THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229824. January 17, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARVIN CAPUTERO y CELINO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 17, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229824 (People of the Philippines v. Marvin Caputero y Celino) — On appeal is the August 9, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. No. CR-HC No. 01892 which affirmed with modifications the July 30, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. C-199-11 which found accused-appellant Marvin Caputero y Celino (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery under Art. 248 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Information 3 dated July 29, 2011 filed against accused-appellant alleged the following:
That on or about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of April 8, 2011 at Sitio Agpilipis, Barangay Ondoy, Municipality of Ivisan, Province of Capiz, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloneously [sic] with intent to kill, attack, assault and shoot RODULFO [sic] OLIVEROS thereby inflicting upon him fatal mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
That the commission of the offense was attended by a qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation for the attack was so sudden and the victim was practically unarmed and defenseless when shot and killed by the accused in this case.
xxx xxx xxx
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
After his arrest, accused-appellant was remitted to the Capiz Rehabilitation Center. 5 He was arraigned on November 3, 2011, during which he entered a plea of not guilty. 6
Antecedents
Accused-appellant is the brother-in-law of Rocelyn Caputero (Rocelyn), the daughter of the victim and his wife Analina Oliveros (Analina). Rocelyn's husband, Rodolfo Caputero, Jr. (Rodolfo Jr.), is the older brother of accused-appellant. Prior to their separation in November 2009, Rocelyn and Rodolfo Jr. lived in the house of the former's parents in Sitio Agpilipis. Also staying in the same house were Rocelyn's parents, brother Ramil Oliveros (Ramil) and the latter's then common-law wife Maria Cristy Oliveros (Cristy). Rocelyn lived and worked in Roxas City after she left Rodolfo Jr., while the latter remained at his in-law's house. Cristy, Ramil and Rocelyn all testified during trial that Analina was having an affair with Rodolfo Jr. 7
On the evening the crime was committed, the victim was in the kitchen together with Analina, Rodolfo Jr., Ramil, Cristy and her son Jeb. The victim was cooking while the rest were gathered in the kitchen. It was then that the muzzle of a homemade shotgun locally known as pugakhang appeared from the kitchen's open doorway near the stove, and then exploded. The victim was hit and instantly fell on the floor. When the assailant tried to reload the gun, its magazine fell inside the kitchen near the victim. The assailant ended up exposing himself when he attempted to recover the magazine. It was then that Cristy, who was seated facing the stove and the doorway, and Ramil, who was seated beside the same doorway, identified accused-appellant as the assailant. Accused-appellant then ran away from the kitchen. The victim was rushed to the hospital, but died en route. His family then decided to return him to the place where he fell and wait for the authorities to arrive.
Analina told the responding police officers that she did not know who killed her husband, while Ramil did not say anything but was described by investigating police officer SPO3 Gilbert Quiachon as "frightened or stunned." It was only two days later that Ramil was able to tell SPO3 Quiachon who the assailant was and that the reason why he failed to immediately report his identity was his fear of accused-appellant caused by a previous altercation in 2010. Cristy claimed that she was not allowed to give a statement by SPO3 Quiachon on the night of the incident, but later testified during trial that she managed to identify accused-appellant because of the bright electrical lights in the house. As to Rocelyn, she found out about her father's death through a mobile phone text message from Cristy. She also identified before SPO3 Quiachon and the trial court the shotgun magazine recovered from the crime scene. She declared that she was familiar with the magazine because it used to fall off the shotgun brought by accused-appellant to their house one time to shoot a coconut.
In his defense, accused-appellant countered that he was in the house of his father, Rodolfo Caputero, Sr. (Caputero Sr.), on the night of the incident. He spent the afternoon and evening drinking with Caputero Sr. in the latter's house after arriving from a vacation in Mindoro earlier the same day. Caputero Sr. lent support to accused-appellant's alibi and testified that the latter drank with him and slept in his house on the night of the incident. According to him, accused-appellant asked his permission to go home at 6:00 o'clock in the morning the following day. Caputero Sr. also testified that the victim's house is about two kilometers away from his house and can be reached no more than 30 minutes by foot.
