March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 177292 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESSIE GARBIDA y FOSTER, Accused-Appellant.
Jessie Garbida y Foster was charged with and tried for murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, in Irosin, Sorsogon arising from the fatal shooting with a spear gun of Santos Flor (victim) on November 23, 1996, the information charging him as follows:
That on the 23rd day of November, 1996 at about 9:30 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay Bon-ot Daco, Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a spear-gun locally known as 'Pana-Kitay-Pone", through treachery or "alevosia" and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot one Santos Flor y Jimenez with the use of said spear-gun, hitting and inflicting upon him mortal wound which directly caused his death shortly thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
The Prosecution evidence shows that around 9:30 pm of November 23, 1996, the victim and his wife Jean were walking towards home in Barangay Bon-ot Daco, Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon; that as they passed the house of the accused, the victim was suddenly shot with an arrow; that Jean saw what befell her husband because she was about two and a half meters behind him; that Jean spotted the accused in an open window of his house, still clutching a spear gun; that Jean cried for help, and her cries caught the attention of Eugenio Millagracia, who happened to be at a nearby waiting shed just in front of his own house, who thus went towards the couple; that as he approached the couple, Millagracia heard the victim plead: Please help me, I was shot by arrow of Jessie; that Millagracia and Jean assisted the victim to get up and to walk a short distance, but the victim soon collapsed and expired; and that Millagracia also saw the accused jump off the window, but he could not stop him because he was then aiding the victim.
According to the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy, the victim sustained a 0.5 cm puncture wound in the right chest, going to the heart and the left lung, and died from hypovolemic shock, cardiac tamponade, and severe hemothorax due to loss of four liters of blood. The medico-legal officer opined that the victim's loss of blood was too much because the normal human body had only five liters of blood.[2]
In his defense, the accused claimed that he had been preparing his fishing paraphernalia on the night of the incident when the victim had suddenly thrown stones at his parents' house, and had dared him and his father, Estelito Garbida, to come out of their house so that he could kill them both; that his father had naturally inquired why the victim had thrown stones at their house, but the victim had then passed through the window and suddenly attacked his father, hacking him on the left side of his chin; that seeing the victim climb up the window, the accused had shot the victim with his spear gun, hitting the victim who had then fallen down; that the accused had then asked his father to leave the place, but his father did not want to leave because he had done nothing wrong; and that the accused himself had then left towards the coconut plantation to hide until the next day.[3]
According to Estelito, the victim was drunk when he threw stones at their house. His son, who was then sitting beside him, shot the victim with his spear gun because the victim attacked him (Estelito). Thereafter, his son urged him to leave but he refused because he had not done anything wrong. A few minutes after the victim had left their house, Roger and Tarat Thompson arrived, and struck him using the victim's bolo (which the victim had earlier used against him), wounding him in his left and right wrists, his finger and the inner portion of both his hands.[4]
Dr. Andrew de Castro, a medico-legal officer, declared that Estelito suffered injuries in his right mandible, hacking wounds on his wrists, elbow and hand. Dr. de Castro, although admitting, not to have examined Estelito, attested that the medical certificate was based on the hospital records, which could no longer be located.[5]
On October 15, 2011, the RTC convicted the accused of murder, viz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JESSIE GARB1DA having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of deceased SANTOS FLOR in the amount of P10,000.00 as nominal damage; P50,000.00 as indemnity for his DEATH; another P50,000.00 as moral damage and to pay the costs. The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The RTC observed that with the accused having admitted the killing in defense of his father, the burden shifted to him to establish and prove the elements of defense of a relative; that the accused did not discharge his burden, because his and his father's testimonies were tailored to make it appear that the accused had only acted in defense of a relative; that their testimonies were replete with glaring inconsistencies, particularly the relative positions of the accused, his father and the victim before, during, and after the supposed hacking and shooting incident;[7] that the accused and his father had a tendency to hide the truth, particularly when the public prosecutor asked about a murder charge previously filed against the accused for the killing of his own brother.[8]
In contrast, the RTC considered the testimony of Jean Flor to be "more in consonance with the truth and the natural experience of man."[9] It found that the substance of her testimony remained uncontroverted by the evidence of the accused, aside from being corroborated by the testimony of Millagracia; that the physical and documentary evidence bolstered the positive testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses; that Jean proved that the injuries suffered by Estelito were inflicted by her brothers, Roger and Tarat Thompson, in retaliation against Estelito and the accused after she had informed her brothers of the spearing of her husband; that the victim was not involved in the assault against Estelito; and that treachery attended the killing, because the "victim was shot by a spear gun while negotiating an alley and passing by the window of the house of ... Garbida- UNAWARE AND UNSUSPECTING therefore of what will happen to him."[10]
The accused appealed his conviction, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction on October 12, 2006, modifying only the award of damages,[11] to wit:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Irosin, Sorsogon, Branch 55, in Criminal Case No. 1211, finding appellant Jessie Garbida y Foster guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, is hereby AFFIRMED.
