SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140385
April 14, 2004
-versus-
MARIO MARCELO Y
DELA CRUZ,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an appeal
from the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 55, in
Criminal
Case No. 98-2107-M, finding appellant Mario Marcelo guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to
indemnify
the heirs of the victim Rodelio Manalang, the amount of P50,000 and to
pay P80,000 as actual damages and the costs of suit.[2]
On August 11, 1998,
an Information charging Mario Marcelo with murder was filed with the
Regional
Trial Court. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the
11th day of June 1998, in Barangay Sua, Municipality of Masantol,
Province
of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, MARIO MARCELO Y DELA CRUZ, with intent
to kill, armed with a bladed weapon, with treachery and evident
premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack
and stab Rodel (sic) Manalang, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab
wounds on the different parts of his body which were the direct and
immediate
cause of his death shortly thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On his arraignment,
Mario Marcelo, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
The Case for the
Prosecution[4]
At about 6:00 p.m. on
June 11, 1998, Christopher Sunga and his friends Rodel Bautista,
Rodelio
Manalang, Arsenio Madrigo, and Ednor Cabrera were in the house of
Dominador
Sunga, Christopher’s father, located at Barrio Sua, Masantol,
Pampanga.
They were having a drinking spree in celebration of Christopher’s
birthday.
At about 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., Dominador arrived with the appellant.
The latter joined Christopher and his friends in their drinking and
merrymaking.
After sometime, a commotion ensued when the appellant created trouble
and
challenged Ednor Cabrera to a duel. Christopher’s mother tried to
calm the protagonists. When she failed, Dominador intervened and
succeeded in bringing the appellant home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 11:00 p.m.,
Christopher and his friends agreed to call it a night. Christopher told
his parents that he, along with Madrigo and Bautista would accompany
Manalang
to their house. As they were passing by the house of the
appellant,
the latter sneaked from behind Manalang and stabbed him at the
back.
Bautista tried to restrain the appellant, but the latter stabbed him on
the right arm. Afraid for his life, Bautista ran to their house
and
passed out. When he regained consciousness, Bautista was already
at the Jose B. Lingad Hospital in San Fernando, Pampanga, being treated
for his wounds.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, the appellant
continued stabbing Manalang. Christopher and Madrigo ran to the
Bantay
Bayan Office for help. When they met Dominador on the way, they
informed
him of the stabbing incident. Dominador, together with some
barangay
tanods, proceeded to the place of the incident to conduct an
investigation.
On their way, Dominador saw Bautista who was then fleeing to their
house
and noticed the wound on the latter’s right arm. Bautista told
Dominador
that he and Manalang were stabbed by the appellant. Dominador
then
rushed to the house of the appellant, and saw the bloodied body of
Manalang
lying by the roadside.[5]
The appellant was nearby,
armed with a .22 air rifle. Dominador ordered the barangay tanods
to bring Manalang to the hospital. He then talked to the
appellant,
but the latter threatened to shoot him if he came closer.
Dominador
managed to calm the appellant and bring him to his house.cralaw:red
While he was on his
way home, Dominador saw SPO2 Nicolas Yabut and SPO3 Francisco V.
Cortez,
police officers of Masantol, Pampanga, who were on their way to arrest
the appellant. Dominador accompanied them to the appellant’s
house.[6]
SPO1 Renato Layug and SPO2 Nicolas Yabut brought the appellant to the
police
station.[7]
Dr. Eduardo T. Vargas,
Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, performed
an autopsy on the cadaver of Manalang and signed his Autopsy Report No.
CNO-98-5-11[8]
which contained the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
POSTMORTEM FINDINGSchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pallor, integument and
conjunctivae.cralaw:red
Abrasions, 6.0 x 1.5
cms., anterior chest wall, left side; 4.0 x 1.5 cms. dorsal aspect,
right
hand.cralaw:red
Incised stab wound,
2.0 cms., posterior chest wall, left side.cralaw:red
Stab wounds, all edges
clean cut, with one sharp and the other blunt extremities.cralaw:red
(1) 2.0 cms., located
on the chest wall along mid-axillary line, left side, 24.5 cms. from
the
anterior median line, directed forward, upward, medially, involving the
skin and underlying soft tissues into the left thoracic cavity,
penetrating
lower lobe of the left lung with an approximate depth of 7.0 cms.cralaw:red
(2) 3.0 cms., located
on the chest wall along posterior axillary line, left side, 24.5 cms.
from
the posterior median line, directed forward, the left thoracic cavity,
penetrating upper lobe of left lung with an approximate depth of 8.0
cms.cralaw:red
(3) 3.0 cms., located
on the posterior abdominal wall, left side 18.0 cms. from the posterior
medial line, directed backward, upward, upward medially, involving the
skin and underlying soft tissues, communicating with another wound, 2.5
cms. in length, located on the posterior abdominal wall, left side, 7.5
cms. from the posterior median line.cralaw:red
(4) 3.0 cms. located
on the anterior aspect, left leg, 29.0 cms. above the left heel,
directed
backward, upward, laterally, involving the skin and underlying soft
tissues,
communicating with another wound 2.0 cms. in length, located on the
posterolateral
aspect, left 32.0 cms. above the left heel.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bautista and Christopher
executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay[10]
on June 16, 1998 and June 13, 1998, respectively, in which they
identified
the appellant as the assailant of Manalang.cralaw:red
During the trial, the
prosecution adduced receipts evidencing the expenses of the heirs
during
the wake and the funeral services for the victim.[11]
The Case for the
Appellant[12]
The appellant invoked
self-defense. He testified that he was engaged in the sale of
puto
kutsinta which he himself prepared. He was also a barangay tanod.[13]
At about 8:00 p.m. on June 11, 1998, he was fetched from his house by
chief
barangay tanod Dominador Sunga and barangay tanod Romeo Usi. He
was
told that they were to settle a dispute in the barrio. After
settling
the dispute, Usi went home. Dominador invited the appellant to
his
house where his son, Christopher, was celebrating his birthday.
When
they reached Dominador’s house, the appellant saw that Christopher and
his friends were having a drinking spree. Christopher offered him
a drink which he took. After finishing it, he bid Christopher and
his friends good bye and went home.[14]
At about 11:00 p.m.,
he and his wife were cooking puto kutsinta in their house. Their
four children were already asleep. Manalang, Christopher and two
others whose identity he did not know but whom he later learned were
Bautista
and Madrigo, suddenly barged inside his house and took turns in mauling
him.[15]
Bautista held back his hands while Madrigo and Christopher punched and
kicked him. Manalang hit him with a bamboo club. He fought back
and
struggled to free himself from Bautista’s hold. As he was
struggling
to extricate himself, Christopher and his cohorts continued to maul
him.
The appellant managed to get out of his house, and Christopher and his
cohorts followed him. They continued mauling him, causing him to
fall to the ground. Manalang continued to beat him using a bamboo
club and even threatened to kill him and the members of his family.[16]
Because of fist blows from Christopher and his cohorts, the appellant’s
eyes were swollen and he could hardly see. Although weakened from
the beatings, he managed to stand up, pulled out his knife, and stabbed
Manalang. He also stabbed Bautista on the right arm. He was
so dizzy that he lost consciousness.[17]
When he came to his
senses, Christopher and his cohorts were nowhere to be found. His
wife, Teresita, was wiping his bloodied and bruised face with a cloth.[18]
He asked his wife to fetch the parents of Manalang and when they
arrived,
he told them what happened. Manalang’s parents apologized to him and
even
inquired where Manalang was.[19]
He replied that he did not know.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Because of the incident,
the appellant’s house was in disarray. The puto kutsinta he and
his
wife prepared were scattered. Momentarily, barangay tanod Romeo
Usi
arrived with some police officers.[20]
The tanods and the policemen told him that Manalang was already dead.[21]
He explained to the police officers that Manalang and three others
forcibly
entered his house, mauled him and threatened to kill him and his
family.
Thereafter, he voluntarily surrendered to the police officers, and went
with them to the police station. He executed a Sinumpaang Kontra
Salaysay.[22]
His wife, Teresita Marcelo also executed a Salaysay.[23]
Both alleged that at 11:00 a.m. on June 11, 1998, while they were
cooking
puto kutsinta, Manalang, Bautista, Christopher and Madrigo arrived at
their
house and mauled the appellant without any provocation on his
part.
To defend himself and his family, the appellant fought back and stabbed
Bautista and Manalang. He adduced in evidence a Medico-Legal
Certificate
showing that he sustained the following injuries, to wit:
-Lacerated wound mucosa
cheek appr. 0.5 cm. (L)
-Subconjunctival hemorrhage
cuchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
-Contusion hematoma
lower lip
-Contusion frontal area
(R)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
-Abrasion confluent
deltoid area (R)
-Linear abrasion appr.
5 cms. (R)[24]
The appellant was also
subjected to a chest x-ray. His injuries required medical
attention
for a period of less than nine days.[25]
The appellant filed
a complaint[26]
for frustrated murder against Bautista, Madrigo and Christopher Sunga
with
the Office of the Public Prosecutor, docketed as I.S. No.
98-F-1569.
The complaint was dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor on September
15,
1998.[27]
Bautista also filed a criminal complaint against the appellant for
attempted
homicide.cralaw:red
On July 27, 1999, the
appellant filed a Motion to Re-Open the defense’s case on account of
Ednor
Cabrera’s willingness to testify for him.[28]
The court denied his motion.cralaw:red
On August 2, 1999,[29]
the trial court rendered judgment convicting the appellant of the crime
charged, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
defined under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and as a consequence
of
which Mario Marcelo y Dela Cruz is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the
family
of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 plus P80,000.00 actual damages
and
to pay the cost of the proceedings.[30]
On August 16, 1999,
the appellant filed a Motion for New Trial[31]
alleging that Ednor Cabrera, the witness sought to be presented, was
discovered
sometime in July 1999, after the trial. He alleged that Cabrera
had
been in hiding for fear of his life, and nearly died at the hands of
Dominador
Sunga because of his refusal to testify against the appellant before
the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga for attempted
homicide,
filed by Rodel Bautista.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 30, 1999,
the court issued an Order denying the motion of the appellant.[33]
He filed a motion for reconsideration[34]
but the same was also denied in an Order dated September 10, 1999.[35]
The appellant now assails
the decision of the trial court, contending that:
I
THE COURT A-QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A-QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S PLEA OF
SELF-DEFENSE.
III
THE COURT A-QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION ATTENDED THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.[36]
The appellant asserts
that the trial court erred in not giving credence and probative weight
to his testimony which was corroborated by the physical evidence, i.e.,
that he acted in complete self-defense when he stabbed Manalang.
He posits that Manalang, Christopher Sunga, Madrigo and Bautista,
suddenly
barged in his house and mauled him while he was cooking puto
kutsinta.
Manalang threatened to kill him and his family. Because his life
and those of his family were in real peril, he stabbed Bautista and
Manalang.
The latter died because of his stab wounds.cralaw:red
The appellant contends
that assuming without admitting that he was guilty, he could only be
held
liable for simple homicide and not for murder as the prosecution failed
to establish the qualifying circumstance of treachery or evident
premeditation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part, the Office
of the Solicitor General asserts that the appellant’s self-defense
theory
is unbelievable and unsubstantiated. The appellant is guilty of
murder,
the prosecution having proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The Court’s Ruling
The appellant’s
plea of self-defense is without merit.
The question of whether
or not the appellant acted in self-defense is one of fact.[37]
The trial court ruled, after calibrating the evidence on record, that
the
appellant’s plea of self-defense had no factual basis, and that, in
fact,
he was the unlawful aggressor. The settled rule is that the trial
court’s findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the
record
some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have
overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated, and which if properly considered,
would
alter the result of the case.[38]
This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing
at close range the conduct, demeanor, and deportment of the witnesses
as
they regale the trial court with their testimonies. The trial
court
gave credence and probative weight to the collective testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. We have carefully reviewed the records and
find no justification to deviate from the findings of the trial court.cralaw:red
This Court consistently
held that like alibi, self-defense is inherently weak.[39]
When the accused invokes self-defense as an affirmative defense, the
burden
of evidence is shifted on him to prove his defense with clear and
convincing
evidence. By interposing self-defense, the accused thereby admits
having deliberately killed or inflicted injuries on the victim.
The
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness
of the evidence of the prosecution.[40]
If he fails to prove his defense, the evidence of the prosecution can
no
longer be disbelieved and the accused can no longer be exonerated of
the
crime charged.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To sustain his affirmative
defense of self-defense, the appellant was burdened to prove the
confluence
of the following essential elements, viz:
(1)
there must be unlawful aggression by the victim;
(2)
that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were
reasonable;
and
(3)
that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.[42]
There can be no self-defense,
complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves unlawful aggression
on
the part of the victim.[43]
Unlawful aggression is a sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent
danger
thereof, and not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude.[44]
The appellant
failed to discharge his burden.
First. The appellant
failed to surrender himself to the police officers who arrived at his
house
to arrest him, as well as the knife he used in stabbing Manalang and
Bautista
and the piece of bamboo Manalang allegedly used to hit him.
Although
Teresita Marcelo testified that she gave the bamboo pole to SPO3
Francisco
V. Cortez, the latter denied having seen the bamboo pole.
Teresita
did not identify the name of the policeman with whom she left the knife
at the police station. The appellant did not allege in his
counter-affidavit[45]
that his wife surrendered the knife and the bamboo pole to the
policemen
at the police station. Neither did Teresita allege the matter in
her affidavit.[46]
One who acted in self-defense is expected to surrender, not only
himself,
but also the weapon he used to kill or inflict physical injuries on the
victim, as well as the weapon used by the victim.[47]
Second. The appellant’s
claim that because of the fist blows from his attackers, namely,
Manalang,
Madrigo, Bautista and Sunga, his eyes became swollen and closed, such
that
he could hardly see. He felt so dizzy and so weak that he could
barely
stand up. However, the medical certificate[48]
he adduced in evidence belies this claim. There is no showing
therein
that the appellant suffered any injury on his eyes despite the fist
blows
from his said attackers. The appellant sustained only two
contusions,
one on the lip and the other on the frontal area, a lacerated wound on
the cheek and two abrasions, which injuries would heal in nine days.cralaw:red
Third. Incredibly,
despite his weak physical condition having been completely overpowered
by his attackers, and with his eyes almost completely closed, the
appellant
was still able to stab the victim no less than four (4) times: twice on
the chest; once on the abdomen and on the left leg, aside from stabbing
Bautista on the right arm. The location, number and nature of the
injuries sustained by the victim belie the appellant’s claim of
self-defense.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth. The criminal
complaint of the appellant against Bautista, Manalang and Sunga for
frustrated
murder in I.S. No. 98-7-1569 was dismissed by the Office of the
Provincial
Prosecutor of Pampanga on September 15, 1998 for lack of factual basis.[50]
The appellant, likewise, failed to appeal the resolution to the
Department
of Justice.cralaw:red
The Crime Committed
by the Appellant
The trial court correctly
convicted the appellant of murder, qualified by treachery under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code. There is treachery in the
commission
of the crime when (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
a position to defend himself; (b) the offender consciously and
deliberately
adopted the particular means, method and form of attack employed by him.[51]
In the present case,
after a drinking spree, the victim and his friends were walking towards
home when suddenly, the appellant came out from nowhere, armed with a
knife.
Without any warning, the appellant stabbed the victim on the vital
parts
of his body, ensuring the latter’s immediate death. Thus, the
appellant
killed the victim in a treacherous manner.cralaw:red
We note that the offense
was committed at nighttime. However, in order for the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime to be appreciated, it must be shown that it
facilitated
the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken
advantage
of by the accused for the purpose of impunity.[52]
However, it was not shown that the same was specifically employed to
facilitate
the commission of the crime.cralaw:red
The appellant, likewise,
alleged that he voluntarily surrendered to the police
authorities.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites
should
be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the
offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and
(3) the surrender was voluntary. The surrender must be
spontaneous,
made in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his
guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that would
necessarily
be incurred in the search and capture.[53]
In the case at bar, SPO4 Cortez testified that the appellant did not
voluntarily
surrender but was brought by the police officers to the police station.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, murder is
punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Without any generic or special
aggravating
circumstances, the penalty imposable on the appellant, should be the
lower
penalty, which is reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Liabilities
of the Appellant
Conformably to recent
jurisprudence, the award of indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P50,000 is sustained, it being awarded without need of proof
other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death
of
the victim and that the accused was responsible therefor.[54]
In view of the attendance of treachery, qualifying the killing to
murder,
an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 is in order.[55]
We reduce the award
of actual damages in the amount of P80,000 to P18,500[56]
which is the amount duly supported by receipts.cralaw:red
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe,
Pampanga,
Branch 55, in Criminal Case No. 98-2107-M, finding appellant Mario
Marcelo
y dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS.
Considering that the prosecution was able to prove actual damages only
in the amount of P18,500, the heirs are awarded P25,000 as temperate
damages
in lieu of actual damages conformably to current jurisprudence.[57]
In addition, the said appellant is ORDERED to pay to said heirs P25,000
as exemplary damages.[58]
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, pp. 208-211.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: SPO3 Francisco V.
Cortez,
Rolando J. Manalang, Dominador Sunga, Arsenio Madrigo and Rodel
Bautista.
[5]
TSN, 19 October 1998, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Exhibit “G,” Record, p. 111.
[9]
Exhibit “8,” Records, p. 154.
[10]
Records, pp. 105-106; 6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Exhibit “K” to “K-2;” Id. at 118-120.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Mario Marcelo testified for and in his behalf; the following were also
presented by the appellant: Teresita Marcelo and Dr. Eduardo T. Vargas.
[13]
TSN, 21 April 1999, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 5-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 9-11.
[16]
Id. at 11-13.
[17]
Id. at 13-14.
[18]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 15-16.
[20]
Id. at 16.
[21]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exhibit “1,” Records, pp. 149-150, executed on June 25, 1998.
[23]
Exhibit “2,” Id. at 151-152.
[24]
Exhibit “4,” Id. at 153.
[25]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
See Exhibit “I,” Records, p. 113.
[27]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Records, p. 173.
[29]
Id. at 175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 208-211.
[31]
Id. at 180.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 181.
[33]
Records, pp. 229-230.
[34]
Id. at 231-232.
[35]
Id. at 233.
[36]
Rollo, p. 48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Belaje, 345 SCRA 604 (2000).
[38]
People v. Rollon, G.R. No. 131915, September 3, 2003.
[39]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003.
[41]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People v. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003.
[43]
People v. Gumayao, G.R. 138933, October 28, 2003.
[44]
People v. Dala, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
See note 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
See note 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People v. Camacho, 359 SCRA 200 (2001).
[48]
See note 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Villarmosa, 368 SCRA 63 (2001).
[50]
See note 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
People v. Gialolo, G.R. No. 152135, October 23, 2003.
[52]
People v. Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003.
[53]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
People v. Duban, G.R. No. 141217, September 26, 2003.
[55]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
Exhibit “K,” official receipt from Funeraria Angeles for P15,000 and
Exhibit
“K-1” receipt from Punzalan Memorial Homes and Chapel for P3,500.
[57]
People v. Mataro, 354 SCRA 27 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
People v. Duban, supra. |