The RTC Decision
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged. It described the eyewitness accounts of Ramil and Cristy as vivid because they were no more than two meters away from the victim when he was shot and were able to identify accused-appellant when he picked up the shotgun magazine that fell near the victim after the shooting. The RTC found that Ramil's belated reporting of the assailant's identity did not tarnish his credibility, and his fear of retaliation was a justified reason for the delay as accused-appellant himself admitted that he and Ramil did have a misunderstanding in 2010. The RTC compared their testimonies with that of accused-appellant, which it found inconsistent because of his changing statements on his whereabouts after his return from Mindoro earlier in the day of the crime. It considered the defense of denial and alibi as inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant, citing People v. dela Cruz. 8 It also found his alibi unsupported by satisfactory evidence. The RTC took note of the distance between the houses of the victim and accused-appellant's father and the accessibility of the two houses by foot or vehicle, and ruled that it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be present at the scene of the crime as it would have taken him no more than a few minutes from his father's house to get there. The RTC also appreciated the presence of treachery as the victim was shot at close range while busy cooking dinner for his family, thus totally helpless during the attack.
The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, accused Marvin Caputero y Celino is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder defined and penalized by Article 248, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code when he shot to death Rodulfo [sic] Oliveros at the latter's house in Sitio Agpilipis, Barangay Ondoy, Ivisan, Capiz, with treachery, on the night of April 8, 2011 and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of his victim actual damages in the amount of P31,000.00, P14,367.00 for expenses during the wake as nominal damages, P75,000.00 death indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.
He shall be credited with the full term of his period of detention.
Cost to the accused.
SO ORDERED.9
The CA Decision
Accused-appellant maintained his innocence before the CA, and argued that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the assailant and that treachery was not established as a qualifying circumstance.
The CA disagreed, and affirmed the trial court's findings of fact. The CA did not subscribe to accused-appellant's argument, citing People v. Teves, 10 that Ramil's delay in identifying the assailant made it highly doubtful because the two-day delay in reporting was not fatal and was satisfactorily explained. The CA also gave credence to Ramil's testimony as it was positive, clear and consistent in all material points. Corroboration by his wife Cristy also strengthened his testimony. The CA ruled that there was no reason to doubt the positive identification made by Ramil and Cristy, given their proximity from and relationship to accused-appellant.
The CA also affirmed the RTC's ruling that the crime was qualified by treachery. Treachery was obvious when accused-appellant slipped a shotgun through the kitchen doorway and shot the victim at close range while the latter was cooking dinner for his family. He had no opportunity to avoid the attack or mount a defense. The location and nature of the wound also showed serious intent to inflict harm.
As to the penalty imposed, the CA modified the same considering that accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, hence, not eligible for parole under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9346. As to damages, the awards of actual and moral damages were sustained while civil indemnity and exemplary damages were reduced to P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. The award of nominal damages was deleted. The CA likewise imposed a 6% interest per annum on the amounts of damages awarded from the date of finality of judgment until full payment in line with jurisprudence.
The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 16, Roxas City, in Criminal Case No. C-199-11 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Marvin Caputero y Celino is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Marvin Caputero y Celino is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following: civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00 and actual damages of P31,000.00. The amounts of damages awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 11
The CA's ruling prompted this appeal.
The Present Appeal
Accused-appellant submits his sole assignment of error:
THAT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING MARVIN CAPUTERO OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 12
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the rulings of the trial and appellate courts.
