SECOND DIVISION
SALVADOR ANDALIS
Y MORALLO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
133813
August 11, 2004
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF CAMARINES SUR,
BRANCH XXXV, AND THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
Tinga,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before this Court is a
petition for review[1]
on Certiorari filed by Salvador Andalis (Andalis) seeking to set aside
the decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CR No. 19550, and its resolution[3]
of April 17, 1998 denying his Motion for Reconsideration.[4]
The assailed decision affirmed Andalis’ conviction for the crime of
Homicide
by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, in Criminal Case
No.
IR-3322.
The antecedents[5]
follow:
It was Christmas Day,
December 25, 1992. In San Agustin, Iriga City, one Pio Gonowon, 29,
single,
was stabbed to death by one Salvador M. Andalis, 29, married, both
residents
of the same barangay.cralaw:red
The prosecution claims
that Pio Gonowon was killed by Andalis as an aftermath of a heated
discussion
during a drinking session, while the defense contends that Gonowon was
stabbed by Andalis as an act of defense of the honor of the latter’s
wife.cralaw:red
As to which of the two
(2) versions is worthy of credence is tasked upon the Court to decide.cralaw:red
The charge against the
accused is copied verbatim hereunder:
INFORMATION
The undersigned
Assistant
City Prosecutor of Iriga City, hereby accuses one SALVADOR ANDALIS y
MORALLO
of San Agustin, Iriga City of the crime of HOMICIDE, defined and
penalized
under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
That on
or
about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of December 25, 1992, in San
Agustin,
Iriga City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, armed with a fan knife, with intent to kill,
did,
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and
stab one PIO GONOWON, with said weapon, thereby inflicting upon said
Pio
Gonowon wounds on his back which wounds directly caused the instant
death
of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Pio
Gonowon in such amount as may be proven in court.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Iriga City,
Philippines,
March 18, 1993.
(S/T) JOSE M. TAGUM
Prosecutor IIchanrobles virtual law library
The prosecution
presented
the following witnesses:
(1) Alex Embestro, (25),
single, who declared, among others, that on said date and at about 9:00
o’clock A.M., he, Pio Gonowon, Freddie Abonite, Ronnie Biag, Joel
Laniog
and Amado Nocos were engaged in a drinking session at the yard of
Ulysses
Salvadora at San Agustin, Iriga City; that at noontime, accused
Salvador
Andalis joined them; the drinking session lasted up to 3:00 o’clock in
the afternoon, when Salvador Andalis and Pio Gonowon were telling
stories
of their past activities; that Andalis being irritated, said to
Gonowon,
“Baga na aco pigpaparatesting mo” (As if you are trying to test me);
Gonowon
replied: “Di ako migo lumalaban kanimo ta di kita magkatalo” (I will
not
fight you friend as we are not enemies). This witness upon hearing that
the exchange of words between the two (Pio and Salvador) was getting
heated
persuaded Pio to go home, stood up expecting Pio to follow towards the
road. Pio also stood up but was hit at his back with a chair by
the
accused. Pio ran away then but was chased by the accused and upon
catching
up, accused stabbed Pio Gonowon at the back with a ‘balisong’
(fanknife).
Pio was still able to run but stumbled and fell on the ground, again
accused
stabbed him for the second time. Pio stood up and again ran and fell
again
on the ground and crawling, he was again stabbed at the back for the
third
time. Pio nevertheless stood up tried to return to the place where the
ground drank (sic), but was unable to do so and he fell face down on
the
concrete slab. Witness identified pictures of the deceased: EXH. “A”
depicting
a person with no upper shirt but with long pants, face down on a
concrete
slab, marked as EXH. “A-1”; another picture-EXH. “B” depicting wounds
on
bloodied back, marked as EXH. “B-1”; a third picture EXH. “C”, showing
sprawled person with bloodied back as EXH. “C-1” and a fourth picture
as
EXH. “D” the place where the drinking session took place, depicting
benches,
a table, chairs with a fallen or tumbled one marked as EXH. “D-1”. The
tumbled chair was identified by this witness as the one used to strike
the deceased. Embestro pointed out in the same picture that the big
bowl
on the table contained the “polutan”, the pitcher with water as
“chaser”,
and that the group by the table was facing the road. He pointed to the
long bench on the right of the picture as where he and Pio were seated,
the long bench on the left where Ronnie Biag, and Joel Laniog were
positioned,
and Freddie Abonite on the upright chair, and that accused was seated
on
the tumbled chair which he used to smash the back of Pio Gonowon.
