient proof of
treachery
to qualify the crime to murder. Treachery is never presumed.[27]
Like any other qualifying circumstance, it must be proven with equal
certainty
and clearness as the crime itself.[28]
The prosecution has the burden to prove that at the time of the attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that the
offender
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method and
forms
of attack employed by him.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the only
evidence the prosecution presented to prove treachery was the sworn
statement
executed by the eyewitness which in part stated: “[N]akita ko po itong
lalaki na binanggit ko na may hawak na patalim at inundayan ng saksak
ang
isang lalaki, tumatakbo na nga palayo yung lalaki ay hindi pa rin nito
tinitigilan ng pagsaksak hanggang sa bumagsak na ito.”[30]
In his testimony, however, the witness failed to recount the aforesaid
manner by which the victim was stabbed. While on the witness stand,
Almodovar
narrated the assault as follows:
Q
While on your way home, do you recall any unusual incident, Mr. Witness?
A
Yes sir. When I was passing [by] Alhambra Cigarette Factory, I saw 4
men.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
Upon seeing these 4 person[s], what else transpired?
A
I saw that there was a commotion, so I stopped to a distance of 3
meters.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
What happened when you stopped?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
When I saw the 4 men, one of them stabbed the victim.cralaw:red
Q
How many times did you see that person stab the victim?
A
Three times, sir.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
You said that you saw the man stab the victim 3 times, [were] you able
to see if the victim was hit by that stab?
A
I saw blood coming from the victim’s body.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
After you saw the accused stab the victim for 3 times, what else
happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
I stopped, but when I saw the incident, I ran away.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
By the way, what was the relative position of the accused to the victim
when the latter was stabbed by him?
A
They were facing each other.[31]
The foregoing readily
shows that all he testified to was seeing the assailant stab the victim
three times while the two were facing each other. Noticeably, he
omitted to describe how the assailant purportedly kept stabbing the
victim
while the latter was running away, as what is stated in his
affidavit.
As a rule, testimonial evidence or oral testimony commands greater
weight
than a mere affidavit.[32]
The omission of this important detail hence weakened the prosecution’s
proof of treachery.cralaw:red
It is moreover noted
from the foregoing testimony that Almodovar witnessed only the moment
when
appellant stabbed the victim. No evidence was presented to
establish
the circumstances prior to the very moment of aggression. It has
been held that where the lone witness did not see the commencement of
the
assault, treachery cannot be considered.[33]
More importantly, this
Court observes that the allegedly treacherous manner of the attack as
the
witness declared in his sworn statement fails to draw support from the
prosecution’s physical evidence. The autopsy report[34]
disclosed that the victim sustained all injuries at the front, and none
at the back. It further showed a stab wound on the victim’s left hand,
which the Medico-Legal found to be a defensive wound.[35]
Clearly, there were indications that the victim had the opportunity to
resist appellant’s attack, thereby negating the existence of treachery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For failure of the prosecution
to prove treachery or any other circumstance which would qualify the
killing
to murder, appellant should only be held liable for the crime of
homicide.[36]
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion
temporal for homicide. Considering that there was neither
mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime,
the
penalty has to be imposed in the medium period. Applying the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law, appellant should therefore be sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to
fourteen
years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.[37]
Coming now to the award
of damages, the P50,000 civil indemnity was correctly awarded.
The
Court finds the award of actual damages for the funeral expenses
unwarranted
for lack of supporting receipts. However, in lieu thereof,
temperate
damages in the amount of P25,000 are awardable in line with the ruling
in People v. Abrazaldo.[38]
Furthermore, jurisprudence dictates the grant of moral damages in the
amount
of P50,000 to the victim’s heirs in recognition of the latter’s
emotional
suffering brought about by the violent death of their loved one.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable
doubt of homicide and, consequently, he is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate
penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum,
to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as
maximum.
He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of
P50,000
as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000
as
temperate damages in lieu of the award for the funeral expenses which
is
deleted. Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Carpio, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-32.
[2]
Records, p. 1.
[3]
Id., at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., at 137, Exhibit “A.”
[5]
TSN, May 18, 1992, pp. 2-16.
[6]
TSN, July 1, 1992, pp. 2-6.
[7]
TSN, October 14, 1992, pp. 2-6.
[8]
Records, pp. 138-139, Exhibit “B.”
[9]
TSN, February 10, 1993, pp. 1-9.
[10]
TSN, April 28, 1993, pp. 1-7.
[11]
Records, pp. 143-144, Exhibit “F.”
[12]
Records, p. 145, Exhibit “G.”
[13]
TSN, August 2, 1993, pp. 1-14.
[14]
CA Rollo, p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, p. 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
CA Rollo, p. 50.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 16-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, May 18, 1992, p. 14.
[19]
Ibid., Underscoring supplied.
[20]
Rollo, p. 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
TSN, August 2, 1993, pp. 12-13.
[22]
People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 143126, July 31, 2003.
[23]
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003.
[24]
People v. Visperas, Jr., 395 SCRA 128 (2003).
[25]
People v. Colonia, G.R. No. 138541, June 12, 2003.
[26]
People v. Tumanon, 351 SCRA 676 (2001).
[27]
People v. Colonia, supra, note 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Visperas, Jr., supra, note 24.
[29]
People v. Castillano, G.R. No.139412, April 2, 2003.
[30]
Supra, note 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, May 18, 1992, pp. 3-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Mandao, 393 SCRA 292 (2002), citing People v. Milliam, 324
SCRA
155 (2000).
[33]
People v. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 (1992).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Supra, note 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, April 28, 1993, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003.
[37]
Luces v. People, G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003.
[38]
397 SCRA 137 (2003).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Baltazar ,supra, note 22. |