SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 137585
April 28, 2004
-versus-
ANTONIO ROM Y
SARDEDO
ANDJOEY CORSALES
A.K.A.
ANTONIO CORSANES,
Accused,
JOEY CORSALES
A.K.A.
ANTONIO CORSANES,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
accused
Joey Corsales, a.k.a. Antonio Corsanes, assailing the Decision[1]
dated January 22, 1999 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
219,
Quezon City (RTC for brevity) finding him together with his co-accused
Antonio Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,
sentencing
each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
damages
to the heirs of victim Roy Tiozon.
Corsales and Rom were
charged with the Murder of Roy Tiozon, under an Information which reads
as follows:
That on or about the
4th day of August, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, with intent
to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, taking
advantage
of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of ROY
TIOZON
Y RIGA, by then and there stabbing and hacking the latter with deadly
weapons,
hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon
said ROY TIOZON Y RIGA serious and mortal wounds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs
of the said victim.[2]
Rom was first arraigned
and tried while Corsales was at-large. Corsales was subsequently
arraigned
and tried upon his arrest in 1997. On January 22, 1999, the RTC
rendered
judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, finding Antonio
Rom and Joey Corsales GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged
in the Information, the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer
the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to pay the heirs of Roy Tiozon, jointly
and severally, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P5,850.00 as
actual damages; P50,000.00 as indemnity; and P1,247,400.00 as
compensatory
damages; and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[3]
Only Corsales appealed.
He raises the following Assignment of Errors:
I
THE COURT A-QUO
(sic)
GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDULOUS TESTIMONY
OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE COURT A-QUO
(sic)
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR
THE
CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE COURT A-QUO
(sic)
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT BAR.[4]
which may be compressed
to the sole issue whether or not the RTC erred in ruling that the
prosecution
had established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
The trial court principally
based its conviction of Rom and appellant on the testimony of
prosecution
witness Danilo Ancla, as narrated by it in its decision, to wit:
Eyewitness Danilo Ancla
testified that on the afternoon of August 4, 1996, he went to the house
of Joey Corsales after he was told by Arturo Tiozon, the father of Roy
Tiozon, that the latter was fetched by accused Antonio Rom, whom he has
known for almost two years, for a drinking session; that before
reaching
the house of Joey Corsales at a distance of about 10 to 12 meters, he
saw
a commotion involving Antonio Rom, Joey Corsales and Roy Tiozon; that
Antonio
Rom, who was holding a bolo, and Joey Corsales who was holding a
Batangas
knife, were ganging up on Roy Tiozon by hacking and stabbing him
despite
his pleas for mercy ("Maawa na kayo hindi naman ako lalaban!"); that
when
Roy Tiozon was down, he noticed a wound in his stomach; that after both
accused inclicted wounds on the victim, they went towards the house of
Antonio Rom; that after witnessing the incident, he went away; that on
that same day, August 4, 1996, he told Arturo Tiozon that it was the
two
accused who stabbed his son; and that he volunteered himself to be a
witness
when he learned sometime in October, 1996 that a certain Amelia, who
also
witnessed the incident, was afraid to testify.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The medico-legal officer,
DRA. ROSALINE COSIDON, informed the Court that after the identification
of the body as that of the victim, she proceeded to the autopsy proper
by measuring the injuries and by marking their respective locations on
the sketches of the human skull and body; that upon examination, she
found
that the victim sustained 6 stab wounds, 4 incise wounds and 6
abrasions
or a total of 16 injuries; that from the nature of the wounds a sharp
bladed
instrument and a sharp pointed weapon were used, that of the 16 wounds,
the stab wound located at the right breast and the wound located at the
epigastric region were fatal wounds; and that she then reduced her
findings
into writing and prepared the death certificate. She added that it was
possible that the victim was lying down when the injuries were
inflicted
on him; that two different persons used two kinds of instruments and
that
the abrasions on the body of the victim could have been caused by
rubbing
or hitting rough surfaces when he fell down; that the victim was
attacked
by a single person; that wound no. 6 was inflicted by a single knife;
that
there was a struggle between the victim and his assailant; and that
immediate
medical attention could have been saved the life of the victim.cralaw:red
Appellant’s appeal is
totally bereft of merit. First, he tried to impress to us that Ancla
was
not consistent in implicating him when Ancla testified that victim
Tiozon
was in the house of appellant when the incident allegedly occurred but
changed his answer when he further stated that the incident happened
near
Rom’s house. A perusal of the entire testimony of Ancla readily reveals
that he was only told by the father of Tiozon that he was fetched by
Rom
and appellant to have a drinking session at appellant’s house;[6]
but while on his way to appellant’s house, he saw both appellant and
Rom
hacking and stabbing Tiozon near the house of Rom. There is no
contradiction
on this matter. Further examination of his testimony discloses that the
houses of Rom and appellant were only one and a half to two meters away
from each other.[7]
As to why they are all outside the house of appellant is another matter
that does not make any difference and absolutely not relevant to the
fact
that Ancla actually saw Rom and appellant hacking and stabbing Tiozon
near
their houses.[8]
Second, appellant insists
that the totality of Ancla’s testimony points to Rom as the lone
assailant
of Tiozon. A reproduction of Ancla’s testimony evidently shows that it
does not support appellant’s claim, thus:
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: You said that you
noticed a commotion, correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: What was that commotion
all about?