Significantly, from
the questions of the court, this witness said that the drinking session
started at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning as a Christmas day
celebration
and lasted up to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon; that the drinking party
consumed about nineteen (19) round bottles of gin, locally called
“marka
demonyo”, with about 7 persons partaking of the drinks; that it was
after
one round bottle of gin was consumed that the accused joined them, but
Pio was with the group at the very start; that accused left for a while
before 1:00 o’clock P.M. to take his mother somewhere but returned and
resumed drinking with the group at past 1:00 o’clock that afternoon;
and
that the drinking session broke up because of the incident at about
3:00
o’clock in the afternoon.cralaw:red
(2) Another witness
for the prosecution was Justo Retrita, 19, a high school graduate and a
resident of San Agustin, Iriga City, who testified that he went to the
house of Randy Bona on that Christmas day to get materials for making a
“belen” for contest purposes, together with Tirso Gonowon, Rolando
Portacio
and Randy Bona, at about 3:00 o’clock P.M. They were offered snacks at
the house of Randy Bona and while eating outside the house, they saw
Pio
Gonowon being chased by Salvador Andalis; that Pio stumbled and he was
stabbed at the back three times by Salvador Andalis; that Pio got up,
ran
towards the road until the property of Albano, still being chased. Then
upon reaching Albano’s property, Pio turned back to the house of Alma
Bona
and there Pio fell down on a cemented slab.cralaw:red
This witness admitted
that Pio’s father and his mother are cousins; that he did not know the
cause of stabbing, and that he was 10 meters away from where the
drinking
session was; that he, with his companions, saw upon arrival there (at
house
of Randy Bona) Pio Gonowon, Salvador Andalis, Ronnie Biag, Alex
Embestro,
Freddie Abonite and Joel Laniog in a drinking session; that his
attention
to the incident was called by the shouting; that from the place where
they
were eating, it was only 5 meters away from where Pio was finally
stabbed
by the accused.cralaw:red
(3) Dr. Loreto G. Leonido,
City Health Officer of Iriga City, testified on her post-mortem
findings
on the body of the late Pio Gonowon and identified her issued
post-mortem
certificate marked as Exhibit “E”. In said certificate, it is stated
among
others, 3 incised wounds at the back, one with 4 inches long by 1 inch
deep, another 2 ½ inches long but only skin and subcutaneous
tissue
deep, superficial, and a third incised wound, 1 inch long and 2
½
inches deep. These wounds all gaping according to her were caused by a
sharp edged instrument, possibly a “balisong” or fan knife. On
these
wounds, the doctor said that the back of the deceased was towards the
assailant;
that the contusion of 2 inches long by 1 inch in diameter on the
forehead
just above left eyebrow could have been caused by a blunt instrument or
even a fall on a concrete pavement. That the cause of death: “Internal
and external hemorrhages due to incised wounds at the back” (Exh. “E”).cralaw:red
(4) The last witness
on direct evidence for the prosecution was Felomina Gonowon, (56),
mother
of deceased victim Pio Gonowon, who testified on the aspect of damages,
both actual and compensatory and moral damages and identified receipts
in consonance with her claim for the expenses in connection with the
death
of her son. The documentary evidence she identified are:chanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “F”,
$2,688.00
($1 x P20.00 in 1992) or P53,760.00 – air fare of father of deceased;chanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “G”, P200.00
for
nichechanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “G-1”, P50.00
for
requiem masschanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “G-2”,
P350.00
for funeral expenseschanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “G-3”,
P39,400.00
for funeral servicechanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “G-4”,
P5,000.00
for vault constructionchanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H” Receipt –
P3,500.00
for pigchanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H-1”
Receipt,
P410.15 for miscellaneous & snack expenseschanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H-2”
Receipt,
P681.00 for miscellaneous grocerychanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H-3”
Receipt,
P1,054.00 for misc. grocery for ingredients for foodchanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H-4”
Receipt,
P378.00 for vegetableschanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “H-5”,
Receipt
P8,300.00 for cowchanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “I”
Certification
of Salary of husband $1,447.00 or P28,940.00 salary lost of husband for
1/3 monthchanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “J”,
P5,000.00
for partial attorney’s feeschanrobles virtual law library
Exh. “J-1”
(receipts)
P10,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
The evidence for the
defense
in chief consisted of the testimonies of:
(1)
Vicente Orlain, 71, a neighbor of the accused who allegedly heard the
cry
for help of Vivien Andalis, the wife of the accused. He went out of the
house to verify that cry for help and saw Pio Gonowon running out of
the
house of the accused with a bloodied back.
