ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254036. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARLON "WOWONG" BENEDICTO AND MICHAEL GALURA,accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254036 (People of the Philippines v. Marlon "Wowong" Benedicto and Michael Galura). — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated June 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. Nos. 05155 and 10017, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated June 29, 2011 of Branch 255, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas City in Criminal Case No. 08-0380 that found Marlon "Wowong'' Benedicto (Marlon) and Michael Galura (Michael) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The Antecedents
An Information 4 was filed against accused-appellants, along with Gerald Gracer (Gerald) and Jeffrey Culaton (Jeffrey), charging them with the crime of Murder committed as follows:
That on or about the 11th day of December 2007, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one BENEDICTO TOLENTINO y POTENTE, by then and there hitting him repeatedly with a piece of wood on different parts of his body and thereafter stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
The killing of the aforesaid victim is qualified by the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellants entered their pleas of not guilty to the charge. 6
The other accused, Gerald and Jeffrey, however, remained at large. 7
Version of the Prosecution
Witness Perla Bulawan (Perla) narrated that on December 11, 2007, at around 10:00 p.m., she and her husband Lencio Bulawan (Lencio), along with the victim Benedicto Tolentino (Benedicto), Rodolfo Rosalde, and Edgardo Oriol (Edgardo), were having a conversation near the basketball court when the four accused arrived. She asserted that Benedicto was standing in the middle of the basketball court when the four accused rushed and attacked him, with Michael, Marlon, and Gerald carrying a knife, a 2x2 piece of wood, and a piece of stone, respectively. 8
Perla further testified that all four accused helped each other in hitting the victim. In particular, Marlon hit Benedicto on the head and other parts of his body with a piece of wood. Benedicto kept on stepping backward until he fell. Thereafter, Michael hit him again with the same piece of wood. It was at that point that Jeffrey stabbed Benedicto on his right thigh. Then, Gerald struck Benedicto with a stone. 9
Witness Lencio also testified that he, his wife Perla, and two others were talking near the basketball court when all four accused arrived. He recalled that Jeffrey went inside a house while Michael, Gerald, and Marlon stayed outside. Suddenly, Michael punched Benedicto. Thereafter, Benedicto swiftly stood up and the fight started. Lencio alleged that the four accused and Benedicto exchanged blows until he and Edgardo pacified them. After a while, Jeffrey approached and punched Benedicto several times. Marlon, who was already carrying a pamalo, a 2x2 piece of wood, hit Benedicto with it on the head and other parts of the latter's body. Marlon let go of the piece of wood, but Michael picked it up and hit Benedicto on his chest. When Benedicto fell, Gerald hit him on the head with a stone. Gerald stopped mauling and stabbing Benedicto as several onlookers gathered around them. All four accused fled when they noticed that more people swarmed the place. 10
Lencio and the other onlookers carried Benedicto, boarded him on a motorcycle, and brought him to a hospital. Unfortunately, Benedicto died despite the medical treatment he received. 11
Marcelina Tolentino, the wife of Benedicto, testified that her husband told her that he was attacked by the four accused. However, among the four accused, she only knew Jeffrey because the latter was a neighbor. For her husband's death, she claimed having incurred expenses of P189,000.00 for hospitalization, P50,000.00 for the funeral services, and P4,000.00 for the burial ground. 12
Version of the Defense
For his part, Marlon denied the accusations against him. He alleged that on the day of the incident, he, Gerald, and Michael went to Basa Compound II to invite Jeffrey to eat out. At a distance of around 10 meters, they saw Jeffrey drinking alcohol with a group of around eight people. They noticed that Jeffrey was arguing with Benedicto. Soon after, Jeffrey and Benedicto started hitting each other. He and Michael pulled Jeffrey away from Benedicto; Jeffrey then left the scene. Thereafter, Jeffrey returned holding a knife and then stabbed Benedicto on his left arm. The two then wrestled and both fell to the ground. Jeffrey stood up and immediately picked up a 2x2 piece of wood and hit Benedicto four times. Finally, they took Jeffrey away from the scene and brought him to Basa Compound II. 13
Michael corroborated Marlon's testimony. He added that they left Benedicto lying on the ground and proceeded to Basa Compound II with Jeffrey; that Jeffrey and Benedicto fought because the latter touched the thigh of Jeffrey's wife, Rowena; and that he, Marlon, and Gerald had no motive to assault Benedicto. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On June 29, 2011, the RTC found Michael and Marlon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. 15 It ruled that the injuries sustained by the victim were enough evidence to establish that intent to kill was present, noting the postmortem examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation Medico-Legal Officer which showed that Benedicto had suffered multiple injuries on different parts of his body. 16 Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused Marlon Benedicto; alias "Wowong," and Michael Galura beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds them Guilty, as charged. They are, therefore, sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, plus the accessory penalties provided for by law. Accused Marlon Benedicto and Michael Galura are further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally the amount of P239,000.00 (Two Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Pesos), as actual damages, P80,000.00 (Eighty Thousand Pesos), as moral damages, and P50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Pesos), as exemplary damages.
