THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231874. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. TOMAS BARIUAN y IRINGAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231874(People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Bariuan y Iringan). — The Court resolves to
(1) NOTE:
(a) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated September 28, 2017 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief, and it opts to adopt its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee of May 27, 2013 filed before the Court of Appeals; and
(b) the letter dated September 26, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since November 26, 2010; and
(2) DISPENSE with the filing of accused-appellant's supplemental brief, it appearing that, to date, Atty. Carmelo Z. Lasam, counsel for accused-appellant, has failed to file a supplemental brief or manifestation in lieu thereof, required in the Resolution dated July 10, 2017, within the period fixed therein which had expired.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR HC No. 04741, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Tomas Bariuan y Iringan" affirming with modification the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City in its Joint Decision dated September 23, 2010 in Criminal Case Nos. 6263, 6264, 6315, and 7455. Likewise assailed is the CA's Resolution dated February 24, 2016 denying reconsideration of the questioned Decision.
In Criminal Case Nos. 6263, 6264, and 6315, accused-appellant Tomas Bariuan (Bariuan) was charged with the Murder of Evangeline de Austria (Evangeline) and Eduardo de Austria (Eduardo), and Frustrated Murder of Marico Bassig (Marico). Marico, on the other hand, was charged with the Frustrated Homicide of Bariuan in Criminal Case No. 7455. The aforementioned cases were consolidated and tried together as they were borne of the same facts.
For the prosecution, Marico testified that on September 3, 1993, accused-appellant who was then the Barangay Captain of Ugac Norte, went to the store managed by the victims Evangeline, Eduardo, and Marico, briefly confronting them about the non-payment of a debt. Bariuan, thereafter, left the shop and the three resumed work.
A few minutes later, Bariuan went back to the store, uttered "You don't want to pay your debt?" and shot Eduardo. He then shot Evangeline twice. Thereafter, Marico raised his hands and pleaded for Bariuan not to shoot him. He, however, was shot at his right palm. He thus stooped and shielded himself and got his father's 0.32 caliber gun in one of the nearby shelves. When he was about to raise the gun, Bariuan shot him on his left cheek, causing him to fall unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, he found Eduardo and Evangeline sprawled on the floor. Bariuan was no longer in the shop. He then called for help and was treated. He survived despite the wounds that he sustained, unlike Eduardo and Evangeline who both died of hypovolemic shock caused by their gunshot wounds. CAIHTE
For his part, Bariuan insisted that in the midst of the altercation, Eduardo suddenly pointed a gun at him and that after successfully disarming Eduardo, he was shot by Marico on the neck. He then returned fire and shot Marico who tried to shoot him again but missed. Bariuan also claimed that he perceived Eduardo to be getting something that would endanger his life and shot him. Too, thinking that Evangeline was in the concerted effort to kill him, he likewise fired the gun at her. He then left the shop and went to his friend, Chief Inspector Miguel Antonio, in his safehouse near the PC barracks, to surrender.
At around 11:00 of the night of the incident, Bariuan, accompanied by Chief Inspector Antonio, voluntarily surrendered to the police station, where he acknowledged that he fired shots at the three using a 0.38 caliber revolver.
On arraignment, Bariuan pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. However, during the trial proper, he would claim that he shot the three in self-defense.
After trial, the RTC issued a Joint Decision dated September 23, 2010, 2 finding Bariuan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder for the killing of Eduardo and Evangeline, and Attempted Murder for shooting Marico, while appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The fallo of the Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6263, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Evangeline de Austria; and appreciating in his factor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63 of the same Code, hereby sentences him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim Evangeline de Austria civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P100,000.00 and nominal damages of P50,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 6264, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Eduardo de Austria; and appreciating in his factor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63 of the same Code, hereby sentences him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim Eduardo de Austria civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P100,000.00 and nominal damages of P50,000.00.
3. In Criminal Case No. 6315, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous attempt in the life of Marico Bassig, and appreciating in his factor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentences him to the penalty of Imprisonment of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum; and to pay Marico Bassigmoral damage[s] of P60,000.00 and nominal damage[s] of P40,000.00.