(2)
Vivian Andalis, (26), wife of accused testified that deceased tried to
attempt on her honor by embracing, and kissing her and trying to lift
her
dress and so she cried for help and her husband ran inside their house
and stabbed the deceased.
(3)
Flora Andalis Salvadora, (3), sister of the accused who testified that
she heard the cry of Vivian for help and saw Pio coming out of the
house
of the accused and fell dead on the yard.
(4)
SPO1 Ramon Villamor, a policeman of the Iriga City PNP who fetched the
accused from his cell at the Pili PNP Station, after receiving a radio
message.
(5)
SPO1 Pedro Corporal, a policeman from PNP Pili, Camarines Sur,
presented
to identify Police Blotter Entry No. 1237 and the excerpt thereof
regarding
the voluntary surrender of accused.chanrobles virtual law library
(6)
Salvador Andalis, 29, married, the accused himself, and a resident of
San
Agustin, Iriga City. He declared that on December 25, 1992, at about
8:00
A.M. he took his wife and three (3) children by pedicab (“pajak”) to
his
parents-in-law at a distance of 500 meters away in the same barangay to
celebrate Christmas day there. At 1:00 P.M. he returned and took his
mother
to his brother’s house by pedicab also. Before doing so, he drank two
shots
with a group composed of deceased Pio Gonowon, Alex Embestro, Ronnie
Biag
and Freddie Abonita. He gave ‘pulutan’ to the group consisting of a
bowl
of ‘paksiw’ and another bowl of noodles which he got from his house
nearby
about 10 meters away. He left to feed the pigs and see his cow, about
500
meters away. When he returned to rejoin the group, he came upon
Pio
Gonowon, getting wild throwing and breaking things. The others
scampered
away afraid of Pio Gonowon who was a noted drug addict. He asked Pio
why
he was acting wild and Pio said it was because he needed more drinks.
He
procured a round bottle of gin and they drank together. When the bottle
was half consumed, he begged leave to urinate at the back of his house.
While doing so, he heard the cry for help of his wife and upon entering
his house he saw Pio embracing, kissing his wife and her dress being
removed
by Pio. He stabbed Pio more than once and Pio was able to run out of
the
house and fell down. He went to the Pili PNP to surrender.
The trial court found
the
testimonies of Alex Embestro (Embestro) and Justo Retrita (Retrita)
plausible,
logical and straightforward. According to the court, the testimonies of
these two witnesses described in detail the events that transpired
before,
during and after the stabbing incident. On the other hand, the
testimonies
for the defense are improbable, fraught with evasive answers and appear
to have been coached. The trial court did not give significance
to
the defense’s attempt to prove that Gonowon was a drug addict as no
evidence
was introduced that the latter was under the influence of drugs at the
time of the incident.[6]
Pertinently, the trial
court held that the burden to prove that he acted upon the justifying
circumstance
of defense of spouse fell on Andalis because of his admission that he
killed
Gonowon. The RTC found that Andalis failed to discharge this
burden
as there was no showing of unlawful aggression on Gonowon’s part.
