SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
144383
January 16, 2004
-versus-
RESTY HORMINA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant Resty Hormina
assails the decision[1]
dated December 16, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
Branch
30, convicting him of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Ricardo Felipe P60,000.00 as
death indemnity, P20,700.00 for funeral expenses, and P100,000.00 in
moral
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In an Information dated
June 30, 1995, the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City charged Resty Hormina
and Kevin Lozada with murder allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the
13th day of June, 1995 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within
the
jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, armed with a gun, conspiring
and confederating between themselves, working together and helping one
another, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and criminally shoot, hit and wound Ricardo Felipe, with the
said gun with which the accused was provided at the time, thereby
causing
upon Ricardo Felipe bullet wound on vital part (sic) of his body, which
caused his death a few moments thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
When arraigned, both
Hormina and Lozada pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued
thereafter.cralaw:red
Four witnesses, namely:
Maritess Villanueva, who witnessed the incident; SPO1 William Garcera,
who investigated the incident; Dr. Tito Doromal, who conducted an
autopsy
on the victim's body; and Abelardo Felipe, the victim's father,
testified
for the prosecution.cralaw:red
MARITESS VILLANUEVA,
a fish vendor, testified that at a little past midnight of June 13,
1995,
she and her husband, Reynaldo Villanueva, were on their way to the
Iloilo
City fishing port,[3]
having just come from their house at dela Rama Street, Iloilo City.
They
were on board a trisikad (tricycle) driven by the victim, Ricardo
Felipe,
when suddenly Kevin Lozada blocked the trisikad. Immediately
thereafter,
somebody from behind the trisikad fired a gun at Ricardo.[4]
When Maritess turned her head to see the gunman, she saw Resty Hormina
holding a handgun standing one arm's length away from Ricardo. Ricardo
likewise turned his head and asked Hormina why he fired at him.[5]
Sensing Hormina's deadly resolve, Ricardo alighted from the driver's
seat
of the trisikad and jumped behind the cab to seek cover.[6]
But on seeing that it was a futile move, Ricardo, together with
Reynaldo,
jumped out of the trisikad and started to run away. Hormina chased
Ricardo
and shot him again.[7]
Ricardo fell as a result. Hormina and Lozada then fled the scene. A few
minutes thereafter, police officers arrived and conducted their
investigation
on the crime scene.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the trial, SPO1 WILLIAM
GARCERA, an investigator of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
assigned
to the General Luna Police Precinct 1 in Iloilo City, testified that he
went to the crime scene in the morning of the following day.[8]
He saw blood splattered in front of NENACO warehouse at dela Rama
Street.[9]
Garcera was looking into the matter when a certain Emmanuel Abada
approached
him. Abada claimed to have witnessed the incident, and volunteered to
give
his statement thereon.[10]
Together, they went to the police station in General Luna where Abada
executed
his affidavit.[11]
The following day, Maritess
Villanueva, accompanied by her husband, met with Garcera to give her
own
statement.[12]
Garcera declared that while the affidavits of Abada and Villanueva were
in English, he made sure that the two understood their contents by
translating
them into the Ilonggo dialect before they affixed their signatures.[13]
Garcera stressed that it was Abada and Villanueva who supplied the
names
of the accused because they knew them very well.[14]
Thereafter, Garcera prepared the criminal complaint for murder against
the two accused.[15]
DR. TITO DOROMAL, a
PNP medico-legal officer in Iloilo City, conducted the autopsy of the
victim.[16]
The medical findings were as follows:
HEAD AND NECK:
1) Contused-abrasion,
2 x 0.7 cm., in dia., right frontal region.cralaw:red
2) Contused-abrasion,
2.3 x 1.1 cm., in dia., left lateral frontal area.cralaw:red
3) Contusion, 3.5 x
2.8 cm., in dia., right zygomatic arch.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) Contused-abrasion,
2.6 x 1.7 cm., in dia., right anterior face.cralaw:red
5) Contused-abrasion,
4.8 x 3.1 cm., in dia., left anterior face.cralaw:red
THORACO-ABDOMINAL REGIONS/EXTREMITIES:
1) BULLET WOUND, oval
in shape, 1 x 0.4 cm., in dia., with abrasion collar around, 1.2 x 0.6
cm., in dia., postero-medial aspect, upper 3rd, left arm, 21 cms.,
above
