THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206542. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE M. ASUQUE, SR. Y MANATAD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206542 (People of the Philippines vs. Vicente M. Asuque, Sr. y Manatad). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated June 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00722 which affirmed the conviction of Vicente M. Asuque, Sr. (accused-appellant) for the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Factual Background
An information 3 was filed charging the accused-appellant with the crime of murder committed on March 14, 2004, at about 2:30 p.m., against his younger brother, Marcos Asuque (victim), with the use of a knife which resulted to several mortal wounds at the latter's chest and caused his instantaneous death.
When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty". After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 4
It was shown by the prosecution that the accused-appellant is the elder brother of the victim. On March 14, 2004, at about 2:30 p.m., the accused-appellant was having a drinking spree with his friends in front of the victim's house. At 6:00 p.m., the victim arrived from the cockpit and joined them. Not long afterwards, a heated argument brewed between the two. The accused-appellant broke a glass then slapped and mauled the victim. The two men exchanged fist blows until the victim fell. Mercedita, the victim's wife, shouted from a nearby house to her parents-in-law that the brothers were quarrelling. Friends eventually separated the two then they both went home. In his house, the victim rested by the bed with his back facing the window as he watched television. After a few minutes, the accused-appellant rapidly destroyed the wooden window shutters behind the victim and gained entry. Mercedita heard the sound and when she looked, she saw the accused-appellant stabbing the victim on the chest several times until the latter fell on his knees. Mercedita went berserk and immediately shouted for help. The accused-appellant went outside and yelled that he would include all who would side with the victim. He returned inside the victim's house and warned Mercedita that he will kill her if she sides with her husband. The brothers' mother called the police and the victim was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. 5
In defense, the accused-appellant interposed a denial and averred that on March 14, 2004, he worked at the Modern Abattoir in Labogon, Mandaue City. He got home at around 4:20 p.m. and had a drinking spree at his place with Titing and Roel with whom he shared that his manager gave him P50,000.00 as insurance. The victim approached and joined them but considered the accused-appellant's story as boastful talk. The accused-appellant retorted that the victim should not join the conversation because he had nothing to do with the topic. The victim furiously stood and pointed a finger to the accused-appellant and repeated that he was boastful. They exchanged fist blows until they wrestled and rolled on the ground. The accused-appellant claimed that the victim, who is bigger than him, went on top of him and pounded him with fist blows flying even on his lower jaw. Their mother left and called the police for help. The wife of the accused-appellant rushed to the scene and pulled the victim away while telling him to stop boxing her husband. The victim halted and headed home. The accused-appellant, on the other hand, told his wife that he would follow her at their house as he needed to shake off the sand from his clothes first. While doing so, he noticed the victim waving for him to come. He did so thinking that his brother wanted to settle the matter. He held one of the window shutters that was open while the victim leaned on the other shutter. When asked what he wanted, the victim did not answer but instead stood and tried to thrust a knife with his right hand. The accused-appellant alertly pulled back the window shutter which hit the victim's right forearm causing the knife to fall on the ground where the former stood. He picked up the knife and when he looked up, the victim was looking at him with wide eyes. Then the victim stepped on the window sill to come out and be where the accused-appellant stood. The accused-appellant blocked his way and delivered several fist blows for fear that his brother would finish him off. He further claimed that he was weak as he held the knife but did not realize it because he was already scared and that he delivered the first blow of the knife on the victim and the latter fell. He moved away when he could no longer see the victim anymore. He waited for five minutes but the victim did not appear again. He headed towards a nearby vicinity and upon reaching a store, he heard talks about brothers quarrelling and that one of them got stabbed. Scared, he rushed to the house of a councilor named Weng Gakit and voluntarily surrendered. He said he did not realize that the victim sustained multiple stab wounds, that he was aware only of the first blow, and that it was self-defense. 6 AaCTcI
The necropsy report issued by Dr. Gil Macato, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, Region VII, Cebu City, after a post-mortem examination conducted on the cadaver of the victim, showed that the victim sustained eight stab wounds, to wit:
Stab wound No. 1 was located on the right upper chest wall. It was on the part of the chest about 6.5 cm from the middle of the body and 140 cm. in relation to the right heel. It involved the skin and the underlying tissues. It entered the thoracic cavity on the chest through the 2nd intercostal space, between the second and the third ribs. The wound, 10 cms deep, perforated the middle lobe of the right lung. The direction was going backward and medially. (Dr. Macato indicated the right upper chest around 5 inches from the midline and 6 inches below the right shoulder). Since the lung is a vital organ and the middle lobe was perforated, Dr. Macato considered the injury as fatal wound. Without any medical attendance, the patient would succumb into irreversible shock in just a matter of minute.
The second stab wound was located on the left upper chest wall, located about 4 cms. from the middle of the body and 124.5 cms. in relation to the left heel. It involved the skin and its soft tissues. It fractured and perforated the sternum at the level of the second costal space. . . . The sternum is the chest plate. The wound perforated the left sternum or the heart with a depth of about 8 inches (Dr. Macato indicated the left chest upper wall around an inch from the midline and around 6 inches below the left shoulder). It was also a very fatal wound because it involved the heart.
The third stab wound measured 1.5 cms on the left upper chest wall 7.5 cms. from the middle of the body. It involved the skin and entered the thoracic cavity through the second inter costal space of the space between the second and third ribs. It perforated the upper lobe of the left lung with a depth of about 13 cms. It too, was a very fatal wound.
