SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249995. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTINO AMANTE y BOLITO @ TINO AND NONIE AMANTE y BOLITO @ EMBONG, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249995 (People of the Philippines v. Valentino Amante y Bolito @ Tino and Nonie Amante y Bolito @ Embong). — This is an appeal 1 from the February 13, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02520 affirming with modification the February 24, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Catarman, Northern Samar, in Criminal Case No. C-5221 finding accused-appellants Valentino Amante y Bolito @ Tino (Tino) and Nonie Amante y Bolito @ Embong (Embong; collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
Factual Antecedents:
By Information 4 dated February 27, 2012, accused-appellants were charged with Murder for the killing of Carlito Diaz y Pahimnayan (Carlito), viz.:
That on or about the 16th day of November 2011, at about [4 o'clock] in the afternoon, along the shore in Brgy. Makiwalo, Municipality of Mondragon Province of Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring with[,] confederating[,] and mutually helping each other, armed with a bladed weapon locally known as "sundang/binalhang," with deliberate intent to kill thru treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault[,] hack[,] and stab CARLITO DIAZ y PAHIMNAYAN with the use of said weapon which the accused have provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said CARLITO DIAZ y PAHIMNAYAN fatal stab and hack wounds which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Arraigned separately, both accused-appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." 6
During trial, the prosecution, on one hand, presented Bonifacio Lagrimas (Bonifacio), brother-in-law of Carlito, and Dr. Maria Carol Hermosilla (Dr. Hermosilla), the Municipal Health Officer of Mondragon, Northern Samar, as its witnesses. 7 The defense, on the other hand, presented accused-appellants as its witnesses. 8
Version of the Prosecution:
On November 16, 2011, at around 3:00 p.m., Carlito and Bonifacio were at the seashore in Brgy. Makiwalo, Mondragon, Northern Samar. At that time, Bonifacio was about to go fishing when he noticed that his fishing boat was damaged. Bonifacio then proceeded to a shanty 10 meters away from the seashore to fetch water. Meanwhile, along the same area, Carlito was trying to sell his piglets. 9
As Bonifacio was getting water near the shanty, he saw accused-appellants, who were both armed with a bolo, approach Carlito. Without warning, accused-appellant Tino hacked Carlito on his leg. Embong then joined Tino in hacking Carlito with his bolo. Both accused-appellants repeatedly hacked and stabbed Carlito. They then immediately fled from the crime scene right after the hacking incident. Bonifacio witnessed the said incident while hiding at the back of the shanty and peeping from its side 10
Carlito's body was subjected to a post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Hermosilla. She testified that the multiple wounds sustained by Carlito were caused by a sharp-bladed and pointed weapon, like a bolo, considering the characteristics of the wounds. She concluded that the cause of Carlito's death was hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple hack and stab wounds. 11
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellants Tino and Embong respectively testified for themselves and interposed a defense of denial and alibi.
In particular, Tino testified that on November 16, 2011 at 4:00 p.m., he was at a farm in Sto. Samboloc, Brgy. Makiwalo making copra together with his cousins and his aunt. Tino came to know of Carlito's death from his neighbor and when police officers went to his house to investigate him. Tino vehemently denied killing Carlito as the latter is a cousin of his grandmother. 12
Embong, for his part, testified that at the time the murder was committed on November 16, 2011, he was working in Metro Manila as a construction worker. He claimed that he left for Manila on August 27, 2011 and came home to Northern Samar sometime in February 2013 where he was arrested. Embong denied taking part in the killing of Carlito and claimed that he only knew of the incident through his mother. 13
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 14 dated February 24, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, viz.:
WHEREFORE, from all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Valentino Amante y Bolito @ Tino and Nonie Amante @ Embong, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and hereby sentenced to a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA each and to pay the heirs of the victim Carlito Diaz, civil indemnity of P75,000.00, P50,000.00 moral damages, P25,000.00 exemplary damages each and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC found the version of the prosecution more credible. It gave credence to the testimony of Bonifacio who personally witnessed the commission of the crime that was further corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Hermosilla. The RTC also held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime. 16 Thus:
As testified by the eyewitnesses, he and the victim were at the seashore of Brgy. Makiwalo. Shortly, the two accused arrived armed with long bolos and without any provocation, Valentino Amante hacked the feet of Carlito Diaz, who embraced the accused Valentino Amante, begging for his life. Instead of listening to the plea of the victim, Valentino Amante continued hacking the victi[m], now joined by Embong Amante in hacking [and] stabbing the victim several times while rolling on the ground until the victim died.
