THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199095. February 22, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORIEL CAGANAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 22, 2016, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 199095 (People of the Philippines vs. Noriel Caganan). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated March 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03559, which affirmed the conviction of Noriel Caganan (Caganan) in the Decision 2 dated May 26, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oriental Mindoro, City of Calapan, Branch 40, for the crime of Murder.
An information 3 was filed charging Caganan with the crime of murder committed on December 1, 2000, at about 10:45 p.m., at Sitio Hundura, Barangay Poblacion, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro against Japhet Gonda (Gonda) with treachery and evident premeditation by stabbing him at the back four times using an 8-inch long fan knife (balisong) which caused his untimely death. 4
During arraignment, Caganan pleaded "not guilty." 5 Trial on the merits ensued.
The facts are undisputed.
At around 10:45 in the evening of December 1, 2000, Rowena Caberte was at the Outrigger Bar and Restaurant in Sitio Hondura, Poblacion, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where she was working as a waitress. On said time and date, she had just served six (6) bottles of beer to [Caganan] and his five companions. While she was seated on a table with the manager of the restaurant named Vina Justiniano and another waitress named Martel, the victim, [Gonda] who was their disco jockey, joined their table and sat in front of her at a distance of barely one (1) meter away and they watched the performance of a four-member live band. Their table was only about three (3) meters away from the table being occupied by [Caganan] and the latter's companions positioned near the door where their cook Rey Gumba was.
On the same time and date, while Rey Gumba, who was the stay-in cook of Outrigger Bar and Restaurant, was positioned at the entrance or near the see-through door of the restaurant, [Caganan] and the latter's companions arrived and occupied a table. He saw the group order one bottle of beer for each of them. At that time, he was watching the performance of a live band in the restaurant. Other persons who were present were Vina Justiniano, [Gonda], the bartender Alex Singson, the waiter Ariel Aguado and their waitresses namely Rowena Caberte and Martel. He was about an arm's length away from [Gonda] whose back was turned against him. On the other hand, [Caganan] and his companions were about two (2) arms length away from him and about two and a half (2 1/2) meters away from [Gonda].
Thereafter, [Caganan] suddenly approached [Gonda] and when [Caganan] was already facing [Gonda], [Caganan] pushed down [Gonda's] head and then stabbed the latter on his back several times using a fan knife (balisong). Upon seeing that [Caganan] stabbed [Gonda], Rowena Caberte pulled the shirt of [Caganan] who tried to stab her but she was able to avoid [Caganan's] stabbing thrust.
Subsequently, [Caganan] ran away. Ray Gumba and others immediately blocked his way. However, [Caganan] was able to run fast and they were not able to catch up with him. They prevented the companions of [Caganan] from leaving the restaurant until and after the policemen arrive. TAIaHE
[Gonda] managed to stand up and after making him sit down on a chair, [Gonda] was able to take off his shirt and at this point, Rowena Caberte saw the wounds sustained by [Gonda] on his back. Rey Gumba brought [Gonda] to a hospital in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro while Rowena Caberte and Vina Justiniano called up the Puerto Galera Municipal Police Station. Upon arrival of the police officers, the companions of [Caganan] were apprehended.
On the late hour of December 1, 2000, Dr. Ely Cabrera, the former Municipal Health Officer of Puerto Galera, examined [Gonda] at the Ospital ng Mamamayan ng Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. He initially attempted to revive [Gonda] and instructed the nurse and midwife on duty to prepare the IV solution and oxygen. But after a few minutes, [Gonda] died. Dr. Cabrera thereafter prepared a Medico-Legal Report showing that [Gonda] sustained the following injuries: (a) superficial stab wound slightly below the left nipple which he described as shallow and which could have been inflicted by [Caganan] while the latter was in front or behind [Gonda]; (b) stab wound on the left side of the back near the armpit which he considered fatal and was possibly inflicted on [Gonda] at the time [Caganan] was in front or behind him; (c) two stab wounds on the left forearm which he described as non-fatal[;] (d) stab wound on the left portion of his lower back which was fatal because it would cause shock and perforation of the spleen; (e) small superficial wound on the neck below the Adam's apple which he considered as non-fatal; and (f) abrasion on the big toe. Dr. Cabrera declared that [Gonda's] stab wounds could have been caused by a sharp-bladed weapon like a fan knife or balisong and [Gonda] died in Hypovolemic shock and cardiac tamponade secondary to internal bleeding and pneumohemothorax from penetrating stab wounds on the left chest. He conducted the post-mortem examination of [Gonda] about three (3) hours after the latter died. 6
Ruling of the RTC
On May 26, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision 7 convicting Caganan of murder based on the following observations and conclusions, to wit: (1) having admitted the killing, Caganan failed to prove the act of self-defense; (2) there is a dubious narration of the facts because no Charisse was presented to testify that Caganan acted in self-defense when Gonda got angry at him and his companions when she shared a table with them at the videoke bar; (3) that the number and location of the wounds sustained by Gonda belie Caganan's claim that he accidentally stabbed the victim while twisting the latter's hand in order to wrest possession of the knife; and (4) that Caganan should have surrendered the weapon used if his claim of self-defense was true. Hence, Caganan's claim of self-defense was disregarded for being self-serving and intrinsically weak. 8
In ruling for conviction, full weight and credence were accorded to the unwavering testimonies of eyewitnesses Rowena Caberte (Caberte) and Rey Gumba (Gumba) who categorically pinpointed Caganan as the culprit. The circumstance of treachery was appreciated because the attack was sudden and the victim was unarmed which rendered it impossible for him to put up any defense. Evident premeditation was not appreciated because it was not established that Caganan previously deliberated on killing Gonda. The idea of killing the victim came about only when Caganan saw him seated inside the videoke bar while watching the performance of a live band. 9 Thus, the fallo of the RTC decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, finding [CAGANAN] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the crime of Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, [Caganan] is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties attendant thereto.