4. In Criminal Case No. 7455, accused Marico Bassig y Singson is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for having injured Tomas Bariuan in lawful self-defense.
SO ORDERED.3
Bariuan appealed the Decision to the CA, insisting that he should be exonerated on the ground of self-defense.
In the assailed ruling, the CA affirmed with modifications the RTC's findings on Bariuan's guilt. The CA noted that there are glaring inconsistencies in Bariuan's testimony on material points, rendering said testimony unworthy of belief. On the other hand, Marico's testimony was consistent with the evidence on record and was, therefore, given due weight and consideration. As to the trial court's holding that he is guilty of Attempted Murder for the injuries that he inflicted upon Marico, the CA held that he should be held liable for Frustrated Murder instead in view of the nature of the gunshot wound that he inflicted upon Marico. 4
On Bariuan's claim of self-defense, the CA ruled that he failed to prove the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims in order for his actions to be considered as done in self-defense. 5 The CA also emphasized that the claim of self-defense was not raised by Bariuan at the first instance. 6 The CA thus affirmed the RTC's ruling with modifications and disposed of the appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Joint Decision dated September 23, 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the following modifications:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6263, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Evangeline de Austria. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63(3) of the same Code, this Court hereby SENTENCES him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ORDERS him to pay the heirs of the victim Evangeline de Austria the civil indemnityof P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of Php30,000.00, and temperate damages of P25,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 6264, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Eduardo de Austria. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63(3) of the same Code, this Court hereby SENTENCES him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ORDERS him to pay the heirs of the victim Eduardo de Austria the civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of Php30,000.00, and temperate damages of P25,000.00.
3. In Criminal Case No. 6315, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248, in relation to Article 50, of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous attempt upon the life of Marico Bassig. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court SENTENCES him to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor (within its full range), as minimum term, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal (within is minimum period), as maximum term, and ORDERS him to pay the victim Marico Bassig moral damages of Php40,000.00, exemplary damages of Php30,000.00, and temperate damages of Php25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.7
Reconsideration thereof was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution dated February 24, 2015. 8 Bariuan thus elevated the case to this Court, contesting the CA's finding that he did not act in self-defense and that he is guilty not of attempted murder but of frustrated murder for inflicting upon Marico a gunshot wound on his cheek.
We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA, save for the amount of damages awarded.
In the instant case, the issues raised are essentially factual, calling for a review of the evidence presented. We have time and again ruled that the determination of issues of this nature is best left to the courts below. This Court is not a trier of facts and factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record. 9 Nevertheless, even if We were to study the case anew, still, We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the CA, insofar as their conclusions are in agreement.
A review of the evidence presented shows that as between Bariuan's and Marico's testimony, it is that of Marico which is consistent with the evidence and, therefore, worthy of belief. Bariuan's offering of conflicting statements on how the incident transpired and the fact that his version is inconsistent with the nature of the wounds sustained by the victims, as well as feigning ignorance on material points, cannot prevail over Marico's testimony.
Firstly, Bariuan's act of invoking self-defense resulted in the shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecution to him. Thus, in People v. Gonzales, 10 We held that: HEITAD
Self-defense as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the acts which would have been criminal in character had it not been for the presence of circumstances whose legal consequences negate the commission of a crime. By invoking self-defense in this case, the appellant admitted that he shot the victim. With this admission, the burden of evidence shifted to the appellant to prove that he acted in accordance with the law. The appellant, in this regard, must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, to relieve him of any criminal liability:
First, unlawful aggression;
Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending.