The trial court noted that Gonowon was very drunk and would have surely
fallen down if he was so much as pushed.[7]
Accordingly, the trial
court rendered judgment, with the following fallo:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of
the
accused Salvador Andalis y Morallo beyond reasonable doubt for having
committed
the crime of Homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused is hereby
sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of EIGHT (8) years of Prision Mayor as minimum
to
TWELVE (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum; to
pay the heirs of deceased Pio Gonowon the amounts of P50,000.00 as
death
indemnity, P142,023.00 actual and compensatory damages, P15,000.00 as
reimbursement
of attorney’s fees and P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles virtual law library
Cost de oficio.[8]
Not satisfied with the
decision of the RTC, Andalis elevated his case to the Court of Appeals
on the grounds that Embestro and Retrita are biased witnesses; that the
justifying circumstance of defense of spouse was not considered; and
that
he was erroneously convicted of homicide.chanrobles virtual law library
As mentioned at the
outset, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding
that Andalis failed to prove the existence of the justifying
circumstance
of defense of spouse.cralaw:red
In the instant petition,
Andalis again asserts that the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in
not
giving credence to his invocation of the justifying circumstance of
defense
of a relative and in failing to consider that Gonowon was a drug user.cralaw:red
The private complainant
filed a Comment[9]
dated August 31, 1998 praying that the instant petition be denied as it
raises questions of fact which this Court may no longer review and
injects
new matters, i.e., that Gonowon was a drug addict, which had not been
raised
in the courts below.cralaw:red
The Office of the Solicitor
General filed a Comment[10]
dated October 30, 1998 likewise praying for the denial of the instant
petition
on the same grounds raised by the private complainant.cralaw:red
Andalis filed a Reply[11]
dated April 13, 1999 arguing that the trial court’s findings that
Andalis
had no reason to arm himself when he heard his wife’s call for help,
and
that Gonowon was too intoxicated to attempt on the honor of Andalis’
wife
and did not even know that Andalis’ wife was at home are erroneous.cralaw:red
As a rule, the jurisdiction
of this Court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of
Civil Procedure is limited to reviewing errors of law[12]
subject to well-defined exceptions.chanrobles virtual law library
In Pastor v. PNB,[13]
the Court summarized the exceptional circumstances that may warrant a
review
by this Court of the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals as
follows:
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
(2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is
grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the
judgment
of the Court of Appeals are based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when
the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals in
making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the
findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(8) when the findings of facts are conclusions without citations of
specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which
if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and (10)
when
the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are premised on the
absence
of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.cralaw:red
A perusal of the Reply
dated April 13, 1999 reveals an attempt on Andalis’ part to ascribe
specific
errors in the following factual findings of the trial court and the
Court
of Appeals, which according to him would be enough to justify a review
of these factual findings:
In an attempt to show
that he did not use a fan knife (“balisong”) in stabbing the deceased
as
claimed by the prosecution witnesses, accused said that he grabbed the
knife from the table (where the drinkers gathered) which was used to
slice
the paksiw (meat with vinegar) and rushed to his house and used it to
stab
the deceased who was “embracing, kissing and trying to remove the dress
of his wife (TSN, pp. 14-15, Oct. 3, 1994; also p. 10, TSN, Oct. 20,
1994).
Yet when asked to trace his steps from the place where he urinated to
his
house, he indicated with broken lines a route directly to his house, on
a sketch without going to the table to get the knife from said table
where
the drinking session took place. This route is illustrated in Exhibit
“M”.chanrobles virtual law library
According to the accused
the drinking session was at the yard or in front of the house of
Ulysses
Salvadora and that house is about 9 to 10 meters away from the house of
the accused. Why would he still run to get the knife from the place or
table of the drinking session, which table is out of the way in running
to his house at the time of the distress call of his wife?
