FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248324. August 31, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR T. ARAZA @ "DOMY ARAZA", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 31, 2022, which states as follows:
"G.R. 248324 (People of the Philippines v. Dominador T. Araza @ "Domy Araza"). — On appeal 1 is the April 11, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02436, which affirmed with modifications the January 13, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Catbalogan, Samar, in Criminal Case No. 5783, finding accused-appellant Dominador T. Araza (Araza) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The Information 4 charging Araza with the crime of Murder alleged:
That on or about the 26th day of July, 2003, at around 12:30 A.M., more or less, in Barangay Poro, Municipality of Zumarraga, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery, thereby qualifying the killing to murder, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Diego Badenas with the use of a firearm with which the accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the victim a gunshot wound, which wound resulted to his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged against him. 6 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Bryan Durana (Durana) narrated that on July 25, 2003 at around 9:00 p.m., the victim, Diego Badenas (Diego), Arden Conde (Conde), and their other companions Marvin Daguhoy (Daguhoy), 7 Pedro Albos (Albos), and Roy Montalban (Montalban) went to Barangay Poro, Zumarraga, Samar to watch the public dance being held on the eve of the barangay fiesta. 8 They arrived in Poro at around 9:10 p.m. and watched the dance. 9 At around 12:00 midnight, Durana, Diego, and Conde left the dance hall and proceeded to the Poro wharf to wait for their companions. 10 While they were waiting at the wharf, Araza suddenly approached Diego, put his left arm around the victim's shoulders, poked a gun at Diego's right temple, and fired. 11 When Diego fell on the ground, Durana immediately ran towards the dance hall and reported the incident to Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Garcia (Garcia). 12 Garcia immediately left the dance hall and went to the wharf together with two police officers. 13 On the other hand, Durana, Conde, Daguhoy, Albos, and Montalban boarded their motorboat and went home to Barangay Mualbual, Zumarraga, Samar. 14 Upon arrival at Barangay Mualbual, Durana and Conde proceeded to Diego's house and informed Diego's father, Melanio Badenas, about the incident. 15
Diego's body was autopsied on July 26, 2003 by Dr. Deodilo O. Quinto (Dr. Quinto). 16 Dr. Katerina Nono-Abrietas (Dr. Nono-Abrietas), the successor of Dr. Quinto, explained the autopsy report issued by Dr. Quinto and pointed out that the gunshot wound at the right cheek hit the zygomatic area that perforated the skull. 17 The burning of the skin was caused by the gun powder that came in contact with the victim's skin. 18 Dr. Nono-Abrietas, however, was not certain of the distance between the face of the victim and the gun's nozzle, but assumed that since there was a contusion collar, it was a close range fire. 19 Dr. Nono-Abrietas explained that the gunshot wound was fatal which directly caused the immediate death of the victim. 20
Diego's mother, Corazon A. Badenas, on the other hand, testified on the expenses and damages incurred by reason of the death of her son. 21
Version of the Defense
Araza testified that at around 12:30 a.m. of the said day, he was at the dance hall of Barangay Poro with his cousins. 22 While they were about to get a table inside the dance hall, alias "Buboy," who is working at the Monte card game operation, approached Araza and requested him to pacify Diego who was being unruly in the ongoing card game. 23 As the person in-charge of the gambling area and the collector of fees, Araza heeded. 24 He then approached Diego who was seated beside the card dealer and invited Diego to come with him. 25 Diego heeded Araza's request. 26 After Araza advised Diego, the latter suddenly got furious. 27 Araza pacified Diego and told the latter that there was no need to be angry. 28 Araza recounted that earlier at around 10:00 p.m., Diego invited him for a drink. 29 In response, Araza gave Diego some amount and advised the latter to stay in the store where he bought the liquor. 30 Thereafter, Araza invited Diego to continue drinking with him at Tatay Junior's house which was about 80-100 meters away, just to get Diego away from the gambling area. 31 Araza further testified that Diego left the gambling place intoxicated as the latter was able to finish two bottles of liquor. 32 While on their way to Tatay Junior's house, Diego kept on cursing Araza but the latter reminded Diego to control his temper. 33 Diego however got furious and claimed that he can kill Araza. 34 Thereafter, Araza advised Diego to think clearly as he did not do anything wrong to him. 35 However, Diego suddenly drew a fan knife to Araza's left side with the former's left hand. 36 Araza did not notice it at first but it was fortunate that Diego pushed him away. 37 Since the fan knife seemed rusty, Diego was not able to open it right away so he had to use both his hands. 38 This gave Araza an opportunity to step back. 39 Araza kept on pleading Diego not to stab him but the latter continued to advance. 40 Fearing for his life, Araza drew his handgun and shot Diego at a distance of about 2 1/2 meters. 41 Araza claimed that there was no one present and it was only the two of them at the time of the incident. 42 After the incident, Araza returned to the gambling area. 43 While thereat, Araza told the crew that their problem is finally gone. 44 When the crew asked what happened, Araza responded that he just defended himself. 45 Thereafter, Araza went to the house of his uncle where he waited until daylight. 46 On cross-examination, Araza claimed that at around 7:00 p.m. of the following day, he went to Catbalogan City and stayed in a house located at Barangay Canlapwas. 47 Eventually, Araza decided to go Manila. Araza never surrendered before the police authorities until he was arrested. 48