The CA did not err in upholding the RTC's finding that accused-appellant is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Ramil and Cristy relating to the identification of the assailant are indeed worthy of belief. Their positions inside the kitchen and relatively close proximity to the victim at the time of the attack, which were clearly established during trial, gave them a view of the person who carried out the shooting and the surreptitious manner by which it was carried out. Ramil's delay in reporting the assailant's identity to the investigating officer did not cast doubt on the accuracy of his identification. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Ramil's fear of accused-appellant satisfactorily explained his delay in telling the police the assailant's identity. Although there were inconsistencies in Ramil's testimony regarding his chasing the assailant, his clarification that he only looked outside the kitchen after the assailant ran away still allowed him to properly identify the latter because he saw no other person outside but accused-appellant running away from the kitchen. 13 Also, the Court cannot overlook Cristy's independent identification of the assailant when half of his body entered the kitchen during the attempt to retrieve the magazine that detached from the shotgun after it was fired. 14 Such clear and unreserved testimonies stand solidly against accused-appellant's feeble alibi of being asleep in his father's house at the time of the shooting. As held in Escamilla y Jugo v. People: 15
In order for alibi to prosper, petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that, first, he was in another place at the time of the offense; and, second, it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The appreciation of the defense of alibi is pegged against this standard and nothing else. Petitioner, as found by both the RTC and CA, failed to prove the presence of these two requisite conditions. x x x 16
The Court notes that defense witness Caputero Sr. stated during trial that it takes no more than 30 minutes to walk from his house to the victim's house. 17 It was thus not physically impossible for accused-appellant to leave his father's house and carry out the killing after the latter retired to his room for the night, waking up only at 6:00 o'clock in the morning the next day. 18
The Court also does not agree with accused-appellant that treachery was not established and thus cannot be appreciated in this case. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 19People v. Mantes, et al.20 reiterated the concept:
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 21
From the testimonies of eyewitnesses, it is evident that the assailant made it a point to conceal himself by sliding only the muzzle of the weapon through the open kitchen doorway while remaining hidden from the view of the people inside by leaning on the outside kitchen wall. 22 Ramil and Cristy both saw the firearm muzzle slip through the kitchen doorway. 23 The muzzle was pointed towards the unknowing victim. The victim, who was then occupied with his cooking, was not in the position to know that an attack was imminent, let alone to defend himself. Were it not for the fortuitous seating arrangement of Ramil and Cristy and the hasty attempt of the assailant to retrieve the shotgun magazine inside the kitchen, accused-appellant could have literally gotten away with murder. With treachery established, the killing was properly qualified to murder.
The Court, however, must adjust the monetary awards handed down by the CA in light of People v. Jugueta: 24 civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00; moral damages, to P75,000.00; and exemplary damages, to P75,000.00. Temperate damages must also be increased to P50,000.00. The imposition of interest at 6% per annum on the amounts to be paid as damages from the time of the finality of the judgment until the time of their full payment is maintained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The August 9, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. CR-HC No. 01892 finding accused-appellant MARVIN CAPUTERO y CELINO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant CAPUTERO is ordered to pay the heirs of Rodolfo Oliveros (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The said amounts are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring; rollo, pp. 4-14.
2. Penned by Judge Delano F. Villarruz; CA record, pp. 39-49.
3. RTC record, pp. 15-16.
4.Id. at pp. 15-16.
5. RTC record, pp. 23 and 25.
6.Id. at p. 37.
7. TSN dated April 10, 2012, p. 13; TSN dated April 30, 2013, p. 11; TSN dated July 17, 2013, pp. 14, 20-21.
8. 594 Phil. 491 (2008).
9. CA record, p. 49.
10. 316 Phil. 294 (1995).
11.Rollo, p. 13.
12. CA record, p. 23.
13. TSN dated April 30, 2013, pp. 22, 24-25.
14. TSN dated April 10, 2012, pp. 5-6.
15. 705 Phil. 188 (2013).
16.Id. at pp. 197-198. Citation omitted.
17. TSN dated October 23, 2013, p. 11.
18.Id. at pp. 8 and 12-13.
19.People v. De Leon, 408 Phil. 589, 599 (2001). Citation omitted.
20. 420 Phil. 751 (2001).
21.People v. Mantes, et al., supra note 20 at p. 760. Citation omitted.
22. TSN dated April 10, 2012, p. 18.
23.Id. at pp. 3 and 18; TSN dated April 30, 2013, pp. 21-22.
24. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.