A: The commotion was
about Joey Corsales and Antonio Rom hacking and stabbing Roy Tioson,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: Before the hacking
incident did you notice any argument or fist fight?
A: No, sir.cralaw:red
Q: You just suddenly
saw Antonio Rom hacking Roy Tioson (sic)?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: How did he hack Roy
Tioson (sic)?
A: Tinaga niya, sinaksak
niya.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER:
Witness is raising his
right arm with his fist closed and making downward motion and making
twist
movement.cralaw:red
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: In other words the
first thing that you witnessed was Antonio Rom hacking Roy Tioson (sic)?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And immediately following
that Joey Corsales also stabbing Tioson?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: The first hack where
was the hack inflicted on the body of Rioson (sic)?
A: The hack on the stomack
(sic) was the only one I saw because he was lying on his back, sir.cralaw:red
Q: You want to tell
the Honorable Court that when Antonio Rom hacking Tioson(sic), Tioson
(sic)
was lying flat on the ground?
A: He was seated when
he was hacked but when he was repeatedly stabbed and hacked I could not
see what part of the body where he was hit, the only wound I saw was
the
wound in the stomach when he was lying on his back, sir.cralaw:red
Q: In other words you
saw the wound when Tioson (sic) was lying on the ground, I am referring
to the hack in the stomach when you said you have seen?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: That is because you
were very near that is why you saw the wound is it not?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Now, I am sure you
never stayed out from your place within a period of 5 meters as you
earlier
told to the court?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Now, what about Joey
Corsales what was he doing at the time you saw the other person you
mentioned,
Antonio Rom hacking Roy Tioson (sic)?
A: He was also helping
in stabbing Roy Tioson, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Between Antonio Rom
and Joey Corsales who first gave the first blow?
PROS. CHUA CHENG:
At what point in time,
your Honor.cralaw:red
ATTY. MALLABO:
When you saw?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:
A: I could not really
know the first part what I saw was that Antonio Rom was hacking Roy
Tioson
(sic).cralaw:red
COURT:
Q: When you first see
(sic) the 3 was the attack was already in progress?
A: Yes, your Honor.cralaw:red
Q: You do not know who
first attacked Roy Tioson?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: I do not know, your
Honor.cralaw:red
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: When Roy Tioson was
already lying flat on the ground what did Joey Corsales do if he did
anything?
A: He also stabbed Roy
Tioson, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Can you remember
how many times Joey Corsales hacked him?
A: I could no longer
remember but I saw him stabbed (sic) on the neck, sir.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to
his right lower jaw.cralaw:red
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: After that what did
Joey Corsales do after he slashed the neck of the victim.cralaw:red
PROS. CHUA CHENG:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Misleading, your Honor.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
A: It is not a slash
it is a stab because it was only a small balisong, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: After that I am sure
both of them ran away is it not?
PROS. CHUA CHENG:
What point of reference?
ATTY. MALLABO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: After Joey Corsales
thrust the knife on Roy Tioson (sic)?
A: No, sir they just
walked towards their house.cralaw:red
Q: They entered the
house of Antonio Rom?
A: Yes, sir because
their house are just beside each other.cralaw:red
Q: How about you what
did you do?
A: I ran away, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Despite the fact
that Antonio Rom went already inside the house including Joey Corsales
you ran away?
A: They were just on
their way towards their house facing me when I ran away, sir.[9]
As to how appellant
could insist that the totality of Ancla’s testimony shows that Rom is
the
sole assailant of Tiozon is absolutely beyond this Court’s
comprehension.cralaw:red
Third, appellant claims
that there is dearth of evidence proving conspiracy. We are not
convinced.