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC, in its Decision 49 dated January 13, 2016, found Araza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. It gave credence to the prosecution eyewitnesses who positively identified Araza as the perpetrator in the killing of Diego. Araza's contention of self-defense cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification by Durana and Conde of Araza as the assailant. The RTC sustained the view of prosecution witnesses that Araza placed his left arm across Diego's shoulders, drew a gun, and fired at point blank range. Moreover, treachery attended the commission of the crime as the victim was suddenly shot at the right side of his check. The fact that Araza purposely wrapped his arm around Diego's shoulder was a deliberate and conscious mode of attack chosen by the accused-appellant and as a consequence thereof, he did not give Diego the opportunity to defend himself or repel the assault against him. 50
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads: cSEDTC
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds Dominador T. Araza alias Domy GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder charged against him as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. He is therefore sentence[d] to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay moral damages of P75,000.00; actual damages of P50,000.00; attorney's fees and other expenses amounting to P65,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The imprisonment shall be served at the Abuyog Regional Penal Colony, Abuyog, Leyte. Whereas, the detention suffered by the accused is deducted in his favor, if he followed the rules and regulations of the jail authorities.
SO DECIDED. 51
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the CA. 52
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed April 11, 2019 Decision, 53 the CA affirmed with modification the trial court's judgment of conviction. Treachery attended the killing of Diego because the attack was sudden and unexpected depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. 54
The CA likewise rejected Araza's theory of self-defense, holding that without the element of unlawful aggression, there can be no successful invocation of self-defense. Accused-appellant's act cannot be interpreted as an act of self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill. 55
Finally, the appellate court ruled that the attendance of treachery qualified the killing to Murder and thus Araza was properly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In addition to the damages awarded by the trial court, the appellate court awarded civil indemnity and exemplary damages amounting to P75,000.00 each. Moreover, the CA deleted the actual damages and attorney's fees for lack of basis. The CA, however, awarded temperate damages amounting to P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages and stated that all monetary damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid. 56
Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Catbalogan, Samar, in Criminal Case No. 5783, dated January 13, 2016, is hereby AFFIRMED but with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) Appellant Dominador T. Araza is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346;
(2) Aside from the award of P75,000.00 as moral damages, appellant Dominador T. Araza is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 temperate damages to the heirs of Diego Badenas, with all amounts bearing six percent (6%) interest per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid; and
(3) The awards for actual damages, other expenses and attorney's fees are deleted for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED. 57
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
The issue for Our resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, viz.:
ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall he punished by reclusion perpetua, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
(1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, to be convicted of the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established, to wit: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC, as amended; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. 58
In the case at bar, the abovementioned elements were duly established by the prosecution. Diego was killed. 59 Araza was positively identified as the assailant in the killing of Diego. Moreover, Diego's killing was not parricide nor infanticide.
We agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime thus qualifying the offense to Murder.
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there 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 the offended party might make.
To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. 60
In this case, Durana witnessed the shooting incident and narrated in this wise:
Q: Upon leaving the dance area at 12:00 x x x midnight tell the Honorable Court where did you go?
A: We proceeded to the wharf of Barangay Puro to wait for our other companions.
Q: When you speak of "we" who proceeded to the wharf to wait your other companions, tell the Honorable Court whom you are referring to as "we"?
A: Myself, Arden Conde and Diego Badenas.
Q: And while the three of you were waiting for your other companions at the wharf of Barangay Puro, Zumarraga, Samar, tell the Honorable Court what if anything transpired.
A: While we were at the wharf of Barangay Porn, Dominador Araza suddenly approached Diego Badenas and shot him.
Q: How did Dominador Araza shot Diego Badenas?
A: He put his arm around the shoulder of Diego Badenas and the other hand holding the gun was poked at the right temple of Diego Badenas.