With costs.
SO ORDERED. 17
Both Michael and Marlon filed an appeal before the CA. 18
On April 8, 2014, Jeffrey was arrested. On August 26, 2014, he was arraigned, and he entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. 19
In his defense, Jeffrey averred that in the evening of December 11, 2007, he was inside their house with his family when he heard a commotion outside. Shortly thereafter, they heard Benedicto calling them out for a fight. Michael took a knife from the kitchen and rushed outside. Marlon and Gerald soon followed while he stayed inside the house. Later, they learned that Benedicto was rushed to the hospital. 20
On November 6, 2017, the RTC convicted Jeffrey of the charge. 21 It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JEFFREY CULATON, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Jeffrey Culaton is further directed to indemnify the heirs of Benedicto Tolentino y Potente the following — a) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; b) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; c) One Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Seven Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P172,637.90) as actual damages; and d) interest on all the damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED. 22
Feeling aggrieved, Jeffrey also appealed to the CA. 23
In a Resolution 24 dated February 19, 2018, the CA consolidated the two appeals.
Ruling of the CA
On June 14, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 25 affirming the RTC ruling with modifications as to the damages, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeals are DENIED. The June 29, 2011 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 255, finding accused-appellants Marlon "Wowong" Benedicto and Michael Galura guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and the November 6, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 255, likewise finding accused-appellant Jeffrey Culaton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Marlon "Wowong" Benedicto, Michael Galura, and Jeffrey Culaton are ordered to solidarily pay the heirs of the victim the amount of One Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven and 90/100 (P172,637.90) as actual damages. The award of other damages must be in this manner per People v. Jugueta: Civil indemnity —P75,000.00; Moral damages — P75,000.00 and Exemplary damages — P75,000.00, with legal interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 26
The CA ruled that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants were members of the group that killed Benedicto, and that the prosecution witnesses positively identified them as the assailants. It declared that the four accused helped each other in killing Benedicto as evinced by their own actions: Marlon hit Benedicto on the head and other parts of his body with the piece of wood he was carrying; thereafter, Michael hit Benedicto with the same piece of wood; Jeffrey stabbed him; and, lastly, Gerald struck him with a stone. 27
Given the circumstances, the CA concluded that the prosecution had clearly established that accused-appellants, taking advantage of their number, ganged up against Benedicto and killed him. 28
Hence, the appeal of accused-appellants before the Court. Jeffrey did not file an appeal.
Accused-appellants 29 and the People 30 adopted their respective briefs filed in the CA.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
The crime of Murder has the following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing does not amount to parricide or infanticide. 31
The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of the foregoing elements in the killing of Benedicto.
First, Benedicto was killed as evidenced by a Medico-Legal Certificate and Autopsy Report which showed that he sustained abrasions on his right arm, scalp, and down to the leg; contusions in the eyes; two lacerated wounds; a stab wound in the left upper quadrant of the abdomen; and skull fractures which caused intra-cranial hemorrhage or bleeding.
