THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222434. April 13, 2016.]
CONRADO MARTINEZ, JR. ALIAS "JUN-JUN", petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222434 (Conrado Martinez, Jr. alias "Jun-Jun" v. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES petitioner's Ex-Parte Manifestation/Compliance dated February 26, 2016 relative to Resolution of February 24, 2016, submitting a soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari, its annexes and an attached declaration.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 02280 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Calbayog City's conviction of Conrado Martinez, Jr. alias "Jun-Jun" (Conrado) for the crime of Homicide for the killing of his half-brother, Galo Rowe Martinez alias "Boyet" (Galo).
The Information against Conrado reads:
That on or about the 10th day of February, 1997, at about 8:30 o'clock in the morning, at Barangay Tagnao, Municipality of Gandara, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberated (sic) intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one GALO ROWE MARTINEZ alias "BOYET" with the use of [a] firearm (revolver), which the accused conveniently provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on his body, which caused the untimely death of said Galo Rowe Martinez alias "Boyet." 2
At arraignment, Conrado pleaded not guilty and asserted the justifying circumstance of defense of self.
The prosecution's evidence included the testimony of the victim's wife, Jackelyn Martinez (Jackelyn). Jackelyn testified that Conrado, while on board a jeepney traversing the National Highway in Calbayog City, and shouted "You let Boyet approach me!" at her. Conrado alighted on the other side of the road between two waiting sheds near the Tagnao Bridge where the victim Galo was. Upon alighting the jeepney, Conrado, wearing a bullet-proof vest and a camouflage shirt, pulled a gun from his body and immediately fired at Galo hitting the latter's right side of the body to the line of the navel. Galo fell on the street, Conrado went nearer and motioned to fire again at Galo. At this point, Jackelyn ran to the scene and attempted to hold back Conrado and prevent him from shooting her husband.
Jackelyn further testified that by the time the second shot was fired, Galo was already on the pavement, slumped to his right side, his one hand on top of a small stone. Conrado hovered over Galo, stooped down and pointed the muzzle of the gun, 48 inches away from Galo. Jackelyn pled with Conrado to stop, but the latter then poked the gun at Jackelyn's chest and threatened to likewise shoot her. When Conrado did not fire the gun, Jackelyn pushed him aside, plaintively crying for Conrado to not shoot his brother, Galo. Thereafter, Conrado fled, carrying his gun, and ran towards the other end of the bridge. As soon as Conrado fled, Jackelyn brought Galo to the Gandara District Hospital where despite several attempts to revive him, Galo died.
For his defense, Conrado asserted that his killing of Galo was made in self-defense, i.e., when he alighted from the jeepney, Galo rushed toward him in attack and was actually brandishing a gun. Conrado claimed to have wrested the gun from Galo, and in the struggle accidentally pulled the trigger, hitting Galo. As the two purportedly lay supine on the ground, Galo, larger built than Conrado, inadvertently pinned the latter. Conrado then detached the gun from Galo's hand, pushed Galo's body aside and fled in the direction of Gandara. Conrado rode a jeepney to Gandara, alighted when he saw a police officer, and forthwith surrendered to Chief of Police, Police Inspector Arnulfo Baronggo (P/Insp. Baronggo). AcICHD
Conrado's claim of voluntarily surrendering to Chief of Police Baronggo was refuted by prosecution witness Senior Police Officer 3 Benedicto Cabañas (SPO3 Cabañas) who testified that at the time of the incident, he was at his house in Barangay Taganao and was told that someone had been shot. Proceeding to the scene of the crime, he saw Galo lying on the street and noticed Conrado across the bridge about to ride a tricycle. He ran back to his house to get his motorcycle and pursued Conrado towards Gandara.
Failing to catch up with the jeepney boarded by Conrado, SPO3 Cabanas proceeded to the Gandara Police Station and reported the matter to their Chief of Police P/Insp. Baronggo. Thereafter, the team went to look for Conrado and found him about to board a jeep heading to Catbalogan. P/Insp. Baronggo then brought Conrado to the Police Station for questioning where Conrado's bullet-proof vest and camouflage shirt were removed for evidence. No gun was recovered from Conrado.
The prosecution likewise presented the Autopsy and Medical Reports which stated Galo's cause of death was from multiple gunshot wounds and severe hemorrhage: the gunshot wound approximately 1 cm diameter as wound of entry.
As previously adverted to, Conrado was charged with homicide for the death of his brother Galo before the lower court. Note that the Information against Conrado did not allege that Galo was his half-brother.