The civil aspect of the case is MODIFIED to read: The award of exemplary damages in the amount of Php 25,000.00 is, likewise, awarded to the legal heirs of Santos Flor. We affirm in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.[12]
We affirm.
To start with, we reiterate that the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions on such finding are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This even becomes more true when the CA as the appellate court has affirmed such finding, rendering the finding generally conclusive on the Court.[13] The appellant must then give the strongest reasons and justifications to warrant the overturning of the finding. Here, however, the accused did not do so, thereby forfeiting his last chance to have us undo the finding of the RTC.
Secondly, the accused admitted killing the victim by invoking defense of a relative. It then became incumbent upon him, to avoid criminal liability, to establish the justifying circumstance by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.[14] To that end, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the Prosecution, considering that the evidence of the Prosecution, albeit weak, would not be disbelieved due to the accused having himself admitted the killing.
Did the accused present clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence of the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative?
Defense of a relative, to be appreciated, must rest on the concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (c) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein. Of these requisites, unlawful aggression was the condition sine qua non, for no legitimate defense was possible without it. For unlawful aggression to be actually committed, it was necessary that an attack or material aggression, or a plainly offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury should have been made. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude did not suffice to justify the commission of an act that was per se punishable, and thus allow a claim of exemption from liability on the ground that the act was committed in self-defense or in defense of a relative.[15]
The accused adduced no credible proof of the victim's unlawful aggression. Although he tried hard to show that the victim had aggressively acted against his father prior to the fatal shot from his spear gun by shouting, throwing stones at their house, challenging him and his father to a fight, and hacking his father, the State's witnesses not only firmly denied that such a commotion had taken place prior to the shooting of the victim, but also showed that the wounding of Estelito had been committed by Jean's brothers (Roger and Tarat Thompson) in retaliation of the earlier spearing of their brother-in-law.
Thirdly, both the CA and the RTC noted the conflicting recollections tendered by the accused and his father on their relative positions before, during and after the shooting incident. The RTC observed that Estelito's assertion that the victim had come from outside the house through the window to hack Estelito, and that the accused had then shot the spear gun while the victim had been in that position varied from the accused's declaration that the victim had been still coming through the window when he fired the spear gun.[16] The accused further said that Estelito had been near the kitchen and away from the window when he shot the victim, but Estelito contradicted him by saying that his son had instead sat beside him near the window when he shot the victim.[17] The contradictions were impossible to reconcile. Thus, the CA could not avoid observing that the accused and Estelito thereby exhibited their design to tailor-fit their testimonies to the plea of defense of a relative,[18] which evinced their prevarication of their version. The CA further observed that:
Another incredulous narration by the defense witnesses is their stories as to how the throwing of stones led to the opening of the window and door to have given the victim the opportunity to hack appellant's father and climb into the window; as to how appellant escaped by jumping through the window when he could simply exit through the door; as to how appellant was able to run and disappear into the plantation without risk of being caught despite his physical condition.[19]
It appears, lastly, that the accused concealed himself behind the window, from where he fired his spear gun at the victim. Such actuation manifested the design to surprise the victim and to ensure the successful execution of his plan to kill the latter.[20] That the spearing of the victim was sudden, lethal and unexpected ensured that the victim would be unable to defend himself, thereby establishing the attendance of treachery.[21]
The Court modifies the award of exemplary damages, from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[22]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 12, 2006, with the sole MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000,00 to P30,000.00. The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Records, p. 1.[2] Id., p. 179.
[3] Id., p. 180.
[4] Id., p. 179.
[5] Id., p. 180.
[6] Records, p. 189.
[7] Id., pp. 184-185.
[8] Id., p. 185.
[9] Id., p. 186.
[10] Id., p. 188.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 132-152.
[12] Id., p. 151.
[13] People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, March 27, 2008, 549 SCRA 541, 559-560.
[14] Cabuslay v. People, G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 211, 256-257.
[15] Balunueco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 76, 80.
[16] Records, p. 185.
[17] Id.
[18] Rollo, p. 15.
[19] Id.
[20] CA rollo, pp. 149-50.
[21] Ingal v. People, G.R. No. 173282, March 04, 2008, 547 SCRA 632, 654.
[22] People v. Sally, G.R. No. 191254, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 295, 306; People v. Sanchez y Galera, G.R. No. 188610, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 548, 569; People v. Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 485, 501.