Given the number and locations of the injuries sustained by the victim, as properly noted by the RTC in Criminal Case No. 08-0380, the intent to kill on the part of the four accused is clear. 32
Second, the Court is convinced that accused-appellants, along with Jeffrey and Gerald, killed Benedicto. As the CA aptly found, the four accused had acted in concert to attain a common purpose, which was to kill Benedicto, viz.:·
Contrary to the allegations of the accused-appellants, conspiracy was established in this case. According to People vs. Ancheta, "the very existence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose in common between them. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence of the offense; it is sufficient that at the time of its commission, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. In this case, the malefactors clearly acted in conspiracy in killing Benedicto. The circumstances in this case prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The evidence does not show that any of the appellants sought to avert the killing of Benedicto. It is settled that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. 33
Third, the killing of Benedicto was undoubtedly attended by the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
"To properly appreciate abuse of superior strength, due regard must be made to the relative age, size, and strength of the parties." 34 In other words, the prosecution must prove that "there was a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that was plainly and obviously advantageous to the latter who purposelyselected or took advantage of such inequality to facilitate the commission of the crime." 35 "In this context, to take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked." 36
In the case, Benedicto was unarmed when he was by attacked by accused-appellants, Jeffrey, and Gerald. The prosecution established that the four accused ganged up on Benedicto. As narrated by prosecution witness Perla, Benedicto was casually standing in the basketball court when the four accused started to attack him. All four accused relentlessly hit Benedicto even after he fell on the ground. Accused-appellants hit Benedicto on his head and other parts of the body. Jeffrey stabbed Benedicto while Gerald struck him with a stone.
Thus, under these circumstances, there is no question that accused-appellants, Gerald, and Jeffrey took advantage of their number and weapons to ensure the attainment of their hideous plan to kill Benedicto.
As to the propriety of the penalty imposed, the Court finds that the CA correctly imposed upon accused-appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, the penalty imposed for the crime of Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 63 of the RPC. 37
The Court likewise upholds the CA's awards of damages in favor of the heirs of the victim. After all, when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of only reclusion perpetua, as in this case, the proper amounts to be awarded are: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. As regards the actual damages, the heirs of Benedicto are indeed entitled to P172,637.90 for hospital, funeral, and burial expenses, which amount was sufficiently proven during trial.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. Nos. 05155 and 10017 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants Marlon "Wowong" Benedicto and Michael Galura are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, they are ORDERED to jointly and severally PAY the heirs of Benedicto Tolentino y Potente the following amounts: P172,637.90 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated July 03, 2019, rollo, pp. 24-26.
2.Id. at 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3. CA rollo, CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05155, pp. 41-45; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva.
4.Id. at 46.
5.Id.
6.Rollo, p. 4.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 5-6.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 5.
13.Id. at 7-8.
14.Id. at 8.
15. CA rollo, CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05155, pp. 41-45; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva.
16.Id. at 44.
17.Id. at 45.
18. See Notices of Appeal dated August 10, 2011 and August 11, 2011, id. at 47 and 50.
19.Rollo, p. 10.
20.Id. at 11-12.
21. CA rollo, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10017, pp. 17-23; penned by Presiding Judge Emily Reyes Aliño-Geluz.
22.Id. at 23.
23. See Notice of Appeal dated November 27, 2017, id. at 24.
24.Id. at 27-28.
25.Rollo, pp. 3-23.
26.Id. at 21-22.
27.Id. at 15-16.
28.Id. at 18.
29.Id. at 35-37.
30.Id. at 40-42.
31.People v. Tabura, G.R. No. 228962 (Notice), February 10, 2021, citing People v. Lababo, et al., 832 Phil. 1056, 1071 (2018).
32. CA rollo, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10017, p. 22.
33.Rollo, p. 20.
34.People v. Jamo, Jr., G.R. No. 224586 (Notice), March 24, 2021, citing People v. Corpuz, 826 Phil. 801, 813 (2018), further citing People v. Calpito, 462 Phil. 172, 179 (2003).
35.People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 248181 (Notice), May 5, 2021. Italics supplied.
36.Id.
37.People v. Tabura, supra note 31.