FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218957. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGELIO AVILES y LIBORES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218957 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. ROGELIO AVILES y LIBORES, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated January 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01631. The CA affirmed the Judgment 2 dated March 26, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, Branch 35, in Criminal Case No. 7737-0, which convicted accused-appellant Rogelio Aviles y Libores (Aviles) for the murder of Generoso L. Malinao (Generoso).
It bears noting that Aviles has already admitted to killing Generoso. This appeal pertains only to the alleged failure of the prosecution to sufficiently prove the existence of treachery to qualify the crime as murder.
The Facts
An Information dated September 1, 2006 was filed charging Aviles with the murder of Generoso committed as follows:
That on July 30, 2006, at about 11:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening at Sitio Derek Spillway, Brgy. Poblacion, Kananga, Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with treachery and evident pre-meditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Generoso L. Malinao with the use of a double bladed weapon which the accused have [sic] provided for himself for the purpose of inflicting upon the victim fatal wound on his back which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Aviles was arraigned on November 8, 2007 and pleaded not guilty. 4
The CA in its assailed Decision summarized the facts as follows:
Testimonial evidence for the prosecution showed that on 30 July 2006, at about 11:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening, Ma. Loda Malinao (Ma. Loda) was busy preparing dinner with her husband, Generoso x x x, at their house at Poblacion, Kananga, Leyte when she heard their next-door neighbor, herein [Aviles], in front of their house utter threatening words. Generoso then went outside of the house to talk to [Aviles]. As Ma. Loda was setting the table, she heard Generoso and [Aviles] conversing loudly about hog feeds. Shortly thereafter, Ma. Loda called for Generoso and [Aviles] to come in to partake dinner together. As Generoso was about to enter the house, Ma. Loda saw him fall to the floor with blood oozing out from the back of his body. Ma. Loda also saw [Aviles] behind the outside wall of the house about a meter away from Generoso. Extremely startled, Ma. Loda managed to immediately close the front door of the house. Ma. Loda then heard [Aviles] continuously shouting outside, "It's not yet enough. I would kill you all!" Moments later, Generoso was brought to Kananga Community Hospital for medical treatment. Afterwards, a team of police officers from Kananga Police Station, composed of SPO1 Frederick Cabaltera, SPO1 Rolando Basallage, PO3 Glen Harpon, PO3 Calbatera, and PO2 Nixon Enero, proceeded to the hospital to investigate the incident. At around 1:00 o'clock in the early morning of 31 July 2006, the police officers were able to interview Generoso, during which, he told them that it was [Aviles] who stabbed him hours earlier. This anti-mortem statement of Generoso was reduced into writing, and because of the severity of his wound, he merely affixed his thumbmark thereon. At about 8:15 o'clock [sic] of the same morning, Generoso died due to "hemorrhagic shock secondary to loss of blood due to injury in the lungs."
In defense, [Aviles] avers that at about 11:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening of 30 July 2006, he heard his neighbor Ma. Loda from the kitchen of her house imputing to him about stolen hog feeds. He then went to Ma. Loda's house, and there in front of the door of the latter's house, advised her to stop her bewailing. Ma. Loda responded by confronting him and telling him in his face that she would hail him to court. Seconds later, Ma. Loda went back to the kitchen. All of a sudden, Ma. Loda's husband, Generoso, appeared and immediately stabbed him with a knife. He was able to parry the stab blow, however, and managed to get hold of the knife. While he and Generoso were swerving, both of them fell to the ground, with Generoso laying himself on his [Aviles] hand which held the knife. His sister, Gemma Setenta, was present and witnessed the incident. After the two of them got up, Generoso ran towards their house, while he threw the knife away, and proceeded to the residence of his father-in-law, Marcelo Alburo. Afterwards, he went to his uncle in Togbong, Kananga, Leyte. He surrendered to police officers Calbatera the day after the incident. 5
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Judgment 6 dated March 26, 2013 convicting Aviles for the murder of Generoso:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused ROGELIO AVILES y Libores GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Generoso Malinao the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages, Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 7
The RTC held that Aviles failed to substantiate his claim of self-defense by credible, clear, and convincing evidence. On the contrary, the testimony of defense witness Gemma Setenta (Gemma) showed that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Generoso before the stabbing incident. 8
The RTC found that treachery was present as Generoso was caught by surprise when Aviles suddenly stabbed him in the back. Generoso had "no inkling that Aviles would attack him since they already hugged each other and [Generoso] was about to get inside his house completely unaware of the sudden attack. [Generoso] had no opportunity to defend himself because his back was turned against Aviles assuring the latter to commit the crime without risk to his person." 9
Aviles appealed the RTC Judgment to the CA. Aviles filed her Brief for the Accused-Appellant 10 dated February 4, 2014 while the Office of the Solicitor General filed the Appellee's Brief 11 dated July 17, 2014.
CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision 12 dated January 14, 2015 which affirmed the RTC Judgment convicting Aviles for the crime of murder: ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated 26 March 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Ormoc City, in Criminal Case No. 7737-O, finding appellant Rogelio Aviles y Libores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 13
The CA affirmed the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. It was sufficiently established that Generoso was stabbed by Aviles from behind after he already turned his back and was walking to his house. The unexpected attack was done swiftly and suddenly to deprive Generoso of any chance to defend himself. 14
Hence, the instant appeal.
The Court issued its Resolution 15 dated September 2, 2015 ordering the parties to submit supplemental briefs within 30 days from receipt of notice.
Aviles, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief (with Prayer) 16 dated April 1, 2016 stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief as all arguments and issues have been adequately presented in the Appellant's Brief.
The OSG, representing plaintiff-appellee, likewise filed a Manifestation and Motion 17 dated February 10, 2016 stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief as all matters and issues have already been discussed in the Appellee's Brief.
Issue
The issue for resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming that treachery was present to qualify Aviles' crime to murder.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is denied.
The Court preliminarily notes that Aviles submitted a handwritten letter 18 dated August 26, 2019 requesting to withdraw the instant appeal due to lack of interest in pursuing it. Aside from its failure to comply with the mandatory formal requirements and the Efficient Use of Paper Rule, it is emphasized that the granting of a motion to withdraw appeal is left to the sound exercise of judicial discretion. Once a case has been submitted for decision, the appellant cannot, at his/her own election, compel the withdrawal of the appeal. 19 In this regard, considering the nature and gravity of the crime involved, the Court proceeded to review the records of the case and rule on the appeal.
The crime of murder is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Article 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 temporal in its maximum period 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.
xxx xxx xxx
The following are the elements of murder: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 20
The qualifying circumstance of treachery has been defined as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 21 The elements of treachery are thus: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 22
This Court has elucidated that the essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders him/her unable and unprepared to defend himself/herself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. 23 It is an attack that is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 24
In this case, the first and second elements of murder are established and no longer in issue. Generoso was killed and Aviles admitted to killing him. The fourth element is also present considering there is no relation between Generoso and Aviles to constitute the crime as parricide or infanticide.
The remaining third element in issue involves the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. After a perusal of the records, this Court affirms the CA Decision that the killing of Generoso was attended with treachery.
The testimony of Dr. Roland Tomaro, the attending physician who examined Generoso, indicated that the latter suffered a stab wound from the back located at "the left posterior portion of the 8th ICS near the vertebral column para vertebral line." 25 It was also evident in the testimonies of Ma. Loda and the defense's own witness Gemma that Aviles stabbed Generoso after their conversation ended and when the latter turned around to walk back to his house. The confrontation was already finished and the unsuspecting Generoso no longer expected any attack from Aviles. Aviles' attack on Generoso was sudden and swift, and purposely timed after the latter turned his back to prevent him from defending himself or retaliating. These circumstances clearly prove the treachery employed by Aviles in stabbing Generoso from behind.
All told, the CA and RTC correctly convicted Aviles of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. However, pursuant to the landmark case of People v. Jugueta, 26 this Court modifies the award of damages as follows:
1. The award of civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00;
2. The award of moral damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00;
3. The award of temperate damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00; and
4. The award of exemplary damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00.
The imposition of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all damages awarded from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid is sustained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01631 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the amounts awarded as damages. Accused-appellant Rogelio Aviles y Libores is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Generoso L. Malinao P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The civil indemnity and damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." cSEDTC
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. 4-16; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa Q. Quijano-Padilla.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-54; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rogelio R. Jaboco.
3.Id. at 39.
4.Id. at 40.
5.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
6. CA rollo, pp. 39-54.
7.Id. at 53-54.
8.Id. at 44-45.
9.Id. at 51-52.
10.Id. at 26-38.
11.Id. at 65-77.
12.Rollo, pp. 4-16.
13.Id. at 16.
14.Id. at 14-15.
15.Id. at 22-23.
16.Id. at 33-34.
17.Id. at 28-29.
18.Id. at 51-52.
19.People v. Rocha, 558 Phil. 521, 535 (2007).
20.People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173, 183 (2018).
21. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 14 (16).
22.People v. Kalipayan, supra at 186.
23.People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 217 (2017).
24.People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 667 (2017).
25.Rollo, p. 14.
26. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).