FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201144. June 20, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FROILAN ADONA, LUISITO ADONA, NEMESIO DELA ROSA, MARCELINO ADONA, RODEL ADONA, AND RESTITUTO ADONA, Accused; LUISITO ADONA and NEMESIO DELA ROSA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 20, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201144 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FROILAN ADONA, LUISITO ADONA, NEMESIO DELA ROSA, MARCELINO ADONA, RODEL ADONA, AND RESTITUTO ADONA, Accused; LUISITO ADONA and NEMESIO DELA ROSA, Accused-Appellants.
For Our consideration is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 30, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01652, which affirms with clarification the Judgment 2 dated August 15, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22 of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case Nos. 1940-N to 1948-N, finding accused-appellants Luisito Adona (Luisito) and Nemesio dela Rosa (Nemesio) guilty of two counts of murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and five counts of attempted murder.
Accused-appellants were charged along with four others, namely: Froilan (Froilan), Rodel (Rodel), Restituto (Restituto), and Marcelino (Marcelino), all surnamed Adona (all six are collectively referred to herein as the accused), in nine Informations filed before the RTC.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 1946-N charged the accused with the murder of Christopher Dominguez (Christopher), as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of November, 1997, in the municipality of Narvacan, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and with abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one Christopher Dominguez, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wounds on his body, which wounds necessarily produced the death of said Christopher Dominguez. 3
The Information in Criminal Case No. 1947-N was worded alike except that the victim was Rommel Cabingas (Rommel).
The Information in Criminal Case No. 1945-N, charging the accused with the frustrated murder of Nomar Dominguez (Nomar), reads:
That on or about the 23rd day of November, 1997, in the municipality of Narvacan, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one Nomar Dominguez, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wounds on his body, thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the said perpetrators, that is, by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to said Nomar Dominguez which prevented his death. 4 SDAaTC
An identical Information in Criminal Case No. 1948-N charged the accused with the frustrated murder of Elmer Cabero (Elmer).
In Criminal Case No. 1940-N, the accused were charged with the attempted murder of Ariel Garcia (Ariel), allegedly committed in the following manner:
That on or about the 23rd day of November, 1997, in the municipality of Narvacan, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one Ariel Garcia, thus commencing the commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some causes other than their spontaneous desistance, but because of the poor aim of the perpetrator. 5
Four more Informations similarly charged the accused with the attempted murder of Randy Carrido in Criminal Case No. 1941-N, Crisologo Andres (Crisologo) in Criminal Case No. 1942-N, Adriano Dominguez (Adriano) in Criminal Case No. 1943-N, and Randy Carsola in Criminal Case No. 1944-N.
When proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 1940-N to 1948-N started, only accused Froilan had been arrested and was in custody. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, accused Rodel, accused-appellant Luisito, and accused-appellant Nemesio were separately and successively arrested at various stages of the proceedings. Accused Rodel, accused-appellant Luisito, and accused-appellant Nemesio also pleaded not guilty during their respective arraignments. By the time accused-appellant Nemesio was arrested and arraigned, the prosecution had already rested its cases and the defense had already started presenting witnesses. The prosecution moved to adopt the previous proceedings for the accused/accused-appellants who were recently arrested and arraigned, only recalling some of its witnesses to the stand for the purpose of identifying said accused/accused-appellants. Accused Restituto and Marcelino remained at-large.
Evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of Randy Carsola, Adriano, Crisologo, Nomar, and Randy Carrido, surviving victims; Norma Dominguez, mother of the deceased Christopher and surviving victim Nomar; Miranda Cabera, mother of surviving victim Elmer; Felicidad Cabingas, mother of the deceased Rommel; Eliseo Cabradilla, Barangay Captain of Nanguneg West, who first received report of the ambush; Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Jeoffrey Palacio, one of the police officers who responded to the scene of the crime and recovered several empty shells and live ammunition of various calibers; and Doctor Diana Directo-Lim, who conducted the autopsy on the bodies of Christopher and Rommel. The prosecution also submitted documentary and object evidence which included the Death Certificates, autopsy reports, and receipts for the medical and funeral expenses of the deceased Christopher and Rommel; sworn statements, medical certificates, list of expenses, and receipts for the medicines of several of the surviving victims; and the empty shells and live ammunition recovered by the police at the scene of the crime.