the left elbow, penetrating muscle tissue, directed forward, upward,
medially
and the slug lodged underneath the muscle tissue, along the medial 3rd,
level of the 1st rib, left.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) BULLET WOUND, 0.6
x 0.7 cm., in dia., with abrasion collar around 1 x 0.9 cm., in dia.,
postero-lateral,
left thoracic wall, 12 cms., from the posterior median line, 117 cms.,
from the left heel, penetrating the thoracic cavity at the level of the
8th intercostal space, perforating thru & thru the lower lobe, left
lung, medial aspect, upper lobe, left lung, posterior pericardial sac,
penetrating the atrio-ventricular junction, left anterior pericardial
sac,
penetrating muscle tissue of the 2nd intercostal space, along
mid-clavicular
line, where the slug lodged, extracted and recovered.[17]
Dr. Doromal testified
that the contusions and abrasions on the victim's head and neck were
caused
by forcible contact with rough objects.[18]
The bullet wounds found on Ricardo's back indicated that the assailant
was at the left back portion of the victim.[19]
The absence of powder burns also revealed that the distance between the
assailant and the victim was more than 24 inches.[20]
Of the two bullet wounds, wound no. 2 was fatal because it caused the
hemorrhage,
which in turn, caused Ricardo's death.[21]
The victim's father,
ABELARDO FELIPE, testified that he was in Tuburan, Passi, attending to
his carabao, when he received the painful news of his son's death on
June
13, 1995.[22]
He declared that his son's death caused his family much pain and no
amount
of moral damages could compensate them for their loss.[23]
He claimed that Ricardo's funeral expenses totaled P20,700.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant RESTY HORMINA
testified on his own behalf as sole witness for the defense. At the
trial,
he denied the charges outright. He declared that on the afternoon of
June
13, 1995, he asked Kevin Lozada to help him build a bamboo bed.[25]
Kevin agreed and together, they were able to finish making the bamboo
bed
at about 7:00 in the evening.[26]
As a sign of gratitude, Hormina invited Lozada for a snack at Aldos
Restaurant.[27]
To reach said place, they flagged down the trisikad driven by Ricardo.
On board already were spouses Reynaldo and Maritess Villanueva as
passengers.
Ricardo allowed Hormina and Lozada to board the trisikad, but Reynaldo
protested.[28]
An argument ensued between Ricardo and the Villanuevas.[29]
To avoid trouble, Hormina said, he and Lozada decided to alight from
the
trisikad and walk towards the plaza.[30]
They went ahead of the trisikad. When they were already at a distance
from
the trisikad, they heard shots.[31]
They turned around and saw Ricardo falling to the ground and Reynaldo
running
away.[32]
Hormina and Lozada immediately took cover. When the commotion subsided,
people swarmed into the streets and the police arrived. Hormina and
Lozada
then went near Ricardo and saw him lifeless. Maritess was standing
alone
in the middle of the scene, while Reynaldo was nowhere to be found.[33]
The policemen arrested Hormina and Lozada. They were then brought to
the
police station, only to be released shortly afterwards. But according
to
Hormina, after Maritess gave her statement to the police, he and Lozada
were re-arrested at their respective houses.cralaw:red
On cross-examination,
Hormina denied that immediately before they boarded the trisikad, they
came from the birthday celebration of his brother Rodney Hormina.[34]
He said that before Lozada was arrested, the latter was beaten and
maltreated
by the police at the back of Maritess' house.[35]
During the beating, according to Hormina, Lozada was told by Maritess'
husband, Reynaldo, to point at Hormina as the perpetrator of the crime
instead of Reynaldo.[36]
On December 16, 1999,
the trial court rendered its decision finding herein appellant Resty
Hormina,
guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The charge against Kevin
Lozada
was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to show conspiracy. The
dispositive
portion of the trial court's decision reads:
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING,
the Court finds accused Resty Hormina guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for
the crime of Murder qualified by treachery. This court finds no other
qualifying
circumstance in the commission of said offense, hence, imposes upon the
accused Resty Hormina the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.cralaw:red
The accused Resty Hormina
is also directed to pay the sum of P60,000.00 as indemnity for the
death
of Ricardo Felipe; P20,700.00 as expenses for the burial of the victim
Ricardo Felipe; and P100,000.00 as moral damages, to the heirs of the
victim
Ricardo Felipe.cralaw:red
The Court finds that
no sufficient evidence had been presented by the prosecution to prove