[Caganan] is hereby directed to indemnify the heirs of [Gonda] the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity and the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 10
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the conviction in its Decision 11 dated March 7, 2011 and modified the amount of damages awarded, to wit: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. 12
In its affirmance, the CA agreed with the RTC that Caganan failed to substantiate his claim of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. His admission that he killed Gonda can no longer exonerate him of the crime charged if he fails to prove the confluence of the essential elements of self-defense. 13 Additionally, the statements of Caberte and Gumba positively identified Caganan as the one who stabbed Gonda several times on different parts of his body. 14 It was further opined that even if Gonda and Caganan initially scuffled during the conflict, such fact alone does not prove that Gonda was the unlawful aggressor. 15 Neither did the CA give due consideration on the "accidental self-defense" interposed by Caganan considering that self-defense is deliberate and a positive overt act of the accused. 16
Caganan's claim of accidentally wounding Gonda was also negated by the findings of Dr. Ely Cabrera who "demonstrated the trajectory of the thrust of the weapon inflicted at the victim which caused one of the fatal wounds therein by pointing the left side of his back near the armpit." 17 Treachery was also appreciated because it was also proved that Caganan surreptitiously approached the unsuspecting Gonda while the latter was seated and enjoying the performance of a live band at the restaurant. Caganan took advantage of the situation by swiftly stabbing Gonda, who was rendered defenseless by the sudden attack. 18
Ruling of the Court
The Court affirms the conviction.
As aptly stated by the CA, the prosecution established the following elements of murder, 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 Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. 19
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 statements of the eyewitnesses that saw Caganan deliver four stabbing blows against Gonda while the latter was pre-occupied. Regrettably, there is a dearth of evidence that Caberte and Gumba were ill motivated when they testified against Caganan. cDHAES
Treachery was also properly appreciated by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in view of the manner the attack was done. As the CA stated, "[Caganan] surreptitiously approached the unsuspecting [Gonda] who was just sitting down and enjoying a live band at the restaurant. [Caganan] took advantage of the stunned and hapless victim by swiftly stabbing him with a fan knife. The suddenness and unexpectedness of [Caganan's] attack rendered [Gonda] defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape." 20
This Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua meted against Caganan in view of Section 3 21 of Republic Act No. 9346. The amount of civil indemnity and moral damages are also affirmed. The amount of exemplary damages is, however, increased to P30,000.00 22 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, an interest of six percent (6%) 23 per annum shall apply based on all damages awarded to be computed from the finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated March 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03559 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the amount of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00, and all damages awarded shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum to be computed from the finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring; CA rollo, pp. 118-136.
2. Issued by Judge Tomas C. Leynes; id. at 55-67.
3. Id. at 55.
4. Id. at 56.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 119-121.
7. Id. at 55-67.
8. Id. at 63-65.
9. Id. at 65-66.
10. Id. at 67.
11. Id. at 118-136.
12. Id. at 134-135.
13. Id. at 124.
14. Id. at 125-128.
15. Id. at 129.
16. Id. at 130-131.
17. Id. at 132.
18. Id. at 132-133.
19. People v. dela Cruz, 626 Phil. 631, 639 (2010).
20. CA rollo, p. 133.
21. 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.
22. People v. Abaigar, G.R. No. 199442, April 7, 2014, 721 SCRA 73, 78.
23. People of the Philippines v. Virgilio Amor y Viscarra, G.R. No. 190322, November 26, 2014.