FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215199. April 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MOISES CAMARA y DEVILA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215199 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. MOISES CAMARA y DEVILA, accused-appellant). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant Moises Camara y Devila (Camara), seeking the reversal of the January 29, 2014 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05507, affirming with modification the March 1, 2012 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, finding Camara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The Case
This case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC charging Camara with the crime of murder, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 10th day of July 2008, at Barangay Del Rosario, Municipality of Tagkawayan, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a fan-knife, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and stab with said knife one BENEDICTO DELGADO DE CASTRO, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on different parts of his body, which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On March 26, 2009, Camara, assisted by the District Public Attorney, pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. 5 Pre-trial conference was then conducted on May 12, 2009, whereby only the identity of the accused and the jurisdiction of the court were admitted. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 6
The Antecedents
Prosecution's Version of Facts
On July 10, 2008, at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, the victim, Benedicto de Castro (Benedicto), together with Anecito Manalo (Anecito), Francisco Jolo (Jolo), and Roberto Regala (Regala) was having a drinking session in the house of Neri Olar (Olar) at Barangay Rosario, Tagkawayan, Quezon. They have then consumed two bottles of gin. 7
All of a sudden, Camara arrived and went in front of Benedicto. In an instant, Camara lunged a fan knife (beinte nueve) hitting Benedicto on the upper right of his stomach and the right portion of his neck. None of the companions of Benedicto were able to react and stop Camara. Camara then fled from the scene. Benedicto was brought to his house where he eventually died. 8
Defense's Version of Facts
At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening of July 10, 2008, Camara was having a drinking session in the house of Olar with Olar, Anecito, Noel Manalo, Hadgie Manalo (Hadgie) and Regala. They were drinking gin. Moments later, Benedicto, together with Jolo arrived and joined them. While drinking, Camara was exchanging jokes with Anecito and Hadgie. Thinking that they were talking about him, Benedicto confronted Camara. The latter, however, denied making fun of Benedicto. Benedicto did not believe Camara and got angry at him. Angrily, Benedicto verbally attacked and cursed Camara. The latter retorted, which angered Benedicto more. 9
The two stood up ready for a fistfight but they were pacified by their companions. It is at this moment that Benedicto uttered, "Antayin mo ako at babalikan kita." Camara ignored Benedicto and continued drinking. After a while, Benedicto returned carrying a twenty-nine inched fan knife. Benedicto swung at Camara but the latter was able to evade the attack by moving backward. Undeterred, Benedicto pursued the attack but Camara was able to parry the assault. The two then grappled for the knife until they fell. In the course of the struggle, with both of them holding the knife, Camara felt the blade of the knife enter Benedicto's stomach. Camara then immediately left for fear that Benedicto's companions might chase and hurt him. 10
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision finding Camara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses who categorically narrated that it was Camara who, with treachery, suddenly swung a knife at Benedicto, causing his death. 11
The trial court likewise ruled that Camara's argument of self-defense lacks factual and legal basis. It noted that Camara's claim of self-defense remains uncorroborated despite the fact that there were several persons present at the site of the incident. The trial court also observed that although Camara claimed that he and Benedicto grappled for the knife, the former remained unscathed; Camara, further failed to explain how the victim suffered another fatal stab wound on the neck. 12 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:
Wherefore, premises considered, the court is morally convinced that MOISES CAMARA Y DEVILA is GUILTY of the crime of MURDER for the treacherous killing of Benedicto de Castro. Said accused is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole in accordance with RA 9346.
Said accused is further ordered to pay the family of the deceased Benedicto de Castro:
PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
PhP75,000.00 as moral damages;
PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
PhP35,000.00 for and as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED. 13
Aggrieved, Camara appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision promulgated on January 29, 2014, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC as to the award of damages to the victim's family. Like the trial court, the CA concluded that all the elements of murder, as qualified by treachery, and none of the elements of self-defense, are present in the instant case. The CA noted that Camara did not bother to offer any corroborative evidence to support his defense of self-defense, such as the testimonies of his companions during the drinking session. 14 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The March 1, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 5413-C finding accused-appellant Moises Camara y Devila guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Benedicto de Castro, the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to the interest on all these damages assessed at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 15
Undaunted, Camara filed a Notice of Appeal 16 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's decision convicting Camara of the crime of murder despite Camara's claim of self-defense.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is unmeritorious.
Camara argues that, although he admits to killing Benedicto, he acted merely in self-defense. He insists that it was Benedicto who was the aggressor and in an attempt to protect himself from injury and even death, Camara struggled with Benedicto for the possession of the knife, which resulted in the accidental stabbing and ultimately the demise of the latter. 17
This Court is not persuaded.
In People v. Japag, 18 this Court explained the doctrine of self-defense, thus:
It is settled that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defense, and it becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of the following requisites of self-defense: first, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
As the burden of proof is shifted to the defense, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. After all, by invoking self-defense, the accused, in effect, admits having killed or injured the victim, and he can no longer be exonerated of the crime charged if he fails to prove the requisites of self-defense. 19 (Citations omitted)
After a careful review of the records of this case, this Court upholds the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Camara's claim of self-defense is unfounded. Hence, bereft of merit.
First, his version of facts that it was Benedicto who was the aggressor and who tried to stab him is incredible. If what he claims is true, he could have easily proven it through the testimonies of his alleged drinking companions at the time of Benedicto's alleged aggression. His testimony, however, was left uncorroborated by any other witnesses.