that
the accused Kevin Lozada conspired with the accused Resty Hormina in
the
killing of Ricardo Felipe; hence, the charge for murder against him is
hereby DISMISSED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[37]
Hence, the instant appeal.cralaw:red
Before us appellant
avers that:
the trial court erred
in CONVICTING THE ACCUSED RESTY HORMINA OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE ON
INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE.[38]
Thus, the sole issue
before us is whether the prosecution's evidence suffices to sustain a
conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. The resolution of this issue hinges on the
credibility
of the prosecution eyewitness, Maritess Villanueva.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends that
witness Maritess Villanueva could not have possibly seen the gunman
because,
as she said in her testimony, the shot came from behind. He adds that
she
could not positively identify him as the gunman in open court after a
lapse
of two and a half (2-1/2) years. Appellant attributes an ill motive on
Maritess' part, prompting her to point at him as the assailant. This is
because, according to appellant, she wanted to shield her husband,
Reynaldo,
from possible prosecution for the killing of Ricardo. Appellant claims
that Reynaldo was extremely jealous of Ricardo, because Maritess was
ardently
attracted to Ricardo because of his build and countenance.cralaw:red
Appellee, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that Maritess could
identify
Hormina as the assailant because immediately before the first attack,
Maritess
caught a glimpse of him hiding behind a lamppost. Immediately after
Maritess
and her husband had passed Hormina, Maritess heard the gunshot. At an
arm's
length, Maritess could not have been mistaken as to the identity of the
gunman. Moreover, says the OSG, the trial court's findings on the
credibility
of witnesses may not now be disturbed on appeal as they are generally
binding
upon the appellate court.cralaw:red
The OSG also points
out that the killing was attended by treachery, which qualified the
offense
to murder. Based on the prosecution's evidence, the shots were fired
from
behind and Ricardo had no inkling of the sinister plot against him.
Unaware
of impending danger, Ricardo was not in the condition to defend
himself,
thereby ensuring that the act of killing was free from any risk
whatsoever
to the assailant.cralaw:red
After carefully sifting
the evidence on record in this case, we see no reason to depart from
the
findings of the trial court, particularly on the credibility of
Maritess
Villanueva's testimony. It bears stressing at this point, that findings
of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown
that
it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance, which, if
considered,
might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial
judge,
having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during trial, is in a better position to decide in
particular the question of credibility.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's claim that
Maritess did not actually see who fired the shots is a negative
assertion.
It is outweighed by the positive and candid declaration of the witness
under oath. According to her, the first shot came from behind the
trisikad.
Upon hearing it, as a natural reaction to a stimulus, Maritess
immediately
turned her head to where the sound came from. She saw appellant Hormina
holding a handgun, an arm's length away from the victim. She also
categorically
testified that she saw appellant chase the victim and then shoot him to
death. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is
whether or not such is in conformity with human knowledge and
consistent
with the experience of mankind.[40]
We find it more in accord with human experience that the chasing and
the
second shooting were mere continuation of the first attack in order to
accomplish the assassin's determination to kill. Where conditions of
visibility
are favorable and the eyewitness' assertion as to the identity of the
assailant
is not tainted with bias, said assertion as to the identity of the
malefactor
can very well be accepted.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant next contends
that after the lapse of two and a half years, Maritess could no longer
positively identify him in open court as the gunman. The contention is
devoid of sufficient basis. On record, Maritess positively identified
him
as Ricardo's assailant. She knew appellant very well as they lived in
the
same neighborhood. Appellant does not adduce any reason why Maritess'
memory
should suddenly fail her in court. Hence, his bare contention must fail.cralaw:red
In this appeal, we note
with disfavor the sudden change in the theory of appellant's defense.