According to the prosecution, the events of November 23, 1997 transpired as follows:
At 11:00 p.m. on November 23, 1997, Nomar Dominguez was walking along the earthen embankment of Elmer Cabero's corn field near the Cayapa River at Sitio Barbarit, Barangay San Pedro, Narvacan Municipality, Ilocos Sur Province. Nomar Dominguez was with his eight (8) friends, brother and cousins and they were intending to help his second degree cousin, Elmer Cabero (who was part of the group) water the latter's corn plants, as they were all going to attend a wedding the next day.
The members of the group were walking single file along the earthen embankment. Rommel Cabingas was in the lead, followed by Christopher Dominguez, Elmer Cabero, Adriano Dominguez, Nomar Dominguez, Crisologo Andres, Randy Carsola, Randy Carrido and Ariel Garcia. Elmer Cabero and Adriano Dominguez were each wielding one (1) large flashlight, each powered by three (3) dry cell batteries. The group was walking westward towards a grassy embankment with no corn plants before them; Elmer Cabero's corn plants were to the south of them.
Nomar Dominguez's group then heard the sound of movement some seven (7) to ten (10) meters to the west (i.e., in front) of them, prompting those with flashlights to focus the same in that direction. The flashlight beams illuminated a group of six (6) men eleven (11) meters away; three (3) of whom were squatting side-by-side, while the other three (3) were standing side-by-side behind those who were squatting. All six (6) men were armed with long firearms (i.e., M-14 and M-16 assault rifles) that were aimed at Nomar Dominguez's unarmed group of nine (9) men. Adriano Dominguez recognized by the light of the flashlights (one of which was held by him) that two (2) of the gunmen were Luisito Adona and Nemesio de la Rosa. By the light of the same flashlights, Nomar Dominguez, Randy Carsola, Randy Carrido and Crisologo Andres, likewise recognized Luisito Adona and Nemesio de la Rosa to be two (2) of the three (3) gunmen who were squatting on the ground.
Within seconds after the flashlight beams revealed them, the group of Luisito Adona and Nemesio de la Rosa unleased a hail of automatic weapons fire at Nomar Dominguez's group. Rommel Cabingas was killed instantly by the initial burst of gunfire. Christopher Dominguez was also hit by the initial fusillade and died later at a hospital while being treated for his gunshot wounds. Elmer Cabero was hit in the left forearm, shattering the bones, and fell to the ground. Nomar Dominguez was hit at the upper right arm, severing the bone, and likewise fell to the ground. Adriano Dominguez, Crisologo Andres, Randy Carsola, Randy Carrido and Ariel Garcia either instinctively dropped flat on the ground or hid themselves at the first burst of automatic weapons fire, thus escaping injury. EcTCAD
When the initial burst of automatic weapons fire stopped, the survivors of [Nomar] Dominguez's group, both injured and uninjured, seized the opportunity to get up and run for their lives. They fled in all directions away from the gunmen. The gunmen then discharged a second burst of automatic weapons fire at the fleeing survivors. Nomar Dominguez was hit a second time on the right leg in two (2) locations; but he was able to keep on running and shout for help at his fleeing companions Adriano Domingo and Randy Carrido. When the second burst of gunfire ended, Adriano Domingo and Randy Carrido did turn back and help Nomar Dominguez. Together, they fled towards Nomar Dominguez's residence at Barangay [Nanguneg] West, Narvacan Municipality.
Meanwhile, the gunmen withdrew westwards away from the crime scene.
Upon reaching Nomar Dominguez's residence at Barangay [Nanguneg] West, Adriano Dominguez reported the ambuscade to Barangay Captain Eliseo Cabradilla; while Randy Carrido and others rushed [Nomar] Dominguez to the nearest hospital for treatment of his gunshot wounds.
Barangay Captain Cabradilla radioed the Narvacan Police Station and informed PNP Master Sergeant Romulo Rea of the incident. The latter informed Barangay Captain Cabradilla that he will send policemen to the crime scene. Rea also asked Cabradilla to meet them at the crime scene.
