EN BANC.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
128378
April 30, 2003
-versus-
ROBERT GOMEZ,
JIMMY
RODRIGUEZ,RENATO
AMAYBAY ALIAS
BUK-AN AMAYBAY,AND EDEN
CARMONA,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This is an appeal
from the Court of Appeals' Decision,[1]
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City,
Branch
44 in Civil Case No. 8895,[2]
wherein appellants Robert Gomez, Jimmy Rodriguez, Renato Amaybay
(a.k.a.
Buk-An Amaybay), and Eden Carmona were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of Murder and modified the sentence, among others, from
reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, to a single
penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
The facts, as established
by the evidence, are as follows.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 5, 1989,
between 8:45-9:00 in the evening, Joel Lagundino was walking along San
Juan Street near Galo Street in Bacolod City, when a sudden commotion
caught
his attention.[3]
Ten meters away from where he was situated, he saw four men, who turned
out to be appellants, attack Samson Perez, the owner of the house where
he had been living for the past month.[4]
Since the light from a lamppost and from a nearby store provided good
illumination,
Lagundino was able to see the faces of the appellants clearly.[5]
He recognized the four men, for he often saw them at the store.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants ganged up
on Perez and began to stab him. Perez pulled out a revolver and
opened
fire, grazing the ear of one of his assailants. But even as Perez
was able to fire one more shot, his attackers overwhelmed him and he
fell
to the ground. The four men were still stabbing the prone Perez
when
Lagundino left the grisly scene.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 20, 1990, an
Information was filed against all the above-named appellants, to wit:
That on or
about the 5th day of November, 1989, in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused,
conspiring, confederating, and acting in concert with one another, each
of them being then armed with bladed weapons, with evident
premeditation,
with intent to kill, without any justifiable cause or reason, by means
of treachery and abuse of superiority, did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack and stab with their
respective
weapons one Samson Perez thereby inflicting upon his person the
following
wounds, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x
which wounds
directly
caused the death of said victim SAMSON PEREZ to the damage and
prejudice
of the heirs of the victims as follows:
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x
Act contrary to
law.[8]
Upon arraignment on
September
12, 1990, all the appellants entered a plea of not guilty.[9]
During the trial, Lagundino
positively identified appellant Carmona, Amaybay and Rodriguez in open
court as among those who attacked and stabbed Perez.[10]
Gomez, who was absent, was identified through a photograph.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Romeo S. Gellada,
the medico-legal officer who performed the autopsy on the victim,[12]
testified that the victim suffered eight wounds, namely, one abrasion,
one incised wound and six different stab wounds. Two of the stab
wounds were located on the victim’s back.[13]
He was of the opinion that all the wounds could have been inflicted
either
by the same instrument or several blades of the same kind.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their defense, appellants
Eden Carmona and Renato Amaybay both alleged that they were in their
respective
homes on the night Perez was killed.[15]
Carmona further alleged that he never left his house that night.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jimmy Rodriguez, on
the other hand, testified that on November 5, 1989, at 8:00 p.m., he
was
on the corner of San Juan and Galo Streets when he heard someone shout
at him from behind.[17]
After that, he heard gunfire and felt a bullet hit the side of his head.[18]
As he fell to the ground, he saw Samson Perez approach him and say,
"You’re
here, you traitor!" Perez attempted to shoot him again, but he
stabbed
Perez in the chest.[19]
After wounding Perez, Rodriguez ran away and boarded a trisikad to the
Provincial Hospital for treatment.[20]
Rodriguez did not report the incident to the police and, instead, left
for Gen. Santos City.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 10, 1994, a
judgment was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
finding the evidence of the prosecution to be substantially sufficient
to establish the guilt of the four accused, namely: Jimmy Rodriguez,
Eden
Carmona, Renato Amaybay and Robert Gomez for the crime of Murder beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court hereby sentences each of the four accused
to
serve the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion
perpetua, as provided for by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and for the four accused to solidarily and jointly pay the
heirs
of Samson Perez the amount of P30,000.00 by way of civil indemnity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[22]
Appellants appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
17339, based on the following assignment of errors: I
The Lower Court erred
in holding and finding the testimony of the lone prosecution witness
Joel
Lagundino as the principal basis in the conviction of the Accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
The Lower Court erred
in convicting the accused Robert Gomez, Jimmy Rodriguez, Eden Carmona
and
Renato Amaybay @ Buk-an Amaybay of the crime charged, and thereafter
sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua, so provided for by Article 248 of the Revised
Penal
Code, as amended, and for the four accused to solidarily and jointly
pay
the heirs of Samson Perez the amount of P 30,000.00 by way of civil
indemnity.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 2, 1996,
a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals, the dispositive
portion
of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
the judgment of the lower court finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder defined and punishable under Article 248
of
the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED, but the sentence imposed is
hereby MODIFIED to Reclusion Perpetua, the civil indemnity awarded is
hereby
increased to P50,000.00. However, pursuant to paragraph 2,
Section
13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, this judgment
shall
not be entered, and the Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby directed
to forward the records of this case to the Supreme Court, for its
review.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, pursuant
to Administrative Circular No. 1-92, the bondsmen of the accused are
hereby
ordered to surrender them to the court of origin within ten (10) days
from
receipt of a copy of this decision, and inform this Court of the fact
of
such surrender. The court of origin shall order the transmittal
of
the accused to the National Bureau of Prisons through the Philippine
National
Police where they shall remain in confinement pending final resolution
of their appeal.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the accused are
not surrendered within the aforesaid period of ten (10) days, their
bonds
shall be forfeited and an order of arrest shall be issued by this
Court.