The fourth stab wound measured 1.8 cms was located on the left paramedic lower part of the chest wall and about 1.5 cms from the middle of the body. It involved the skin and the underlying soft tissues. It fractured the lower third or the sternum of the chest plate. It perforated the pericardial sac and the right ventricle of the heart with a depth of 90 cms. (Dr. Macato indicated the chest to the left of the sternum and around 8 inches below the base of the neck.) It was a very fatal wound because it involved the right ventricle of the heart.
The fifth stab wound measured 1.4 cms was located on the left lower chest wall, and about 4.6 [cms] from the midline of the body. It involved the skin and its underlying soft tissues running tangentially towards the paramedian. It cut the 10th rib and the thoracic recess and perforated the diaphragm and the pericardial sac with a depth of 10 cms. The main muscle of respiration, the diaphragm was involved affecting the respiratory function of the body. Dr. Macato opined that the wound was a little bit fatal.
The 6th stab wound was located on the upper lateral chest wall on left side along the mid axillary line or the middle of the "kilikili". It involved the skin, its underlying soft tissues, the axillary artery and vein. The big arteries in the armpit were cut or severed. The affected arteries are the direct branches of the aorta, which have a direct connection to the heart. So, the wound is also considered fatal.
The 7th stab wound measured 1.6 cms. on the left antero lateral chest wall, about 13.5 cms from the midline of the body. It only involved the skin and its underlying soft tissues. (Dr. Macato indicated the left side of his body frontal which is around 4 inches below the left armpit.) It was considered non-perforating and non-fatal because it only involved a non-vital organ.
The 8th stab wound measured 1.4 cms located on the left supra auricular area or on the part of the head. It involved the full thickness of the scalp. It was a non-perforating wound located somewhere above the left ear. 7
In Judgment 8 dated March 5, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 28, convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder based on the following findings: (1) treachery was proved by the existence of the eight stab wounds, six of which were fatal, the absence of defense wounds and the manner on how the killing was made, and the means of execution of the attack employed by the accused-appellant against the victim which rendered the latter utterly without any opportunity to put up a defense, much more retaliate; 9 (2) evident premeditation has not been proven as there was no showing that there was significant time for the accused-appellant to coolly reflect on the commission of the crime and clung to his criminal resolution; 10 (3) there was no unlawful entry because the destruction of the window was not for the purpose of gaining entry but to deliver the stabbing blows from that vantage point; 11 (4) the denial of the accused-appellant has no merit; 12 (5) his voluntary surrender is appreciated for being spontaneous and immediate after the incident occurred. 13 The accused-appellant was, accordingly, meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as death indemnity, P15,000.00 as actual damages, and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction and the penalty imposed by the RTC in toto. In ruling for conviction, the CA did not accord merit to the accused-appellant's plea of self-defense because: (1) no aggression proved on the part of the victim, instead, it was the accused-appellant who "even had to break a window to be able to get close to the victim and then stabbed him several times," 14 and (2) there was no reason or necessity for the accused-appellant to stab the victim several times and inflict upon him eight stab wounds. 15 EcTCAD
The defense of alibi was brushed aside for being inherently weak and self-serving while the RTC's appreciation of treachery to qualify the killing into murder was also upheld. Voluntary surrender was not considered to mitigate the penalty because although it was done spontaneously and voluntarily, the accused-appellant did not surrender to a person in authority. 16
Hence, this petition.
The petition is without merit.
For a successful conviction for murder, the following elements should be established, to wit: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.
A claim of self-defense, just like alibi, is intrinsically weak if not supported by clear and convincing evidence. As such, it cannot outweigh the positive and categorical statement of Mercedita, the victim's wife, that she saw the accused-appellant stab her husband eight times after he destroyed their window shutter while the victim was seated and watching television in their dwelling. Regrettably, there is a dearth of evidence to show that Mercedita was ill motivated when she testified against the accused-appellant.
Treachery was also properly appreciated by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in view of the manner how the attack was done, to wit:
The [victim] was vulnerable to the attack because he was sitting on the bed, which was located right near the window that was destroyed. When the victim realized that he was being attacked, it was too late. Though he might have turned around to where the attack came from, the stabbings commenced right away. Though the stab wounds were found on the anterior portion of the body of the victim, their number and location and how they were inflicted leads to the reasonable conclusion that the attack was deliberate and consciously adopted. The means of execution that the [accused-appellant] employed against his brother (victim) rendered the latter utterly without any opportunity to defend himself, much more retaliate. . . . . 17
The Court further affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in view of Section 3 18 of Republic Act No. 9346. However, in line with current jurisprudence, 19 the Court modifies the amounts of civil indemnity as well as moral and exemplary, as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Additionally, an interest of six percent (6%) per annum based on all damages awarded shall also be imposed to be computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated June 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00722 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Vicente M. Asuque, Sr. is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Marcos Asuque P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 as actual damages. An interest of six percent (6%) per annum based on all damages awarded is further imposed computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Mendoza, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 20, 2014).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang concurring; CA rollo, pp. 109-122.
2. ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death 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;
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation; and
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659)
3. CA rollo, p. 44.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 45-47.
6. Id. at 49-52.
7. Id. at 47-49.
8. Rendered by Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap; id. at 44-58.
9. Id. at 54.
10. Id. at 55.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 55-56.
13. Id. at 56.
14. Id. at 117.
15. Id. at 117-118.
16. Id. at 118-121.
17. Id. at 54.
18. SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. [4103], otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
19. People of the Philippines v. Reggie Villariez alias "Toti", G.R. No. 211160, September 2, 2015.