Responding barangay and police authorities reached the crime scene at about 1:00 a.m. on November 24, 1997. They found and recovered thereat the blood-covered body of Rommel Cabingas, as well as thirty-two (32) empty shells of cal. 5.56 ammunition for the M-16 assault rifle, one (1) live cal. 5.56 ammunition, fifteen (15) empty shells cal. 7.62 ammunition for the M-14 assault rifle and one (1) misfired cal. 7.62 ammunition. Some of the spent ammunition were found beside the body; while the rest were scattered to the west of the body at the open field, up to ten (10) meters away.
The ensuing investigation of the Narvacan Police Station established the identities of the six (6) suspected gunmen, which included Luisito Adona and Nemesio de la Rosa. The police authorities prepared and filed a formal complaint against them in court and obtained the necessary warrants to arrest the suspects. Suspects Luisito Adona and Nemesio de la Rosa, among others, were arrested by virtue of such warrants on December 3, 1998 and on January 31, 2001. 6
Accused-appellants, accused Froilan, and accused Rodel testified on their own behalves, mainly denying that they committed the crimes charged and proffering their respective alibis. To substantiate their alibis, the defense also called to the witness stand Violeta Adona, wife of accused-appellant Luisito; Josie Dela Rosa, wife of accused-appellant Nemesio; Adela Adona, wife of accused Froilan; Virginia Frial, mother-in-law of accused Froilan; Teresita Dameg, who fished with accused Froilan in the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur; and Vilma Adona, wife of accused Rodel. The defense additionally submitted as documentary evidence excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to show their inconsistencies.
The alibis of accused-appellants were summarized below:
Luisito Adona denied the charges filed against him in the instant cases. In the morning of November 23, 1997, he was cutting trees in their fishpond located at Sitio Capungdulan. They used the smaller pieces of wood for firewood and sold the bigger ones. He went home for lunch and returned to their fishpond at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. He went home at 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon. In going to their fishpond[,] he [had] to cross a river. Their house is about three hundred (300) meters from their fishpond. When he arrived home, he cooked food for dinner. When their children who went to school, arrived, they ate together. After dinner, they watched T.V. Thereafter, they [slept]. The following day[,] he heard rumors that somebody died near the river. A policeman arrived and informed them that he and his brothers were the suspects and advised him to go with them in order to have a paraffin test. He did not go with the policemen because they wanted all his brothers to go with them. His brothers were not around at that time. The policemen never returned. The reason why he and his brothers were charged was probably because his brother Salvador and an elder sister filed a case against the victims. Salvador died already. HSAcaE
On November 23, 1997, Josie Dela Rosa was in Bessang, Burgos, Ilocos Sur together with her husband Nemesio Dela Rosa and their children. They went thereat in the last week of October 1997 and returned to Barbarit, San Pedro, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur on November 24, 1997. They went to Burgos because it was then harvest season and stayed at the house of [her] brother. When they arrived in Narvacan on November 24, 1997, she learned that her husband was implicated in the murder of Christopher Dominguez and Rommel Cabingas.
Nemesio Dela Rosa averred that on November 23, 1997, he was at the residence of his wife Josie at Bessang, Burgos, Ilocus Sur. He and his wife went thereat on the last week of October 1997 in order to harvest palay. They went home to Barbarit, San Pedro, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur in the afternoon of November 24, 1997. It would take them three (3) hours to travel from [Barbarit], San Pedro, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur to Bessang, Burgos, Ilocos Sur. 7
As for accused Froilan, he claimed that from November 21, 1997 to November 25, 1997, he and his entire family were staying with his parents-in-law in the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur, to participate in the catching of small fish commonly called in the local dialect as "ipon," which were at the peak of its season. He never left the house of his parents-in-law, particularly on the night of November 23, 1997. He and his family returned to Barbarit, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, only on November 25, 1997.
Accused Rodel, for his part, averred that from November 20, 1997 to November 25, 1997, he and his family were in Taliao, Burgos, Ilocos Sur to help his parents-in-law and brothers-in-law in preparing seed beds and planting and harvesting tobacco. His family stayed at the house of his parents-in-law. On November 23, 1997, accused Rodel helped his in-laws plow and plant the fields from 7:00 in the morning to around 6:00 in the evening. After which, they watched television and went to sleep. To get from Barbarit, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, to Taliao, Burgos, Ilocos Sur, accused Rodel and his family had to take three rides: a tricycle ride to the Narvacan Police Outpost along the National Highway, then a bus ride to Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, and another tricycle ride to the outskirts of Taliao, Burgos, Ilocos Sur, from where they still had to take a short walk to the house of accused Rodel's parents-in-law. Accused Rodel only came to know that he was a suspect in the ambush against Nomar's group when he went home to Barbarit, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. Accused Rodel asserted that he was being charged in revenge because his family filed cases in court against the Dominguez brothers, Eliseo Cabradilla, and one Moro Pasio, for strafing accused Rodel's elder sisters. The Dominguez brothers, Eliseo Cabradilla, and Moro Pasio are closely related to the ambush victims, who are either their nephews or sons.
On August 15, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision finding that the prosecution witnesses were able to clearly recognize and positively identify only the two accused-appellants as gunmen. Likewise, the prosecution evidence was only able to clearly establish the type of firearms used by the two accused-appellants. The total number and identities of the other members of the ambush group, the type of firearms they carried, as well as their conspiracy with accused-appellants, were merely conjectural and not well-established. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
All things having been considered, this Court finds the accused Luisito Adona @ "Sitong" and Nemesio Dela Rosa @ "Meciong" "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged against them in all the nine (9) Informations filed before this Court, they, having conspired and help[ed] one another in the commission thereof, and attendant thereto are the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
The offenses charged and mentioned above, are as follows:
(1) For the offense of Murder in Criminal Case No. 1946-N, for the death of the victim Christopher Dominguez;
(2) For the offense of Murder in Criminal Case No. 1947-N, for the death of victim Rommel Cabingas;
(3) For the offense of Frustrated Murder which nearly caused the death of the victim Nomar Dominguez in Criminal Case No. 1945-N;
(4) For the offense of Frustrated Murder which nearly caused the death of the victim, Elmer Cabero in Criminal Case No. 1948-N;
(5) For the offense of Attempted Murder against the person of Ariel Garcia in Criminal Case No. 1940-N; HESIcT
(6) For the offense of Attempted Murder against the person of Randy Carrido in Criminal Case No. 1941-N;
(7) For the offense of Attempted Murder against the person of Crisologo Andres in Criminal Case No. 1942-N;
(8) For the offense of Attempted Murder against the person of Adriano Dominguez, in Criminal Case No. 1943-N;
(9) For the offense of Attempted Murder against the person of Randy Carsola, in Criminal Case 1944-N;
For the two (2) counts of Murder, mentioned above, the Court hereby imposes upon the said accused Luisito Adona @ "Sitong" and Nemesio dela Rosa @ "Meciong", the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each of them for every count, or two (2) Reclusion Perpetua for each of the two (2) aforenamed accused;
For the two (2) counts of Frustrated Murder, each of the said two (2) accused are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years (17) and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal as maximum for each of the two (2) counts of Frustrated Murder.
For the five (5) counts of Attempted Murder, each of the two (2) accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years and eight (8) months of Prision Mayor, for each of the five (5) counts of Attempted Murders.
The two (2) accused Luisito Adona @ "Sitong" and Nemesio dela Rosa @ "Meciong" are ordered likewise:
(1) To pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the deceased victim Christopher Dominguez the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00), for such death, expenses for the burial and during the wake incurred thereon including also the death of said victim as well as moral and compensatory damages;
(2) To pay also the victim Nomar Dominguez and/or his mother Norma Dominguez, the expenses for treatment, hospitalization, operation of said Nomar Dominguez in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), and also moral and compensatory damages in the amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00);
(3) To pay also the heirs of the deceased victim, Rommel Cabingas the amount of Sixty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P66,500.00) as expenses of his burial, coffin and the like; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for his death, and moral and compensatory damages in the amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00);
(4) To pay the victim Elmer Cabero, the amount of Ninety-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Four Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P91,234.50), as medical expenses, for his treatment, hospitalization, and operation, and for moral and compensatory damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00);
(5) To pay each of the complainants, namely, Ariel Garcia, Adriano Dominguez, Randy Carrido, Randy Carsola and Crisologo Andres, the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) each, and to pay the costs. caITAC
With respect to the accused Froilan Adona @ "Boyet" and Rodel Adona @ "Bampi" reasonable doubt burdens the conscience of this Court and its mind could not rest easy to render a verdict of guilty against them and they are therefore hereby ACQUITTED of the charges leveled against them in each of the nine (9) Informations filed before this Court.
The cases are hereby ordered sent to the files for archiving purposes in so far as they concerned the accused Marcelino Adona @ "Celin" and Restituto Adona @ "Totong/Durango," both of whom are still at large and unarrested to this date despite the issuance of alias warrants of arrest for their apprehension. 8
Aggrieved, accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal before the RTC on September 6, 2001.
In a Resolution dated December 11, 2002, we accepted the appeal. However, following our ruling in People v. Mateo, 9 we transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals through a Resolution dated February 7, 2005.
In their Brief, accused-appellants made a lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 10
Accused-appellants argued that there were material contradictions and conflicts in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses casting doubt as to their identities as perpetrators of the crimes charged.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated September 30, 2011, affirmed the RTC judgment of conviction against accused-appellants but modified their civil liabilities, viz.:
As regards the civil liabilities, for the murder of Christopher Dominguez, [accused-appellants] were correctly held solidarily liable to pay his heirs P50,000.00 in civil indemnity ex [delicto], and P50,000.00 as moral damages for his violent death, as well as P25,000.00 in exemplary damages because his death was attended by treachery. For the last treatment, wake and burial of Christopher Dominguez, [accused-appellants] were correctly held solidarily liable to pay his heirs the amount of P136,000.00 in expenses based on competent proof found by the trial court.
For the murder of Rommel Cabingas, [accused-appellants] were correctly held solidarily liable to pay his heirs P50,000.00 in civil indemnity ex [delicto], and P50,000.00 moral damages for his violent death, as well as P25,000.00 in exemplary damages because his death was attended by treachery. For the wake and burial of Rommel Cabingas, [accused-appellants] were correctly held solidarily liable to pay his heirs the amount of P48,500.00 in expenses based on competent proof found by the trial court. Cabingas' mother also testified that she spent P15,000.00 for his tomb. But although temperate damages could have been awarded for loss that cannot be established with certainty, as held in Pp. vs. Abrazaldo, the complainants raised no appeal thereon.
For the shooting and wounding of Nomar Dominguez in Criminal Cases No. 1945-N and 1948-N, both [accused-appellants] were solidarily ordered to pay him P200,000.00 for his operation and hospitalization, and P60,000.00 for moral and compensatory damages, although his duly receipted medical and hospitalization expenses amounted to only P70,672.15. The [accused-appellants] did not however raise this matter. For the shooting and wounding of Elmer Cabero in Criminal Case No. 1948-N, both [accused-appellants] were ordered to solidarily pay him P50,000.00 for moral and compensatory damages, plus P91,234.50 for his treatment, operation and hospitalization. Although the receipts for medical and hospitalization expenses amounted to only P36,108.00, [accused-appellants] did not raise this matter on appeal. 11 ICHDca
The appellate court also clarified the penalty imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 1940-N to 1944-N (attempted murder cases), thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with CLARIFICATION that in Criminal Cases Nos. 1940-N to 1944-N, each of accused-appellants is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from "eight (8) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years and eight (8) months of Prision Mayor for each of the five (5) counts of Attempted Murder."12
Accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal on November 2, 2011, which the Court of Appeals gave due course in its Resolution dated December 12, 2011.
In a Resolution 13 dated June 20, 2012, we required the parties to submit their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice. The parties filed their respective Manifestations stating that they would no longer file any supplemental brief as the issues had been sufficiently discussed in their briefs before the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellants focus on the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses, namely: Randy Carsola, Crisologo, and Randy Carrido. The testimonies of said witnesses allegedly contain material inconsistencies as to the interval of time that elapsed from the moment the flashlights were focused on the ambush group to the moment the ambush group fired at the victims: Randy Carsola said it was only "about a second"; 14 Crisologo averred it was "more or less three seconds"; 15 and Randy Carrido testified it was "about for five (5) seconds." 16 Accused-appellants maintain that these inconsistencies cast serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution's claim that they were two of the six perpetrators of the crimes.
There is no merit in the present appeal.
Relevant herein is our ruling in People v. Bi-ay, Jr. and Lingasa, 17 on the credence accorded to witnesses' testimonies:
It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. The trial court has the singular opportunity to observe the witnesses "through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sign, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien."
This rule admits of exceptions, however, such as when the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.
In the case at bench, the Court has not come across any misapprehension of facts. The prosecution witnesses, Francisco and Baby Boy Claro (Baby Boy), saw with their own eyes the brutal killing of the victim. The Court finds no indication that either Francisco or Baby Boy was lying.
Thus, in the absence of any of these exceptions warranting the reversal of the decisions of the courts below, the general rule applies. In addition, the Court notes that the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court which, therefore, makes said findings generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.
After a close scrutiny of the records of the case, we do not find any misapprehension of facts by the RTC. The prosecution witnesses were clear and consistent in identifying accused-appellants as two of the six assailants. It bears to emphasize that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC, which makes such findings conclusive and binding upon us.
As aptly observed by the appellate court:
After [accused-appellant] Luisito Adona's arrest, Randy Carsola was recalled to the witness stand and he positively identified the former as one of the six (6) gunmen who fired at his group. Immediately before the shooting, Carsola had a fleeting look at the assailants and was able to recognize the said accused by the light of the two (2) flashlights which were focused on Luisito Adona's group. Randy Carsola could describe with some detail the crouching position that [accused-appellant] Luisito Adona assumed prior to discharging his firearm at the victims. TCAScE
Then, also upon [accused-appellant] Nemesio dela Rosa's arrest, Randy Carsola was recalled to the stand and he positively identified him as among the six (6) gunmen who fired on his unarmed group. He and Nemesio dela Rosa came from the same barangay in San Pedro, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur and they knew each other since childhood. They were schoolmates and neighbors, their houses being just 300 meters apart from each other. Carsola would casually see Nemesio dela Rosa in the neighborhood a few times a week, as well as during night-time events in the barangay such as wakes and fiestas. He claimed that he was so familiar with Nemesio dela Rosa that he could point him out in a dimly lit place just by his gait and build. How much more, then, if during the shooting two strong flashlights were directed at [accused-appellant] Nemesio dela Rosa and his group. Randy Carsola saw the six armed men looking at his group before he ducked and the gunfire commenced.
We are convinced that Randy Carsola had a reasonable opportunity to see and recognize [accused-appellant] Nemesio de la Rosa as one of the gunmen who waylaid his group. Randy Carsola's testimony is corroborated by the unassailed testimony of the four (4) other prosecution witnesses, namely, Adriano Dominguez, Nomar Dominguez, Randy Carrido and Crisologo Andres, who also positively identified [accused-appellants] Luisito Adona and Nemesio dela Rosa as among the six gunmen who fired at their group. They had a mere few seconds of illumination by two flashlights to get a good look at them, but that brief moment would have sufficed for them to recognize the [accused-appellants] since they were already familiar with them. Even granting that Randy Carsola's positive identification of the [accused-appellants] as assailants was unreliable, the cumulative amount of the said four other eyewitnesses is sufficient to morally assure us of the [accused-appellants'] guilt. 18
Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Randy Carsola, Crisologo, and Randy Carrido pointed out by accused-appellants are insignificant, pertaining only to a minor detail which does not impair the veracity of the said witnesses' identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes. The witnesses' estimates of the interval between the time the flashlights were focused on the ambush group and the time the ambush group started shooting vary by only a few seconds, and would have hardly affected the said witnesses' ability to immediately recognize accused-appellants as members of the ambush group when there was sufficient illumination from the flashlights and the witnesses already knew accused-appellants.
We have declared time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime did not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening the witnesses' testimonies, such inconsistencies tended to strengthen their credibility because such inconsistencies discounted the possibility that they were rehearsed testimony. 19
We further held in People v. Toledo and Pareja 20 that:
It is a well-recognized fact that witnesses testifying about the same nerve-wracking event can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail nor consistent with other witnesses in every aspect, considering the inevitability of differences in their perception, recollection, viewpoint or impressions, as well as in their physical, mental, emotional and psychological states at the time of reception and recall of such impression. After all, to begin with, no two individuals are alike in term of powers of observation and of recall. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as witnesses concur on material points. cTDaEH
Just like the RTC and the Court of Appeals, we are not persuaded by accused-appellants denials and alibis. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted. 21
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have ill motive to testify against accused-appellants. Accused-appellant Luisito claimed that there was a previous rift between his family, on one hand, and the victims and victims' families and close friends, on the other hand, and the charges against him was an act of revenge — but apart from accused-appellant Luisito's allegations, there was no other evidence to corroborate the same. The prosecution witnesses' categorical statements and positive identification of accused-appellants must prevail over the accused-appellants' bare denial.
In addition, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 22 Accused-appellants herein failed to prove such physical impossibility. Accused-appellant Luisito's residence and the crime scene are only 300 to 500 meters apart and connected by a road. While accused-appellant Nemesio was purportedly in Besang, Burgos, Ilocos Sur, from the last week of October 1997 to November 24, 1997, it would not have been impossible for him to have negotiated the three-hour travel to and from Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on November 23, 1997. To corroborate their respective alibis, accused-appellants presented their wives. However, alibi becomes less credible if offered by the accused himself and his immediate relatives, 23 as they are expected to make declarations in their favor. Hence, we do not accord much weight to accused-appellants' alibis.
The elements of murder are: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed that person; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstance mentioned in Article 248; and (d) the killing was neither parricide nor homicide. 24
The killings (including the frustrated and attempted) in these cases were 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 and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 25 The victims had no inkling of any harm that would befall them that fateful night of November 23, 1997. They were unarmed, intending only to water Elmer's cornfield. Accused-appellants lay in wait in the darkness, behind corn plants, suddenly discharging their firearms on the hapless victims, giving the latter no opportunity to defend themselves. Verily, treachery attended the commission of the crimes. Accused-appellants' attack resulted in the deaths of Christopher and Rommel. Nomar and Elmer were hit and seriously injured in the attack but survived because of medical intervention. Ariel, Randy Carrido, Crisologo, Adriano, and Randy Carsola escaped without injury by falling to the ground during the shooting and running away when they had the chance.
All things considered, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, committed no reversible error in convicting accused-appellants for two counts of murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and five counts of attempted murder. 26
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellants for each count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 1946-N and 1947-N, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Following Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty to be imposed upon the principals of frustrated murder shall be next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for consummated murder. The penalty next lower in degree to reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of the frustrated murder and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months; and the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor, which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal, spanning from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Thus, we shall not disturb the indeterminate sentence imposed upon accused-appellants by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, of imprisonment of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count of frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. 1945-N and 1948-N.
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony. The penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua is prision mayor. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of the attempted murder and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from prision mayor in its medium term, which ranges from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years; and that the minimum should be within the full range of prision correccional, which is one degree lower than prision mayor, anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. The appropriate indeterminate penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellants is 8 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 8 months of prision mayor as maximum for each count of attempted murder in Criminal Case Nos. 1940-N to 1944-N.
As to accused-appellants' civil liabilities, certain modifications are in order.
Based on prevailing jurisprudence, 27 civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are awarded for murder in the amounts of P75,000.00 each; for frustrated murder, P50,000.00 each; and for attempted murder, P25,000.00 each.