After inverted trial because of Conrado's claim of defense of self, the RTC found Conrado guilty, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this [c]ourt finds CONRADO MARTINEZ, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide charged against him, and hereby sentences him to suffer and Indeterminate Penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as the minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum and to pay the costs.
Further, this [c]ourt directs the accused to pay the heirs of Galo Rowe Martinez Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php20,000.00 as temperate damages. 3
A few months after the ruling of the trial court, Jackelyn recanted her testimony claiming that she testified thus because she wanted revenge against Conrado for accidentally shooting her husband.
On appeal however, despite the recantation of Jackelyn, the appellate court affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC, increasing the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeals ruled that in invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, Conrado admits to the criminal act of killing Galo, but asserts unlawful aggression on the latter's part. However, contrary to Conrado's claim, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the element of unlawful aggression from the victim Galo was absent, which primary element is the pith in the claim of self-defense. The appellate court held that absent unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be invoked.
Moreover, the appellate court noted that by the time Conrado fired the second shot, Conrado, by his own narration, had effectively taken out another indispensable element of self-defense, i.e., reasonable necessity of the means employed. Since Conrado already injured Galo with the initial shot, albeit accidentally inflicted, the firing of a second shot was not necessary or reasonable in order to repel the supposed threat from Galo.
The lower courts likewise noted that Conrado failed to explain and refute why he was wearing a bullet proof vest and a camouflage shirt at the time of the incident. The appellate court further noted that the location of the wounds on Galo's body were consistent with the account in Jackelyn's testimony and which physical evidence were corroborated by Dr. Reynaldo Roldan, one of the doctors who prepared the Autopsy Report.
As for Conrado's invocation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the appellate court disregarded such where Conrado's actions failed to show spontaneity and did not evince that he wished to submit himself to the authorities and save them trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. The appellate court sustained the prosecution's evidence that the police were in Hot Pursuit of Conrado which resulted in the latter's apprehension.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari filed by Conrado assailing the appellate court's refusal to sustain his claims of: (1) the justifying circumstance of self-defense; and (2) the privileged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
As the lower courts have done, we also deny Conrado's claim of self-defense in the killing of his half-brother, Galo. Their uniform factual finding that unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not present, is final and conclusive especially since it is supported by the evidence. 4 Thus, correctly, the justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be validly invoked.
Absent unlawful aggression, an indispensable element of self-defense, Conrado's admission that he indeed shot Galo resulting in Galo's subsequent death, stands.
Indeed, from the testimony of Jackelyn, it was Conrado who was the aggressor, even shouting at her from the other side of the bridge before getting off to where Galo was at, wearing a bullet-proof vest and camouflage shirt, carrying a gun and rushing towards Galo. There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. 5
The testimony of Conrado that Galo was the one rushing towards him and brandishing a gun is inconsistent with the evidence on record that Conrado fired a second shot at Galo who had already fallen to the ground. Contrary to Conrado's claim and as the lower courts have found and ruled, even assuming that Galo appeared to be on the attack when he supposedly rushed to Conrado, Conrado need not have fired the second shot or shoot in close range as shown in the Autopsy Report. We reiterate that Conrado was unable to explain why he was wearing a bullet proof vest and a camouflage shirt at the time of the incident. TAIaHE
Ultimately, we find no reason to disturb the appellate court's disquisition on Conrado's claim of mitigating circumstance, its penalty imposed on Conrado and the amounts of the monetary awards:
The evidence on record likewise belie the claimed mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.
Conrado's actions are in contrast with espoused principle. Jackelyn and SPO3 Cabanas witnessed Conrado fleeing from the scene of the crime. Contrary to [Conrado's] claim of voluntary surrender, the testimony of SPO3 Cabanas saying that Conrado was apprehended is corroborated by the blotter extract prepared by Chief of Police Insp. Arnulfo Baronggo. In the said report, the Police Inspector recounted that they conducted a Hot Pursuit Operation to apprehend Conrado which resulted in the latter's apprehension. A non-violent apprehension does not equate into a voluntary surrender.
All told, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the Lower Court save for the amount of civil indemnity awarded in favor of the Heirs of Galo Rowe Martinez.
It is jurisprudentially settled that when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. Thus, so as to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, we find the increase of the award of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 proper. 6
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED there being no reversible error in the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 02280.
SO ORDERED. J. Peralta, on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 82-93; Penned Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
2. Id. at 36.
3. Id. at 46.
4. Pascual v. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, 11 January 2016.
5. SPO2 Nacnac v. People of the Philippines, 685 Phil. 223, 229-230 (2012).
6. Rollo, pp. 91-92.