Eyewitness Ancla positively identified him having stabbed Tiozon with a
knife together with Rom who hacked Tiozon with a bolo. Proof of
previous
agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be
unnecessary
to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it could be deduced
that
they conducted themselves in concert with one another in pursuing their
unlawful design.[10]
Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National
Police
Crime Laboratory testified that from the characteristics of the fatal
wounds
inflicted on the victim, "sharp bladed and sharp pointed instruments",
were possibly used, such as bolo or fan knife or balisong.[11]
Rom’s and appellant’s acts in helping or assisting each other in
simultaneously
stabbing or inflicting wounds on the victim are clear and indubitable
proofs
of a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim, thus they
are equally liable for the crime.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the RTC did
not err in finding appellant and Rom guilty of murder. The aggravating
circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength qualified the
act
of killing Tiozon to Murder, under paragraph 15, Article 14, and
paragraph
1, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Abuse of superiority is
attendant
where two accused, both armed with knives, had cooperated in such a way
as to secure advantage from their combined superiority in strength and
took turns in stabbing the victim who was unarmed.[13]
Thus, the RTC’s imposition of reclusion perpetua on appellant Corsales
together with this co-accused Rom who did not appeal, is correct.cralaw:red
An appeal in a criminal
case opens the entire decision for review.[14]
The Court examined the damages awarded by the trial court to the heirs
of Tiozon and finds it necessary to amend the same to conform to
current
jurisprudence, as follows:
The actual damages in
the amount of P5,850.00 should be increased to P25,000.00, not as
actual
damages but as temperate damages, per this Court’s ruling in People vs.
De Los Santos.[15]
The compensatory damages
or for loss of earning capacity of the deceased victim, in the amount
of
P1,247,400.00, should be amended in accordance with the computation
formulated
in People vs. Napalit,[16]
to wit: 2/3 x (life expectancy minus age of victim) multiplied by
[monthly
income minus ½ (living expenses)], thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Net earning capacity
= 2/3 x (80-34[17])
x [P4,950.00 – 1/2 (P4,950.00)]
= 2/3 x 46 x P2,475.00
= 30.66 x P2,475.00
= P75,900.00
The heirs of Tiozon
are, therefore, entitled to P75,900.00 only representing damages for
loss
of earning capacity in lieu of P1,247,400.00 erroneously awarded by the
RTC.cralaw:red
In addition to the moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00, correctly awarded by the trial
court,
the heirs should be awarded exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00
in view of the testimony of Elizabeth Tiozon,[18]
surviving wife of the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering that the
reduction of the amounts awarded by the trial court is beneficial to
the
accused, the same should also apply to accused Rom who did not appeal[19]
while the additional amount of exemplary damages shall be enforced only
against herein appellant.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated January 22, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
(Branch
219) in Criminal Case No. Q-96-68649 convicting Joey Corsales a.k.a.
Antonio
Corsanes together with Antonio Rom y Sarsedo, beyond reasonable doubt
of
the crime of Murder, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and
ordering
him to pay, jointly and severally with accused Antonio Rom y Sardedo,
the
heirs of Roy Tiozon, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, civil
indemnity
in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs is AFFIRMED with the
following
MODIFICATIONS: Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Roy Tiozon the
amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. However, appellant together with
accused
Antonio Rom is ordered to pay jointly and severally, said heirs, the
amount
of P75,900.00 for loss of earning capacity in lieu of the compensatory
damages in the amount of P1,247,400.00 awarded by the trial court.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Jose Catral Mendoza.
[2]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records, p. 156.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Joey Corsales, pp. 6 & 9.
[5]
Records, pp. 148-149.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, February 27, 1997, pp. 11-12.
[7]
TSN, April 13, 1998, pp. 5-6; February 27, 1997, p. 53.
[8]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, February 27, 1997, pp. 44-54.
[10]
People vs. Adrales, 322 SCRA 424, 435 (2000).
[11]
TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People vs. Go-od, 331 SCRA 612, 622 (2000).
[13]
People vs. Diamonon, 94 SCRA 227, 239 (1979).
[14]
People vs. De Leon, 356 SCRA 471, 480 (2001).
[15]
G.R. No. 135919, May 9, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003.
[17]
People vs. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684, 701 (1999).
[18]
Id., pp. 6-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Baltar, Jr., 347 SCRA 579, 592 (2000); Section 11, Rule 122,
Rules of Court. |