The appeal taken by them shall also be dismissed under Section 8, Rule
124 of the Revised Rules of Court as they shall be deemed to have
jumped
bail.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[24]
The case was certified
to us in view of the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Appellants failed to file their Brief despite being directed to do
so.
On June 26, 2002, a Resolution was issued which dispensed with the
filing
of appellants’ brief.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants maintained
that the incident was nothing more than a chance encounter between the
victim and Rodriguez, and that the latter acted in self-defense.[26]
They also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are,
"beyond the course of natural events," and that the prosecution’s
evidence,
in general, is "anchored on exaggerated testimonies and cannot
definitely
(sic) survive the crucible test of reason and certainty."[27]
In other words, they assail the findings of fact of the trial court
regarding
the credibility of the witnesses. Again, we hold that matters
affecting
credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique
opportunity
of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the
witness’
deportment on the stand while testifying.[28]
The findings of fact of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
As a general rule, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of
the lower court, unless there appears in the record some facts or
circumstances
of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance
of
which have been misinterpreted.[29]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Rodriguez
claims that he was shot by the victim from afar. However, his own
medical certificate states that "powder burns" were found on the left
part
of his face.[30]
These "powder burns" could either be soot deposits or powder tattooing
which, in most cases, can only be caused if the shot was fired at close
range. Neither of these "burns" would normally show if the wound
was caused by a distant gunshot.[31]
Moreover, the location of the wound shows that Rodriguez was shot while
he and the victim were face-to-face. These findings, coupled with
the number and location of the stab wounds sustained by the victim,
weigh
heavily against the possibility that Rodriguez was alone during the
incident
and that he was merely defending himself in a chance encounter with the
victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no evidence
to show that prosecution eyewitness Lagundino harbored any ill-motive
to
falsely testify against the appellants. The inescapable and
logical
conclusion is that no such ill motive exists and the testimony of
Lagundino
must be given full faith and credit.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Next, the appellants
emphasized the lack of any direct evidence that prove the existence of
a conspiracy between them. They also argued inasmuch as the
prosecution
failed to establish any motive on their part to kill the victim, no
conspiracy
can be inferred.[33]
However, the long-standing doctrine is that, although there is no
direct
proof of conspiracy, the same may still be deduced from the mode,
method
and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the
acts
of the appellants themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose
and
design, concerted action and community of interest.[34]
It can be clearly seen from the evidence that Samson Perez was
overwhelmed
in a concerted attack by the four appellants. They ganged up on
him
and, apparently driven by the same blood-thirsty purpose, they
repeatedly
stabbed him with bladed weapons and continued to do so even after
Samson
Perez fell to the ground.[35]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, appellant
Amaybay and Carmona raised the defense of alibi. The prevailing
rule
is that, for alibi to prosper, not only must appellant prove that he
was
at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also
that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that
time.[36]
Carmona testified that his house was situated one hundred meters away
from
the scene of the crime, and that it would take him only five minutes to
walk there.[37]
Jamaybay, on the other hand, testified that he lived a mere thirty
meters
away from the crime scene and that it would take him only two minutes
to
walk there.[38]
Surely, these distances and times fall short of what it takes to be
physically
impossible. Furthermore, appellants were positively identified by
prosecution witness Lagundino.[39]
Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the
accused,
when categorical, consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of
the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records show that
appellant Robert Gomez is no longer in custody and no explanation was
given
for his absence. Evidently, he jumped bail, which is a form of
flight.