From
mere denial during the trial, he now imputes the authorship of the
fatal
shooting to Maritess' husband, Reynaldo. Belatedly, he now claims that
Reynaldo allegedly felt jealous of the victim, Ricardo, because of the
extraordinary attention showered by Maritess upon him. Thus, according
to appellant now, Ricardo had set him up as a fall guy for Ricardo's
death.
This contention, in our view, is purely speculative. The records fail
to
show any concrete evidence that would buttress appellant's change in
theory.
Appellant's testimony during the trial was that both Maritess and
Reynaldo
got mad at Ricardo for taking in two more passengers. Nothing was said
about jealousy at all. We find the twist now in appellant's defense to
be nothing but a futile effort to exculpate himself. After weighing the
conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, we agree with
the trial court's conclusion, that the prosecution's version is more in
accord with human experience, hence credible.[42]
But was the offense
committed murder or only homicide?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court, in
convicting appellant of murder, ruled that the killing was qualified by
treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes
against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof
which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party
might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected, and
unforeseen
attack on the person of the victim, without the slightest provocation
on
the part of the latter.[43]
In this case, when Ricardo Felipe was shot, he did not have the
faintest
idea that he was going to be attacked. Also, before appellant attacked
him, appellant was hiding behind the lamppost and waiting for the
trisikad
to pass by. This indicates that appellant devised a way to effectively
execute the attack without risk to himself. Hence, the killing was
attended
by treachery, qualifying the offense to murder.cralaw:red
The penalty for the
crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death.[44]
The two penalties being both indivisible, and there being neither
mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance in this case, the lesser of the two
penalties,
which is reclusion perpetua, should be applied pursuant to the second
paragraph
of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Modification of the
award of damages, however, is in order. In line with current
jurisprudence,
the amount of P60,000 as civil indemnity is reduced to only P50,000.[46]
Moral damages of P100,000 ought likewise to be reduced to P50,000, in
view
of the purpose for making such award, which is to compensate the heirs
of the victim for injuries suffered and not to enrich them.[47]
The claim for actual damages in the amount of P20,700, being supported
by receipts, is well taken.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 30, in Criminal Case
No. 45060 finding appellant, RESTY HORMINA, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, is
AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of the
victim, Ricardo Felipe, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00
as moral damages, and P20,700.00 as actual damages. Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 17-28.
[2]
Records, p. 1.
[3]
TSN, 12 December 1997, pp. 3-4.
[4]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 6 & 7.
[6]
Id. at 9.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
TSN, 9 October 1997, pp. 2 & 10.
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Abada, however, was not presented as a witness for the State for
reasons
known only to the prosecution.
[12]
TSN, 9 October 1997, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 11 & 12.
[15]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, 18 April 1997, pp. 2-3.
[17]
Records, p. 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 18 April 1997, p. 3.
[19]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Id. at 8-9.
[22]
TSN, 3 July 1998, pp. 3 - 4.
[23]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at 5.
[25]
TSN, 21 January 1999, p. 9.
[26]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 4.
[29]
Id. at 5.
[30]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Ibid.
[32]
Id. at 6.
[33]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id. at 8.
[35]
Id. at 24-25.
[36]
Id. at 26.
[37]
Rollo, p. 28.
[38]
Id. at 41.
[39]
People v. Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 753, 766.
[40]
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, 26 August 1999, 313 SCRA 189,
202-203.
[41]
People v. Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, 4 September 2001, 364 SCRA 425, 430.
[42]
See People v. Enfectana, G.R. No. 132028, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 359,
368.
[43]
People v. Coca Jr., G.R. No. 133739, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 508, 519.
[44]
ART. 248, revised penal code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - …
In
all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible
penalties the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.
When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[46]
People v. Saure, G.R. No. 135848, 12 March 2002, 379 SCRA 128, 143;
People
v. Gelin, G.R. No. 135693, 1 April 2002, 379 SCRA 717, 726; People v.
Godoy,
G.R. No. 140545, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 680, 692.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People v. Obosa, G.R No. 129688, 2 April 2002, 380 SCRA 22, 35. |