Q: What arm of Dominador Araza was placed around the neck of Diego Badenas?
A: Left hand. 61
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, why do you say that it was Dominador Araza who placed his left hand around the neck of Diego Badenas and fired the gun at the right temple of Diego Badenas?
A: Because I saw him. There was a street light. The place was illuminated.
Q: Tell the Honorable Court what illuminated the place when the shooting incident took place?
A: Street light with a 25 watts bulb.
Q: How many street lights were there?
A: Three including the one at the edge of the wharf, there was a "camalig."
Q: How far were you to Diego Badenas when he was shot by Dominador Araza?
A: One (1) full [arm's length]. 62
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do you know what Dominador Araza used in shooting the right temple of Diego Badenas?
A: It was a short firearm. I do not know the name.
Q: And to your recollection what time was it when Dominador Araza shot Diego Badenas on the right temple?
A: It was already 12:30 early in the morning.
Q: Early in the morning of what date?
A: July 26, 2003. 63
Durana's straightforward testimony positively and categorically identified Araza as having shot Diego suddenly and without any provocation at all. Based on established facts, Araza placed his arm around Diego's shoulder immediately before shooting him. As aptly noted by the appellate court, the accused-appellant's act of putting his arm around the victim's shoulder ensured that the victim would not be able to dodge Araza's attack. Undoubtedly, this showed that the attack was treacherous. Moreover, Araza's form of execution showed that he consciously and deliberately adopted the means to commit the crime. Thus, Araza's sudden attack on Diego constitutes treachery thereby qualifying the killing to Murder.
Anent Araza's theory of self-defense, the same deserves scant consideration. To reiterate, the essential elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 64 To successfully invoke self-defense, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack. 65 As correctly pointed out by the lower courts, Diego's threat of killing Araza cannot be considered as a sudden and unexpected attack since Diego already expressed antagonism which sufficiently forewarned Araza. It must likewise be noted that when Diego failed to immediately open the fan knife due to his intoxicated state, there was an interruption in the alleged aggression which should have given Araza the opportunity to escape. However, Araza told Diego to drop the knife and even threatened to shoot Diego, which the appellate court interpreted as a perverse desire to kill and not an act of self-preservation. Thus, considering that unlawful aggression is lacking, self-defense cannot be considered as a justifying circumstance. SDAaTC
Moreover, Araza's argument that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and contradictory fails to persuade.
People v. Licayan 66 holds that discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening the testimonies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed. 67
Furthermore, the Court laid down the following guidelines in the assessment of credibility of witnesses for cases on appeal:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. 68
Considering the foregoing, We uphold the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses because of its direct and first hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Thus, the CA is correct in affirming the Decision of the trial court.
Anent the imposable penalty, Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, specifically provides that the crime of Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having qualified the killing to the crime of Murder, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon Araza was proper.
With respect to the award of damages, We sustain the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages amounting to P75,000.00 each; and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 69 Finally, all the monetary awards shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The April 11, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02436 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2.Id. at 5-16. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
3. CA rollo, pp. 44-70. Penned by Judge Agerico A. Avila.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 29.
7. Spelled as Dagohoy in some parts of the records.
8. TSN, January 11, 2011, pp. 5-6.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 10.
13.Id. at 11.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16. Records, p. 9.
17. TSN, January 6, 2015, p. 10.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 11.
20.Id. at 16.
21.Rollo, p. 7.
22. TSN, September 16, 2015, p. 12.
23.Id. at 13-14.
24.Id. at 15.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 16.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 17.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 18.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 19.
34.Id.
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 20.
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Id. at 21.
44.Id.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47. TSN, October 7, 2015, p. 14.
48.Id.
49. CA rollo, pp. 44-70.
50.Id. at 64-69.
51.Id.
52.Id. at 23.
53.Rollo, pp. 5-16.
54.Id. at 13-14.
55.Id. at 9-12.
56.Id. at 14-15.
57.Id. at 15-16.
58.People v. Babor, 772 Phil. 252, 259-260 (2015).
59. Records, p. 11.
60.People v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 238171, June 19, 2019.
61. TSN, January 11, 2011, pp. 6-7.
62.Id. at 8.
63.Id. at 9.
64.Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020.
65.Id.
66. 765 Phil. 156, 183 (2015).
67.Id.
68.Gemenez v. People, G.R. No. 241518, March 4, 2020, citing People v. Sanchez, 681 Phil. 631, 635-636 (2012).
69. 783 Phil. 806, 847 (2016).