In contrast, the prosecution, through its witnesses, was able to prove that it was Camara who suddenly attacked Benedicto. Olar testified that while they were on the balcony of his house having a drinking spree, Camara suddenly appeared, confronted Benedicto, and stabbed the latter. 20 This was corroborated by Anecito. 21 Indubitably, both witnesses positively identified Camara as the unlawful aggressor in the case.
Needless to state, Camara's allegation that it was Benedicto who was the unlawful aggressor is self-serving and unsubstantiated. Weighed against the positive, straightforward and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, his claim of self-defense must necessarily fail. Where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, there can be no self-defense. 22
Second, had Benedicto really attacked and tried to stab Camara, Camara would have sustained some injury from the said aggression. As the records reveal, however, Camara remained unscathed after the alleged encounter between him and Benedicto.
Finally, the nature, number and severity of the wounds sustained by Benedicto negate Camara's claim of self-defense. Settled is the rule that the nature, the number and the location of the wounds inflicted upon the victim were important indicia disproving self-defense. 23
In the instant case, if Camara's intent was merely to defend himself from the attack of Benedicto, why did Camara fatally stabbed Benedicto twice, one on the stomach and another on the neck? To recall, Benedicto suffered two fatal wounds, one on the stomach and another on the neck. Worse, Camara could offer no explanation as to how Benedicto suffered another fatal stab wound on the neck. The gruesome wounds sustained by the victim logically indicate that the assault was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined murderous aggression. Such wounds belie the exculpatory pretension of appellant and confirm the theory of the prosecution that appellant purposely and vigorously attacked the deceased in order to kill the latter. 24
As things are, the elements of the crime of murder are: (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) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 25
Based on the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, of the prosecution, this Court finds all these elements extant in this case.
Settled are the following facts: firstly, Benedicto died after being stabbed by Camara twice, one on the stomach and another on the neck; secondly, the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide; finally, evidence demonstrates that there is prima facie fact showing the presence of the element of treachery.
In People v. Las Piñas, et al., 26 this Court defined treachery as:
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the 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. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 27
Further, in order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
To recall the prosecution witnesses testified that the attack against Benedicto was sudden and unexpected. Olar testified as follows:
Q: So, after that drinking spree and you're having a conversation as you stated, what happened, Mr. Witness?
A: Bigla pong dumating itong si Moises Camara at humarap po doon sa biktima, kay Benedicto de Castro at biglang inundayan po niya ng saksak.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, you said that "dumating si Moises Camara at biglang inundayan ng saksak si Benedicto de Castro," was Benedicto de Castro hit by that stabbing blow made by Moises Camara?
A: Yes, sir. He was hit on the upper part of his stomach and another one on his neck (the witness pointed to the upper portion of his stomach and the right portion of his neck).
Q: In your observation, Mr. Witness, was Benedicto de Castro able to defend himself from the stabbing blow made by Moises Camara?
A: I supposed he cannot defend himself because it suddenly happened.
xxx xxx xxx 28
Another prosecution witness, Anecito, corroborated Olar's testimony, thus:
Q: And while you were having a conversation, the five of you, what happened, Mr. Witness?
A: Boy Camara suddenly arrived.
Q: What happened after that, after he arrived?
A: He stabbed Benedicto de Castro, sir.
Q: Who stabbed Benedicto de Castro, Mr. Witness?
A: Boy Camara, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Based on your observation, was the victim able to defend himself?
A: No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx 29
As narrated by the prosecution witnesses, the circumstances show that the stabbing was sudden and unexpected to the deceased constituting the element of alevosia. Records reveal that Camara's attack was deliberate and without warning. It was so sudden and unexpected negating the possibility for Benedicto to fight back and defend himself. In fact, even Benedicto's companions failed to react to the stabbing incident. Tersely put, Benedicto was caught off guard when he was attacked by Camara giving no chance for Benedicto to resist, fight back and escape.
From all the foregoing, this Court holds and so rules that Camara failed to prove with plausible evidence all the elements of self-defense. Hence, his plea of self-defense must fail.
On the other hand, the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime of murder, as attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the CA.
The Penalty
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed upon Camara the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 248 of the RPC provides that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. By applying Article 63 (2) 30 of the RPC, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua, shall be imposed upon Camara in view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
As regards the award of damages, however, further modification must be made in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 31 Accordingly, the award of moral and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00 each. This Court deems it proper to further increase the award of temperate damages to P50,000.00 for it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss though its amount cannot be proven with certainty. 32 Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is retained. All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed January 29, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05507, is AFFIRMED with Modification in that accused-appellant Moises Camara y Devila is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Benedicto de Castro the following amounts: (i) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (iv) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 190-191.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-8; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Retired Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 51-66; penned by Associate Justice Manuel G. Salumbides.
4.Rollo, p. 2.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 4.
10. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
11.Id. at 61-64.
12.Id. at 65.
13.Id. at 66.
14.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
15.Id. at 8.
16. CA rollo, pp. 190-191.
17.Id. at 136.
18. G.R. No. 223155, July 23, 2018.
19.Id. at 77-78.
20. CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
21.Id. at 53-54.
22.People v. Albao, 350 Phil. 573, 590 (1998).
23.People v. Escarlos, 457 Phil. 580, 597 (2003).
24.People v. Sambulan, 352 Phil. 336, 348 (1998).
25.People v. Alvarez, et al., 752 Phil. 451, 457 (2015).
26. 739 Phil. 502 (2014).
27.Id. at 524.
28. CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
29.Id. at 62-64.
30. Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
xxx xxx xxx
31. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
32. CIVIL CODE, Article 2224.