From this narration of events, we can see that there was a sudden and unexpected attack of the two accused on the unsuspecting victim, who was not armed and depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself, hereby ensuing its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any slightest provocation from the victim. This is the essence of treachery. 17
On the other hand, the RTC rejected accused-appellants' self-serving and uncorroborated defenses of denial and alibi in light of the positive testimony of Bonifacio that accused-appellants were the persons who hacked and stabbed Carlito with their bolos. 18
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed 19 the Decision of the RTC before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its Decision, 20 the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants but modified the amount of damages awarded. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 24, 2017 of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Catarman, Northern Samar, in Criminal Case No. C-5221, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that moral damages and exemplary damages are INCREASED to P75,000.00 each and temperate damages of P25,000.00 is likewise awarded to the heirs of Carlito Diaz. The aggregate amount of the monetary awards as affirmed and modified shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until the same is fully paid.
SO ORDERED.21
The CA held that the RTC did not commit reversible error when it gave weight and credence to the testimony of Bonifacio. In this regard, the CA emphasized that Bonifacio narrated the details of the hacking and stabbing of Carlito in a simple, spontaneous and straightforward manner. He also positively identified accused-appellants as the assailants. 22 While accused-appellants attempted to destroy the credibility of Bonifacio due to his supposed inconsistent statements in his testimony, the CA observed that such are not inconsistencies at all and refer only to trivial matters which will not change the finding that accused-appellants killed Carlito. 23 Moreover, the CA emphasized that it did not find any flaw in the Information as to deprive accused-appellants of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of their accusation. 24
Hence, the instant appeal 25 seeking accused-appellants' acquittal.
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, and the accused-appellants filed their respective manifestations 26 that they would no longer file their supplemental briefs as the briefs filed with the CA thoroughly discussed all the issues in the case.
Issues
In their brief 27 before the CA, accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF MURDER DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF TREACHERY IN THE INFORMATION. 28
The main issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether the guilt of accused-appellants for Murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
The prosecution was able to
In support of their appeal, accused-appellants assert that Bonifacio failed to positively establish their identities with moral certainty for the following reasons: first, there were material inconsistencies and substantial contradictions in his testimony; and second, his vantage position, i.e., at the back of the shanty, did not afford him good visibility to properly recognize and identify Carlito's assailants. 29
In particular, accused-appellants noted the following inconsistent statements: first, in the investigation report, 30 Bonifacio stated that he saw accused-appellants when he was about to leave the seashore, while his testimony before the RTC reveals that he saw, for the first time, accused-appellants while pumping water at a nearby shanty; 31second, in the investigation report, Bonifacio stated that the Murder incident happened at 4:00 p.m., while he testified before the RTC that the same incident occurred at around 3:00 p.m.; 32 and third, Bonifacio testified that during the commission of the crime, he was situated at the back of the shanty, but later goes on to testify that he was, instead, positioned at the side of the shanty. In this regard, accused-appellants argue that Bonifacio could not have possibly seen the attack on Carlito as he was behind the shanty at the time the stabbing and hacking incident occurred. 33
Notably, to accused-appellants' minds, these abovementioned inconsistencies are material thereby casting serious doubt on Bonifacio's reliability as a witness, which thus raise reasonable doubt on their conviction.
The argument is unavailing.
It is well-settled that when the credibility of a witness is at issue, due deference must be given to the findings of the trial court, including its calibration of testimonies, assessment of their probative weight, and conclusions based on such factual findings, absent any showing that it had overlooked some circumstances that would have affected the final outcome of the case. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA, 34 as in this case. This is because the trial court had the "unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination." 35
Here, the prosecution witness Bonifacio consistently and positively identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators who repeatedly hacked and stabbed Carlito to death. To reiterate, the findings of the RTC as to Bonifacio's credibility as a witness are to be accorded with respect, more so in this case when the RTC's factual findings on this score carry the full concurrence of the CA.