In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course of justice
by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the
institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. Flight, in
jurisprudence,
has always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to
evade
responsibility.[41]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants also make
much of the fact that there was an appreciable delay between the date
of
the commission of the crime, November 5, 1989, and the day when
Lagundino
testified on July 14, 1992. They alleged that Lagundino never
adequately
explained the reason for such delay, and that this omission, "rendered
the evidence for the prosecution insufficient to establish appellants’
guilt in connection to (sic) the requisite of moral certainty."[42]
However, the fact that it took Lagundino little more than two years and
eight months before he was able to give testimony in this case does not
damage his credibility. His initial reluctance to implicate the
appellants
was undoubtedly borne out of fear that they would come after him if he
came forward.[43]
The prevailing rule is that fear of reprisals serves to excuse such
delay,[44]
and thus the credibility of Lagundino’s testimony is maintained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find that the trial
court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior
strength. It appears that the deceased was armed with a gun and
was
able to fire at his attackers.[45]
However, it is apparent that he failed to save his life despite being
armed.
Evidently, it was the superiority in number enjoyed by the appellants
which
allowed them to overpower the victim. Basically, Perez was
overwhelmed
by the combined and concerted attack of the appellants. This not
the first time that abuse of superior strength was appreciated when the
victim himself seemed to be sufficiently armed, and we deem it proper
to
appreciate this qualifying circumstance in the instant case.[46]
Hence, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength qualified the
killing
to Murder.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, Murder is penalized by reclusion perpetua to
death.
There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances,
appellants
must suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as prescribed by Article
63 (2) of the Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With regard to damages,
the appellate court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim the
amount
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity, which
needs
no further proof other than the death of Samson Perez.[47]
In addition, they must also be awarded the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
17339,
finding appellants ROBERT GOMEZ, JIMMY RODRIGUEZ, RENATO AMAYBAY and
EDEN
CARMONA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,
sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and ordering them to
pay the heirs of the victim, Samson Perez, civil indemnity in the
amount
of P50,000.00, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants
are further ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the
victim
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman)
, Vitug, Carpio, and
Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
CA-G.R. CR No. 17339; penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofilena;
concurred
in by Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino and .Romeo A. Brawner
[2]
Criminal Case No. 8895; penned by Presiding Judge Anastacio I. Lobaton.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, 14 July 1992, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., pp. 15, 19; TSN, 2 June 1992, pp. 5-6.
[5]
Id., p. 6.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[6]
Id., p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 5-6, 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Records, p. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, 14 July 1992, pp. 9-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 11-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Records, pp. 169-170.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Records, pp. 169-170; TSN, 22 April 1991, pp. 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, 22 April 1991, pp. 13-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, 20 October 1993, pp. 17-18, 31chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[16]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., pp. 36-37, 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., pp. 37-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., pp. 48-49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., pp. 43, 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Records, p. 251.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
CA Rollo, p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 111-112.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Rollo, p. 141.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
CA Rollo, pp. 8, 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
CA Rollo, pp. 10, 12-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, 6 March 2003, citing People v.
Castillo,
G.R. No. 130205, 5 July 2000, 335 SCRA 100.
[29]
People v. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, 6 March 2003, citing Cueme v.
People,
G.R. No. 133325, 30 June 2000, 334 SCRA 795, and People v. Pascual,
G.R.
No. 127761, 28 April 2000, 331 SCRA 252.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Records, p. 225.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Di maio, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and
Forensic Techniques (1999), pp. 136-146; Dix & Calaluce, Guide to
Forensic
Pathology (1999), pp. 56-59; Saferstein, Criminalistics: An
Introduction
to Forensic Science (1995), p. 449; Tradio, Handbook of Criminal
Investigation
(1993), p. 151.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Caloza, G.R. Nos. 138404-138406, 28 January 2003, citing
People
v. Galam, G.R. No. 114740, 15 February 2000, 325 SCRA 489.
[33]
CA Rollo, pp. 6-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, 27 February 2003, citing People v.
Dacibar,
G.R. No. 111286, 17 February 2000.
[35]
TSN, 14 July 1992, pp. 5-7, 12, 22-28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Bustamante, G.R. Nos. 140724-140726, 12 February 2003, citing
People v. Alvarado, G.R No. 145730, 19 March 2002.
[37]
TSN, 20 October 1993, pp. 12, 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Id., p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN, 14 July 1992, pp. 9-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Pinuela, G.R Nos. 140727-140728, 31 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Cueto, G.R. No. 147764, 16 January 2003, citing People v.
Andarme,
G.R. No. 140426, 30 July 2002. mphasis supplied)
[42]
CA Rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
TSN, 14 July 1992, pp. 13, 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People v. Chatto, G.R. No. 102704, 10 March 1993, 219 SCRA 785.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
TSN, 14 July 1992, pp. 5-6, 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
People v. Manalo, G.R. No. 107329, 24 January 1994, 229 SCRA 479.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People v. Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, 27 February 2003, citing People v.
Abadies,
G.R. No. 135975, 14 August 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
People v. Aliben, supra, citing People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 143660, 5
June
2002 and People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 139970, 6 June 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |