THIRD DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140513
November 18, 2003
-versus-
BIENVENIDO DE LA
CRUZ Y MAHUSAY,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
On appeal is the
decision,[1]
dated August 23, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay,
Bukidnon,
Branch 8, in Criminal Case No. 8381-97, convicting herein appellant
Bienvenido
de la Cruz y Mahusay of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P50,000. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information
charging
appellant of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.
A. 7659, read:
That on or
about the 25th day of December, 1996, in the afternoon, at the road of
sitio Narolang, barangay Laligan, municipality of Valencia, province of
Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, with intent to kill by means of treachery and
evident premeditation, armed with a bolo, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab ALFREDO TIMGAS,
hitting
and inflicting upon his person the following wounds, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
- stabbed
(sic)
wound
which caused the
instantaneous
death of ALFREDO TIMGAS to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs
of ALFREDO TIMGAS in such amount as may be allowed by law.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Arraigned on April 22,
1997, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Thereafter,
trial
on the merits ensued. The facts, as
found
by the trial court, follow.chanrobles virtual law library
A cockfight was held
in the afternoon of December 25, 1996 in Sitio Narolang, Barangay
Laligan,
Valencia, Bukidnon. One of the gamecocks belonged to Alfredo Timgas and
its gaff was installed by his brother-in-law, herein appellant
Bienvenido
de la Cruz.[3]
Unknown to Alfredo, however, Bienvenido placed his bet on the gamecock
of his opponent. When Alfredo's gamecock won, he was told to collect
the
bet from Bienvenido. Feeling betrayed, Alfredo confronted his
double-dealing
brother-in-law and a fistfight ensued between them. The timely
intervention
of cooler heads pacified and prevented them from inflicting serious
injuries
on each other.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alfredo later decided
to play billiards near a basketball court. On the other hand,
Bienvenido
went home but returned shortly thereafter with a bolo and headed
towards
where Alfredo was. A friend warned Alfredo of danger as Bienvenido was
by then only about ten meters away. Alfredo tried to run away but, to
his
misfortune, he tripped on grass called mani-mani. Bienvenido caught up
with him and stabbed him near the right armpit, penetrating his
stomach.
Bienvenido then fled, leaving his bolo impaled in the victim's torso.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his defense, Bienvenido
claimed that he was requested by the victim's brother, Agustin, to
install
the gaff on the gamecock. After Alfredo won the cockfight, he invited
Bienvenido
to a drink but the latter refused. Alfredo got mad and started punching
him. Alfredo stopped only after Bienvenido fell to the ground. At that
instance, a certain Oning Dagayday approached him and advised him to
leave
immediately as Alfredo's brothers might get even with him.[6]
He noticed that Oning was holding a bloodied bolo and saw Alfredo
grasping
his blood-soaked armpit. He then hurried to the house of barangay
councilor
Ignacio de la Cruz who accompanied him to the barangay captain to seek
protection. From there, they proceeded to the police station to
surrender.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 23, 1999,
the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
read:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Bienvenido de la Cruz
GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of murder as qualified by
treachery
punishable under Republic Act No. 7659. Accordingly, he is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
his victim Alfredo Timgas the sum of P50,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[8]
In this appeal,
Bienvenido
de la Cruz raises the following assignments of error:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S SINCERITY AND GOOD FAITH IN
SURRENDERING HIMSELF TO KAGAWAD IGNACIO DE LA CRUZ AND THE POLICE
AUTHORITIES
WHICH ONLY SHOWS THAT HE IS REALLY INNOCENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
EVEN ASSUMING THAT
HE
IS INDEED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S ACT OF
UNCONDITIONALLY
SURRENDERING HIMSELF TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES ENTITLES HIM TO THE
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER UNDER ARTICLE 13(7) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, WHICH THE COURT A QUO ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO
APPRECIATE.
III
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE KILLING OF THE HEREIN VICTIM WAS ATTENDED
WITH
TREACHERY.[9]
Appellant contends
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the
trial
court overlooked the fact that he surrendered voluntarily to the
authorities,
hence, this mitigating circumstance should have been appreciated in his
favor; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the fact. that
he
did not escape clearly indicated his innocence for, had it been
otherwise,
he would not have been confident enough to surrender; and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) assuming that
he
was guilty of killing the victim, treachery was erroneously appreciated
by the trial court since prosecution witnesses Agustin Timgas and Ricky
Aldion testified that the victim was forewarned of the impending attack
and, in fact, had the chance to flee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We affirm appellant's
conviction
for killing Alfredo Timgas. His bare denial cannot prevail over the
positive
identification and eyewitness account of the crime by Agustin Timgas,
elder
brother of the victim, during the trial.[10]
Agustin testified on the subsequent events that transpired after
Alfredo
and Bienvenido had been pacified:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You said
Bienvenido de la Cruz got a bolo, did you see the bolo?
A Yes, I saw.
Q Now did he carry
the
bolo?
A The bolo was
inserted
on its scabbard and which was tied around his waist.
Q What did
Bienvenido
de la Cruz do next after having a bolo?
A He ran towards
the
basketball court.
Q And at the
basketball
court, what did he do?
A He unsheathed
his
bolo and thrust (sic) the bolo towards Alfredo who ran away.
Q When Alfredo ran
away,
what happened to him?
A Bienvenido de la
Cruz
chased him and because Alfredo's feet was (sic) trapped in grass called
"mani-mani" he fell down and when he was about to rise up Bienvenido
thrust
(sic) his bolo to the body of Alfredo. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Was Alfredo hit?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Where was he hit?
A Here. (witness
pointing
to his right armpit)
Q You said that it
exited
here, where?
A The point of the
bolo
exited here. (witness pointing to the left side of his stomach)
Q Will you please
demonstrate
to the Honorable Court what was the actual position of Alfredo Timgas
when
he was stabbed by Bienvenido de la Cruz?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A When he was
about
to rise up on this position. (witness demonstrating this position by
bending
his body, being supported by his two feet and his two hands, then his
right
foot was placed slightly behind his left foot)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After Bienvenido
de
la Cruz hit Alfredo Timgas hitting at (sic) his right armpit, the bolo
penetrated at (sic) his left side, what did Bienvenido de la Cruz next
do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He kicked
Alfredo
Timgas for three times and then ran towards Pagotpot.[11]
Agustin's clear and
detailed
testimony was fully corroborated by Ricky Aldion who testified that he
was among the persons who separated Alfredo and Bienvenido during
their.
initial scuffle. Thereafter, he accompanied Alfredo to the billiards
table
near a basketball court while the appellant went home. Subsequently,
the
appellant returned with a bolo. Ricky warned Alfredo that the armed
appellant
was approaching. Alfredo tried to run away but was pursued and killed
by
the appellant with his bolo.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The presence of these
two prosecution witnesses at the crime scene was never disputed by the
defense. In fact, appellant disclosed that it was Agustin who requested
him to tie the gaff on Alfredo's gamecock.[13]
The fact that Agustin happened to be the brother of the victim did not
diminish his credibility as an eyewitness. The defense failed to impute
any improper motive that could have impelled Agustin to testify falsely
against the appellant.[14]
We thus agree with the trial court that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The two
prosecution
witnesses rendered a trustworthy and a credible account of the criminal
incident. The fact that witness Agustin Timgas is the: older brother of
the victim did not, in any way, make his testimony less worthy of
belief.
As a matter of fact, the spouse of the accused is his sister, too.
Moreover,
the second prosecution witness, Ricky Aldion, convincingly corroborated
Agustin Timgas in all material points. Verily, with the clear and
positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the feeble disavowal of the
accused
scarcely merits consideration. To be sure, his version of the incident
cannot inspire belief. Why, for instance, would his brother-in-law, the
victim, pounce on him with hard blows simply because he refused to join
an invitation for a few glasses of alcoholic drinks? And why would any
brother of the victim want to seriously harm accused when he had done
nothing
wrong to anyone; in fact, it was him, the accused, who had been
pummeled
by the victim without any valid reason? The questions beg a creditable
answer.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, the
appellant
is liable only for homicide and not murder. The qualifying circumstance
of treachery cannot be appreciated against appellant because Alfredo
was
forewarned of the impending attack and he could have in fact escaped
had
he not stumbled. The testimony of Ricky Aldion on this point was
revealing:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: When
Bienvenido
came back, what happened next?
A: He was already
carrying
a bolo.
Q: What did he do
next?
A: When he was
already
near I said, "Fred, you watched (sic) out because Ben is coming."
Q: How far was
Bienvenido
to (sic) you and Alfredo when you told "Fred, watched (sic) out Ben is
coming?
A: About ten
meters,
more or less.
Q: And when you
told
Alfredo Timgas by saying "Fred, watch out Ben is coming." What did
Alfredo
do next if any?
A: When Bienvenido
was
already near Alfredo ran.[16]
Likewise, the
prosecution
failed to prove the existence of evident premeditation. For this
aggravating
circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be shown:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) the time
when the appellant decided to commit the crime;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) an overt act
showing
that the appellant clung to his determination to commit the crime; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) a sufficient lapse
of time that would allow the appellant to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the crime
was committed soon after the fisticuffs between appellant and Alfredo.
In fact, the two appeared to be in good terms prior to the
"double-cross"
by the appellant. Hence, it was evident that no appreciable time
elapsed
which afforded the appellant full opportunity to reflect and allow his
conscience to overcome his deadly resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender requires that:
(a) the
offender
has not and submit unconditionally to the authorities, either because
he
acknowledges his guilt or he wants to save the state the been actually
arrested;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the offender
surrenders
himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and
(c) the surrender is
voluntary.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The essence of
voluntary
surrender is spontaneity, the intent of the accused being to give
himself
up and submit unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges
his guilt or he wants to save the state the trouble of having to effect
his arrest.[19]
In the case at bar, the appellant's alleged surrender to the barangay
chairman
was not voluntary. On the contrary, it was solely motivated by
self-preservation
from what he feared was an imminent retaliation from the immediate
relatives
of Alfredo. Consequently, the same cannot be appreciated in his favor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The mother of the victim,
Caridad Timgas, testified that actual damages incurred amounted to
P18,000,
consisting of their expenses for the wake and funeral. The trial court,
however, correctly disregarded the same in the absence of competent
evidence
such as receipts to justify the award.[20]
However, the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity must be sustained
since
the same can be awarded without need of evidence other than appellant's
responsibility for the death of the victim.[21]
Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 should also be awarded on
account
of the grief and suffering of the victim's heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision of the trial court is MODIFIED. The appellant is hereby
convicted
of the crime of homicide only and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years
and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered
to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000
as
moral damages. Costs against appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Vivencio P. Estrada, Rollo, pp. 9–11.
[2]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Alfredo's sister is married to Bienvenido.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, October 28, 1998, pp. 4–8; 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 9–11; 27–28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, May 26, 1998, pp. 5–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 8–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 33–34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
See People vs. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95, 113 [2000]; People vs. Estorco,
331
SCRA 38, 52–53[2000]; People vs. Narvasa, 322 SCRA 675, 681 [2000].
[11]
TSN, October 28, 1998, pp. 9–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, May 26, 1999, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
See People vs. Casingal, 337 SCRA 100, 110 [2000]; People vs. Solis,
291
SCRA 529, 539 [1998].
[15]
Rollo, pp. 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, pp. 44–45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People vs. Gaviola, 327 SCRA 580, 586 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rene vs. Ignacio, 325 SCRA 375, 384 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Salas, 327 SCRA 319, 332–333 [2000].chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[20]
People vs. Ortega, Jr., 276 SCRA 166, 189-190 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|