ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250167. October 13, 2021.]
TRINIO 1 EVANGELISTA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 October 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250167 (TrinioEvangelista v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing the Decision 3 dated May 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39900 which affirmed the Decision dated November 9, 2016 of Branch 93, Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pedro, Laguna finding Trinio Evangelista (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249, 4 in relation to Article 6 5 of the Revised Penal Code 6 (RPC).
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from an Information 7 filed before the RTC charging petitioner and his wife Melba Evangelista (Melba) with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. The accusatory portion of the Information 8 states:
That on or about August 1, 2003, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and strike one EDUARDO GALLETO y SANTORRAMANA with the use of a [sic] empty bottle, who as a result thereof sustained injuries in his head and has undergone repair of corneo-scleral laceration at his left eye, accused performing the acts of execution which would produce the felony of HOMICIDE as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes of [sic] independent of his will, that is the victim, was ably and medically attended, to his damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
When arraigned, petitioner and Melba pleaded not guilty. 10
Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Eduardo G. Santarromana 11 (victim); (2) Percival Villafuerte (Percival); and (3) Dr. Antonio Rebosa (Dr. Rebosa). 12
The prosecution established that on August 1, 2003, at around 6:30 p.m., the victim was at the garage of his house in No. 35 Sto. Niño Street, Pacita 2, San Pedro, Laguna when petitioner shouted at him, "Putangina mo." Immediately, petitioner rushed towards the victim, struck him on the head using a bottle, and then used the shards of the broken bottle to stab him in his left eye and in both ears. In no time, petitioner left the scene. Because of the injuries, the victim lost consciousness. Percival, who witnessed the incident, brought the victim inside the latter's house. Thereafter, they rushed the victim to the Divine Mercy Hospital. Later, they transferred him to Perpetual Help Hospital for medical treatment. 13 CAIHTE
Dr. Rebosa, the attending physician, issued a Medico-Legal Report stating: (1) that the victim suffered corneoscleral laceration on his left eye, or a cut on the side and back eyeball which extended to the left orbital area; 14 (2) that the injuries could have been caused by a broken bottle or by broken glass or anything that could be poked into the eye; (3) that the injury sustained by the victim affected his vision; and (4) that none of the injuries suffered by the victim is considered mortal and could have caused his immediate death. 15
In defense, petitioner denied the allegations against him.
The defense presented the following witnesses: (1) petitioner; (2) Melba, his wife and co-accused; (3) his sister Rhodora Mora (Rhodora); and (4) Rowel Villaluz (Rowel). 16
The defense asserted that on August 1, 2013, at around 6:30 p.m., petitioner, Rowel, and Rhodora, heard the sound of a glass shattering outside petitioner's house. Petitioner went to the terrace of his house and noticed that there were shards of glass on the ground. He then went back inside his house. While petitioner was feeding his father-in-law in the kitchen, he saw the victim throw a bottle at his house. 17 This prompted him to go outside the house. The victim again threw two bottles at petitioner's house. Petitioner told the victim, "Ano ba yan, sa tuwingmaglalasing ka,ako lagi and napagdidiskitahan mo." 18 The victim made no reply. When the victim was on his way home, he stumbled and fell on the ground. 19
The RTC Ruling
In the Decision dated November 9, 2016, the RTC convicted petitioner of Attempted Homicide but acquitted Melba based on reasonable doubt. 20 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) Finding Trinio [sic] Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted homicide, hereby sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty [sic] four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay actual damages in the amount of P103,327.81 and moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00.
2) Acquitting accused Melba Evangelista of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED. 21
Undaunted, petitioner appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision, 22 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, but modified the actual damages awarded. It disposed of the case as follows:
We MODIFY the Decision dated 09 November 2016, issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal Case No. 5133-SPL, as follows:
1. We find the appellant Trinio Evangelista GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide, and sentence him to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor (as minimum), to four years and two months of prision correccional (as maximum).
2. We order appellant Trinio Evangelista to pay the victim Eduardo G. Santarromana the following sums: a) Php50,835.71 as actual damages; b) Php20,000.00 as moral damages. All monetary awards are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision, until the award is fully satisfied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis omitted).