Accused did not even
know what was the problem of his wife. Why did he have to arm himself
with
a knife?[14]
On the matter of the
alleged attempt on the honor of Andalis’ wife, the trial court found
and
the appellate court affirmed:
The number of bottles
of gin (marka demonyo) consumed by the drinkers (about six persons)
according
to Alex Embestro, was about 19 round bottles in all taken from 9:00
o’clock
in the morning to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, when the incident
happened.
This quantity of drinks was not disputed by the defense or rebutted.
That
prosecution witness Alex Embestro was a participant in the drinking
session
is admitted by the defense. The severe state of intoxication of the
deceased
is not questioned, for he was present at the drinking session from 9:00
A.M. to 3:00 P.M., when the incident happened. As a matter of fact
Vivian
Andalis, wife of accused, repeatedly described Pio as ‘very, very
drunk’,
when she gave answers on cross-examination by the private prosecutor,
Atty.
Pardalis:chanrobles virtual law library
x x
x
Even Flora Andalis-Salvadora,
sister of the accused, testified for the defense that even her husband
also a participant in that drinking session was also drunk and could
not
be roused from his noonday nap, when the incident happened. She also
stated
that when she woke up at 2:30 P.M. from a noonday nap, she saw Pio
Gonowon
with head resting on his arms on the table. With all those liquor
consumed
by the group including the deceased, the Court wonders why would the
deceased
still think of attempting on the honor of the wife of the accused, in
that
state of drunkenness or intoxication. As admitted by Vivian Andalis,
upon
being questioned by the court, she never noticed that Pio had any
amorous
inclination towards her prior to the incident. Experience tells us that
a drunken person would rather sleep than go to another’s house to try
to
sexually molest a woman. It is a known fact in medical science that too
much alcohol in the blood is a depressant and the libido in a drunken
person
is suppressed. For-
Alcohol is not a stimulant
but a depressant. It acts as a narcotic, depressing the nervous system
of the brain and its nerve connections to all parts of the body (p. 20,
You and Alcohol, by Dr. Maurice Evans).cralaw:red
The Court is not convinced
that there was unlawful aggression, assuming that the theory for the
defense
is true that there was an attempt on the honor of Vivian. Deceased was
very very drunk and all it would take was to push him and he would
surely
fall down. Vivian left early in the morning for her parents’ place as
it
was Christmas day. At 3:00 P.M. that day, the deceased did not even
know
that she was there at her house. Why would the deceased make an attempt
on her honor when he did not even know she was at her house? Or at
least
there is no evidence shown that deceased knew she was at home. The
version
of the defense that the deceased entered the house of the accused as if
he knew all the while that she was at home even when she was seen
leaving
the house early morning of the day of the incident.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
Manifestly, the trial
court and the Court of Appeals considered the testimonies of the
witnesses
as well as the documentary evidence presented by both the prosecution
and
the defense. We, therefore, find no reason to deviate from their
findings.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is DENIED. Costs against the petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Rollo,
pp. 5-21; Dated May 7, 1998.
[2]Id.
at 35-47; Penned by Justice (now retired Supreme Court Justice) Fidel
Purisima,
concurred in by Justices Corona Ibay Somera and Oswaldo P. Agcaoili;
Dated
November 27, 1997.
[3]Id.
at 49-50.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]CA
Records, pp. 169-171.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]Culled
from the decision of the Regional Trial Court and adopted by the Court
of Appeals; Rollo, pp. 22-26 and 35-42.
[6]Supra,
note 1 at 33.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]Id.
at 31.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]Id.
at 33-34.
[9]Id.
at 62-70.
[10]Id.
at 75-87.
[11]Id.
at 102-105.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]Sarao
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 116602-03, August 21, 1997; See also
Government
Service Insurance System v. National Food Authority, G.R. No. 95573,
249
SCRA 522 (1995) and Carillo v. People, 229 SCRA 386 (1994).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]G.R.
No. 141316, November 20, 2003.
[14]Supra,
note 1 at 29-30; Decision of the RTC.
[15]Supra,
note 1 at pp. 44-46. |