We also further reduce the actual damages awarded by the RTC, as modified by the Court of Appeals. In People v. Sara, 28 we pronounced that a witness' testimony cannot be considered as competent proof and cannot replace the probative value of official receipts to justify the award of actual damages; jurisprudence instructs that actual damages must be duly substantiated by receipts. Furthermore, Article 2199 of the Civil Code states that, except as provided by law or stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him/her as he/she has duly proved. In other words, only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court. 29
The Court of Appeals awarded actual damages in the following amounts:
1. To the heirs of the deceased Christopher: P136,000.00 for his hospital treatment and wake and burial expenses;
2. To the heirs of the deceased Rommel: P48,500.00 for his wake and burial expenses and P15,000.00 for his tomb;
3. To surviving victim Nomar: P200,000.00 for his hospital expenses; and
4. To surviving victim Elmer: P91,234.50 for his hospital expenses.
We note that the Court of Appeals awarded actual damages, even for the claims unsupported by any receipt. We reiterate that credence can only be given to claims that are duly supported by receipt or other credible evidence. We therefore modify the amounts of actual damages awarded, limiting the same to expenses that were duly substantiated and appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the hospitalization of the injured but surviving victims and wake and burial of the deceased victims, to wit: CHTAIc
1. To the heirs of the deceased Christopher: P90,333.85;
2. To the heirs of the deceased Rommel: P48,000.00; 30
3. To surviving victim Nomar: P99,237.00; and
4. To surviving victim Elmer: P29,793.82.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the Decision dated September 30, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01652 to read as follows:
1. In Criminal Case Nos. 1946-N and 1947-N, we find accused-appellants Luisito Adona and Nemesio dela Rosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of MURDER and sentence each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for every count. We order them to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Christopher Dominguez the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P90,333.85 as actual damages. We also order them to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Rommel Cabingas the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P48,000.00 as actual damages.
2. In Criminal Case Nos. 1945-N and 1948-N, we find accused-appellants Luisito Adona and Nemesio dela Rosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of FRUSTRATED MURDER and sentence each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum for every count. We order them to pay jointly and severally the victim Nomar Dominguez the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P99,237.00 as actual damages. We also order them to pay jointly and severally the victim Elmer Cabero the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P29,793.82 as actual damages.
3. In Criminal Case No. 1940-N to 1944-N, we find accused-appellants Luisito Adona and Nemesio dela Rosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentence each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as maximum for every count. We order them to pay jointly and severally each of the five victims, namely, Ariel Garcia, Randy Carrido, Crisologo Andres, Adriano Dominguez, and Randy Carsola, the following amounts: (a) P25,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In addition, all the aforementioned monetary awards shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until they are fully paid.
The case is archived as to accused Marcelino Adona and Restituto Adona, who remain at-large, until their arrest and submission to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. EATCcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-30; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 194-247; penned by Judge Ulpiano I. Campos.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 33.
5. Id. at 23-24.
6. Id. at 269-275.
7. Id. at 187-188.
8. Id. at 243-247.
9. 477 Phil. 752 (2004).
10. CA rollo, p. 174.
11. Rollo, pp. 27-28.
12. Id. at 28-29.
13. Id. at 36-37.
14. TSN, July 23, 1998, p. 9.
15. TSN, August 18, 1998, p. 8.
16. TSN, April 30, 1999, p. 3.
17. 652 Phil. 386, 394-395 (2010).
18. Rollo, pp. 19-21.
19. People v. Givera, 402 Phil. 547, 565-566 (2001).
20. 333 Phil. 261, 271 (1996), citing People v. Cruza, G.R. No. 104527, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 410, 417.
21. People v. Bulfango, 438 Phil. 651, 657 (2002).
22. People v. Malejana, 515 Phil. 584, 597 (2006).
23. Ibanez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, January 27, 2016.
24. People v. Salibad, G.R. No. 210616, November 25, 2015.
25. People v. Magno, 379 Phil. 531, 554 (2000).
26. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by oven acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
27. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
28. 463 Phil. 94, 113 (2003), citing Hugo v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 260, 273 (2002).
29. People v. Bonifacio, 426 Phil. 511, 521 (2002).
30. The claim for P15,000.00 for the construction of the deceased Rommel's tomb was disallowed as no competent proof, other than his mother's testimony, was adduced.