According to the CA: (1) all the elements of the crime of Attempted Homicide were present; 24 (2) the inconsistencies in the statements of the victim and Percival did not affect their credibility as they pertained to collateral or trivial matters; (3) the inconsistencies showed that the witnesses did not lie and were not coached; 25 and (4) the expenses evidenced by official receipts amounted only to P50,835.71. 26
The CA sustained the penalty imposed by the RTC, but modified the amount of actual damages. 27
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition. 28
Petitioner avers that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are incredible and should not have been given weight and credence by the RTC. He insists that: (1) the victim was drunk at the time of the incident, and thus, could not perfectly recall what happened at a certain time and place; 29 (2) the victim's statement that he was inside the garage of his house when the incident happened was contradicted by Percival's testimony that the victim was outside of his house; 30 (3) the prosecution witness, Percival, is a close friend of the victim; 31 and (4) the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 32
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Comment 33 on March 16, 2020. It asserted that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Attempted Homicide and establish petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 34 It likewise contended that the close relationship of a witness to the victim does not necessarily mean that the former is biased, as it is more in accord with human nature for a friend to have more interest in telling the truth in the interest of bringing the real culprits to justice. 35 As to petitioner's argument that the victim was drunk and would not have been able to totally recall what happened during that time, the OSG pointed out that the defense presented no evidence to show that the victim suffered from such level of intoxication as to impair his facility and disable him from properly identifying petitioner. 36 Finally, the OSG emphasized that the incident was witnessed by Percival, who positively identified petitioner as the assailant. 37
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether petitioner's guilt for Attempted Homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court is convinced that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Court gives high respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of a witness because the trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness to determine if there is indeed truth to his or her testimony in the witness stand. 38 The RTC's findings as to the credibility of prosecution witnesses assume greater weight when they are affirmed by the CA. 39
In the case, the Court affirms the findings of the RTC, which were sustained by the CA, as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court finds no significant matters which may have been overlooked by the RTC and the CA.
Both the victim and Percival positively identified petitioner as the assailant. The victim was straightforward in testifying that it was petitioner who struck him with a bottle in the head and stabbed his left eye and both ears with the broken bottle. The statements were corroborated by Percival who witnessed the incident. Percival testified that he was selling peanut butter at the house of the victim when he saw petitioner hit the victim in the head and left eye using a bottle. He also testified that he was the one who helped the victim get inside the house and later brought him to the hospital. In the absence of evidence to show ill motive on the part of Percival to testify falsely against petitioner or pervert the truth, it is presumed that he is not so actuated and his testimony is thus entitled to full faith and credit. 40
The testimonies of the victim and Percival are clear, straightforward, and convincing. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical and without any ill motive on the part of the witness prevails over the denial of the accused which is negative and self-serving. 41 Here, the Court finds that the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime is entitled greater weight than the latter's self-serving denial.
Moreover, the inconsistencies cited by petitioner between the statements of the victim and Percival (i.e., whether the victim was inside the garage in his house when the incident happened) are mere trivial matters which have no bearing on the elements of the crime. Thus, they have no substantial effect on the nature of the crime committed. On the contrary, it is well settled that slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the "testimony was not rehearsed." 42 After a careful review of the records, the Court sustains the findings of the CA that there were no inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies regarding the principal occurrence of the crime and the positive identification of petitioner as the person who struck the victim on the head with a bottle and stabbed the latter's left eye and ears using a broken bottle. HEITAD
As to petitioner's assertion that the victim's testimony should not be given credence because he was intoxicated when the incident happened, the Court finds the claim baseless.
Petitioner merely forwarded a bare allegation without presenting any evidence that the victim "suffered from such a level of intoxication as to impair his facility and disable him from properly identifying the [petitioner as the culprit]." 43 Jurisprudence provides that even if the victim was found positive for alcoholic breath, this fact does not necessarily prevent him from making a positive identification of his attackers, especially if the level of intoxication was not shown to impair his faculties. 44
Likewise, the Court sustains the OSG's contention that the close relationship of Percival with the victim does not affect the former's testimony. In People v. Piedad, 45 the Court ruled that relationship per se of a witness and the victim does not necessarily mean that the former is biased. In the absence of evidence of ill motive on the part of Percival in testifying against petitioner, it is presumed that he was more interested in telling the truth and that he wanted to bring the real culprits to justice, rather than send an innocent man to rot in prison. 46
Furthermore, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of Attempted Homicide. The RTC correctly found petitioner guilty of Attempted Homicide instead of Frustrated Homicide as charged in the Information.