Moreover, the supposed inconsistencies cited by accused-appellants refer to minor details which will not impinge on the integrity of Bonifacio's statement in its material whole. As consistently held by this Court, "inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant." 36 In fact, such minor inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken credibility. 37
Accordingly, the alleged inconsistencies in Bonifacio's testimony refer to minor details which do not impair or change the fact that accused-appellants attacked Carlito and hacked him to death. What is important, therefore, is that Bonifacio was unwavering and consistent in identifying accused-appellants as Carlito's assailant. As correctly found by the CA:
Indeed, Bonifacio narrated the details of the hacking and stabbing of Carlito and positively identified accused-appellants as the assailants. A reading of Bonifacio's testimony shows that the same is simple, spontaneous and straightforward. We do not see any inconsistency in Bonifacio's statements that he was peeping at the side of the shanty and that he was also hiding behind it. It is indeed possible that while Bonifacio hid at the back of the shanty, he could, at the same time, look from the side with his head out while keeping the rest of his body hidden at the back of the shanty. Moreover, Bonifacio explained that before he left the seashore so he could inform his crew mates about the condition of their boats, he passed by a shanty where he filled up a container with water; and, while he was pumping, he saw the accused-appellants, armed with bolos, passed by. Thus, Bonifacio already identified the accused-appellants when they [pass] by him; Bonifacio easily identified them because they were barrio mates. 38
Accused-appellants insist that Bonifacio gave a biased testimony considering his familial relation with Carlito. 39 Family relationship by itself, however, does not give rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. 40 In fact, this Court observes that "the relationship of a witness to the victim would even make his testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to charge and prosecute another person other than the real culprit." 41 Moreover, where there is no showing that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, his relationship to the victim does not render his testimony less credible, and accordingly, is entitled to full faith and credit. 42
In this case, since there is no evidence to show any dubious or improper motive on Bonifacio's part to falsely testify against accused-appellants. Notably, his relationship with Carlito even made his testimony more credible and truthful. On this score, the resolution of the CA is also instructive, thus:
Moreover, Bonifacio's relationship with Carlito will not automatically make the former a biased witness. For one, Bonifacio and accused-appellants were barrio mates; they already were acquaintances and familiar with each other. Hence, the identification of accused-appellants was easy for Bonifacio. Second, We echo the Supreme Court's words that "a witness related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the faces of the person involved in the attack on the victim because relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law." 43 (Citation omitted)
The qualifying circumstance of
Accused-appellants argue that the averments in the Information filed against them are insufficient to properly indict them of the crime of Murder since the acts constitutive of treachery were not sufficiently averred in the Information. 44
For a complaint or information to be sufficient, Section 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that "[t]he acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances x x x." 45
In other words, "the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated but by the facts alleged in the indictment, that is, the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information, and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law." 46
Indeed, what determines the character of the crime are the facts alleged in the body of the information, and not the technical name given by the prosecutor appearing in the title of the information. 47 Further, the information must sufficiently allege the acts or omissions complained of to inform a person of common understanding what offense he is being charged with — in other words, the elements of the crime must be clearly stated. 48
Article 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states that "[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which offended party might make." For treachery to be appreciated, two elements must be alleged and proved, namely: "(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or herself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him or her." 49
In this case, the Information contained the following recitals:
[T]he above-named accused, conspiring with confederating and mutually helping each other, armed with a bladed weapon locally known as "sundang/binalhang," with deliberate intent to kill thru treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack and stab CARLITO DIAZ y PAHIMNAYAN with the use of said weapon which the accused have provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said CARLITO DIAZ y PAHIMNAYAN fatal stab and hack wounds which directly caused his death. x x x 50
Plainly, the acts constitutive of treachery were not thereby sufficiently averred. The mere usage of the term "treachery" in the Information, without anything more, did not suffice since such term is a conclusion of law. 51 It is clear from its recitals that the Information did not make any factual averments on how accused-appellants had deliberately employed means, methods and forms in the execution of the killing that tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to themselves.
However, this defect does not prevent Us from appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court clarified in People v. Solar: 52
In sum, the Court, continually cognizant of its power and mandate to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, and procedure in all courts, hereby lays down the following guidelines for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar:
1. Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance — in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations in which it may exist, such as but are not limited to (1) treachery; (2) abuse of superior strength; (3) evident premeditation; (4) cruelty — is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3 (e) (i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said Rules.
Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.
Alternatively, prosecutors may sufficiently aver the ultimate facts relative to a qualifying or aggravating circumstance by referencing the pertinent portions of the resolution finding probable cause against the accused, which resolution should be attached to the Information in accordance with the second guideline below.
2. Prosecutors must ensure compliance with Section (a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that mandates the attachment to the Information the resolution finding probable cause against the accused. Trial courts must ensure that the accused is furnished a copy of this Decision prior to the arraignment.
3. Cases which have attained finality prior to the promulgation of this Decision will remain final by virtue of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
4. For cases which are still pending before the trial court, the prosecution, when still able, may file a motion to amend the Information pursuant to the prevailing Rules in order to properly allege the aggravating or qualifying circumstance pursuant to this Decision.
5. For cases in which a judgment or decision has already been rendered by the trial court and still pending appeal, the case shall be judged by the appellate court depending on whether the accused has already waived his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, (i.e., whether he previously filed either a motion to quash under Section 3 (e), Rule 117, or a motion for a bill of particulars) pursuant to this Decision. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Consequently, the qualifying circumstance may be properly appreciated against accused-appellants.
We concur with the uniform findings of both the RTC and the CA that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The victim was unsuspecting and defenseless when accused-appellants suddenly and without any provocation approached him. Armed with bladed weapons, they took turns in hacking the victim to death.
Accused-appellants were thus properly found guilty of Murder. Likewise, the CA properly modified the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each. Following People v. Jugueta, 53 this Court modifies the award of temperate damages to P50,000.00 in the absence of evidence of actual damages incurred by the family of Carlito. In addition, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 13, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02520 finding accused-appellants VALENTINO AMANTE y BOLITO @ TINO AND NONIE AMANTE y BOLITO @ EMBONG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay the heirs of Carlito Diaz y Pahimnayan civil indemnity of P75,000.00; moral damages of P75,000.00; and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATON that the award of temperate damages is increased to P50,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2.Id. at 5-16. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Louis P. Acosta.
3. CA rollo, pp. 48-53. Penned by Judge Norma Megenio-Cardenas.
4. Records, pp. 18-19.
5.Id. at 18.
6.Id. at 33.
7.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9. CA rollo. p. 70.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 29-30.
13.Id. at 30.
14.Id. at 48-53.
15.Id. at 53.
16.Id. at 52-53.
17.Id. at 52.
18.Id. at 53.
19. Records, pp. 167-168.
20.Rollo, pp. 5-16.
21.Id. at 15.
22.Id. at 10-11.
23.Id. at 11.
24.Id. at 12-14.
25.Id. at 17-18.
26.Id. at 30-38.
27. CA rollo, pp. 26-46.
28.Id. at 26.
29.Id. at 31.
30. Records, pp. 11-12.
31. CA rollo, p. 33.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 34.
34.People v. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658, February 17, 2020. Citation omitted.
35.People v. Condino, 826 Phil. 319, 326 (2018). Citation omitted.
36.People v. Pigar, supra note 34, citing People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 215 (2017).
37.Id.
38.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
39. CA rollo, p. 39.
40.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 371 (2017), citing People v. Montemayor, 452 Phil. 283, 299 (2003).
41.Id. at 371-372.
42.Id.
43.Rollo, p. 11.
44. CA rollo, p. 44.
45. Section 9. Cause of the accusations. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
46.Encinares v. People, G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021, citing People v. Delector, 819 Phil. 310, 320-321 (2017).
47.People v. Dasmariñas, 819 Phil. 357, 373 (2017). Citation omitted.
48.Encinares v. People, supra note 46.
49.People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 4, 2020. Citation omitted.
50. Records, pp. 18-19.
51.People v. Dasmariñas, supra note 47.
52. G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.
53. 783 Phil. 806, 852 (2016).