In Gonzales, 11 this Court explained that the existence of unlawful aggression is the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense. Self-defense cannot exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel. For unlawful aggression to be present, the one attacked must be facing a real and immediate threat to his life. 12
Here, to prove the presence of unlawful aggression justifying his shooting Eduardo and Evangeline, Bariuan claims that the gun which he used was Eduardo's and that after the latter pointed it at him, he easily disarmed Eduardo and shot him. However, when asked about how he disarmed Eduardo and on the whereabouts of the gun, he conveniently dodges the inquiries and claims that he cannot remember. 13 He also testified that he shot Eduardo because he saw him move. Then, believing that Evangeline also intends to kill him, he shot Evangeline even though he cannot remember seeing her holding a gun. 14
As to his shooting of Marico, according to him, he shot Marico before the other two victims. But later on, he claimed that he left the scene after shooting Marico. 15 Too, he testified that he only shot Marico once. However, it was clearly established that Marico sustained two (2) bullet wounds, one in his right palm, and the other on his face. 16 In this respect, the CA correctly emphasized that the downward trajectory of Marico's bullet wound on his cheek reveals that Bariuan shot Marico while the latter was stooping down, and him positioned at a higher level — an advantageous position. 17
An analysis of Bariuan's testimony vis-à-vis the evidence only convinces Us that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of any of the victims. The CA aptly observed that Bariuan's claims are glaringly inconsistent in itself and with the evidence, particularly the wounds sustained by the victims. Bariuan miserably failed to prove the presence of the crucial element of unlawful aggression to justify his actions and exculpate him from the charges.
These, coupled with Bariuan's belated assertion of self-defense, lead Us to believe that Bariuan did not, in fact, act in self-defense. And since self-defense will only be appreciated in favor of the accused if the three elements are present, We find no need to discuss the absence of the other two elements.
Anent the modification by the CA holding Bariuan guilty of frustrated murder instead of attempted murder as ruled by the RTC, We note that both courts agree that Bariuan made a failed attempt to take the life or Marico. They only differ on whether such is tantamount to attempted or frustrated murder.
In this respect, this Court agrees with the CA that Bariuan should be held liable for frustrated murder. The CA correctly took into consideration the established fact that although the attending physician who examined Marico initially ruled out the fatal nature of Marico's wound, upon finding out the bullet's downward trajectory, he later changed his preliminary finding and stated that said wound could have caused Marico's death were it not for the timely medical intervention given him. 18 Without any evidence to contradict this, We are constrained to give due weight to the attending physician's testimony and affirm the CA's finding that Bariuan is guilty not of attempted murder, but frustrated murder.
As to the damages awarded in both crimes, We find it necessary to further modify such to conform to People v. Jugueta. Thus:
In summary:
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00. 19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision dated August 17, 2015 and Resolution dated February 24, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR HC No. 04741. As modified, the Decision of the Court of Appeals shall read as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Joint Decision dated September 23, 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the following modifications:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6263, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Evangeline de Austria. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63(3) of the same Code, this Court hereby SENTENCES him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ORDERS him to pay the heirs of the victim Evangeline de Austria the civil indemnity of [P100,000.00], moral damages of [P100,000.00], and exemplary damages of [Php100,000.00].
2. In Criminal Case No. 6264, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous killing of Eduardo de Austria. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying Article 63(3) of the same Code, this Court hereby SENTENCES him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including all accessory penalties provided for in the Code and ORDERS him to pay the heirs of the victim Eduardo de Austria the civil indemnity of [P100,000.00], moral damages of [P100,000.00], and exemplary damages of [Php100,000.00].
3. In Criminal Case No. 6315, accused Tomas Bariuan y Iringan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248, in relation to Article 50, of the Revised Penal Code for the treacherous attempt upon the life of Marico Bassig. Appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court SENTENCES him to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor (within its full range), as minimum term, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal (within is minimum period), as maximum term, and ORDERS him to pay the victim Marico Bassig civil indemnity of [P75,000.00], moral damages of [P75,000.00], and exemplary damages of [Php75,000.00].
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Franchito N. Diamante.
2. Penned by Judge Jezarene C. Aquino.
3. CA rollo, pp. 76-77.
4.Rollo, p. 17.
5.Id. at 6-7.
6.Id. at 12.
7.Id. at 21-22.
8.Id. at 23.
9.Bernales v. Heirs of Sambaan, G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 90, 99.
10. G.R. No. 195534, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 590, 595.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 596.
13.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
14.Id. at 13.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 8-9.
17.Id. at 17.
18.Id. at 18.
19. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 381-382.