Under Article 249 of the RPC, 47 the following are the essential elements of the crime of Homicide: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder or by that of parricide or infanticide. 48
On the other hand, the elements of Frustrated Homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in the assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, is present. 49
Article 6 of the RPC states that there is an attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
The distinction between a frustrated and attempted felony are as follows:
(i) In a frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in an attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.
(ii) In a frustrated felony, the reason for the nonaccomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in an attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance. 50
In the case, the factual evidence on record established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner, with intent to kill, hit the victim with a bottle on his head; and that when the bottle broke, he used it in stabbing the victim in the latter's left eye. Fortunately for the victim, he was immediately rushed to the hospital for medical treatment. Also, the wounds suffered by him were not fatal, according to the Medico-Legal Report and the testimony of Dr. Rebosa. Thus, the lower courts correctly ruled that all of the elements of Attempted Homicide were present.
As to the penalty, the RTC correctly imposed the indeterminate sentence of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC is reclusion temporal. Under Article 51 of the RPC, the penalty to be imposed for an attempted felony shall be lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. The penalty of two degrees lower than reclusion temporal is prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken in view of the attending circumstances that could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC and the minimum term shall be within the range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC.
In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision correccional, or two (2) years and four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the penalty one degree lower than prision correccional, which is arresto mayor, or one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC, which is four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, is within the range prescribed by the RPC in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. ATICcS
With regard to the monetary awards, the Court modifies them. The Court affirms the awards imposed by the CA as to: (1) actual damages in the amount of P50,835.71, as it is the only amount supported by official receipts; and (2) moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00. However, to conform with People v. Jugueta, 51 the Court orders petitioner to pay the victim an additional P20,000.00 as civil indemnity. 52 All monetary awards shall earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39900 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the monetary awards. Petitioner Trinio Evangelista is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay the victim Eduardo Galleto y Santarromana P50,835.71 as actual damages, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P20,000.00 as moral damages. All monetary awards shall earn an interest rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE,S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO,J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as "Trino" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-35.
3.Id. at 37-49; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
4. Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
5. Art. 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. — Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
6. See CA Decision, id. at 37.
7. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 38.
8. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
9. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
10.Id.
11. Although the Information stated the victim's name as "Eduardo Galleto y Santorramana," the pleadings and the CA Decision stated his name as "Eduardo G. Santarromana." This is also spelled as "Santaromana" in some parts of the rollo.
12.Rollo, p. 38.
13.Id. at 39.
14.Id. at 8, citing the RTC Decision.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 40.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 40-41.
20. As culled from CA Decision, id. at 41.
21. As culled from CA Decision, id.
22.Id. at 37-49.
23.Id. at 48.
24.Id. at 44-45.
25.Id. at 46.
26.Id. at 47.
27.Id. at 48.
28.Id. at 3-35.
29.Id. at 18-21.
30.Id. at 21-23.
31.Id. at 16-18.
32.Id. at 25-33.
33.Id. at 78-92.
34.Id. at 83-84.
35.Id. at 85.
36.Id. at 85-86.
37.Id. at 86.
38.People v. Catig, G.R. No. 225729, March 11, 2020.
39.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209, February 12, 2020.
40.People v. Lagrita, G.R. No. 233194, September 14, 2020.
41.People v. Balais, 587 Phil. 333, 345 (2008).
42.Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25, 38 (2014).
43.Rollo, pp. 85-86.
44.People v. Mapalo, 543 Phil. 651, 674 (2007).
45. 441 Phil. 818 (2002).
46.Id. at 834.
47. Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
48.SPO1 Nerpio v. People, 555 Phil. 87, 94 (2007).
49.People v. Aquino, 829 Phil. 477, 488 (2018).
50.Quijano v. People, G.R. No. 202151, February 10, 2021.
51. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
52.Id. at 852.