FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227359. March 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.JERRY DAUBA y ECARMA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227359 (People of the Philippines v. Jerry Dauba y Ecarma)
On appeal is the September 18, 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06335. The CA affirmed with modification the May 18, 2013 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Masbate City, Branch 45 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 14864, finding Jerry Dauba y Ecarma (appellant) guilty of murder.
Antecedents
In an Information dated June 14, 2001, appellant was indicted for murder, qualified by treachery, for the killing of Alejandro Mahinay y Mancao (victim). During his arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" and, thereafter, trial ensued.
Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Aniceto Rondina (Rondina) as the sole witness to the crime. Rondina testified that at about 2:30 in the afternoon of June 13, 2011, he was inside the house of Antonio Alcaide (Alcaide) together with the victim, Pedito Montellano (Montellano), and their wives. They were all eating when appellant suddenly entered the house and shot the victim on his left chest with a short firearm. The victim fell off his chair and instantaneously died. 3
At about 6:00 in the afternoon of the same day, Barangay Chairman Dindo de la Cruz 4 of Barangay Quintana, San Pascual, Masbate, surrendered appellant to the Police Station of San Pascual, Masbate. The police were able to recover from the crime scene one (1) metallic slug and one (1) empty shell from a .45 calibre gun. 5
Evidence of the Defense
Only appellant testified and interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He averred that on the date of the incident, he was on duty as Chief Tanod at the barangay hall when he received news that the victim was shot inside Alcaide's yard. When he immediately went to the place to verify, people pointed at him as the victim's assailant. He went to the house of Barangay Chairman de la Cruz to seek assistance in clearing his name. Instead, he was brought to the police station where he was detained. 6 CAIHTE
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision dated May 18, 2013, the RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. The RTC convicted appellant based on the positive and straightforward identification of Rondina, the prosecution's lone witness, as to the events that transpired. It did not give credence to appellant's defense of denial and alibi since he did not prove that he was absent from the vicinity at the time of its commission or that it was highly impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. The RTC ruled that the killing was attended by treachery since it was a surprise attack, which denied the victim a chance to defend himself. 7 The RTC sentenced appellant as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused "JERRY DAUBA Y ECARMA guilty of the crime of MURDER, qualified by treachery and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Alejandro Mahinay y Mancao the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php94,438.00 as actual damages.
COSTS against the accused.
The Provincial Jail Warden is directed to immediately commit the accused to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED. 8
Aggrieved, appellant appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its Decision dated September 18, 2015, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction for murder. It ruled that all the elements of murder, qualified by treachery, were present. The CA found Rondina as a credible witness since he was with the victim when the incident transpired and he positively identified appellant as the one who shot the victim without any warning or affording the latter an opportunity to evade or repel the attack. 9
The CA further ruled that the alleged inconsistencies in Rondina's testimony were only minor details which did not affect his credibility. It also affirmed the RTC's ruling that appellant's defenses were not persuasive. 10 Thus, the CA affirmed the guilt of appellant but increased the award of damages in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 May 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Masbate City, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00 and the additional award of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 are imposed by way of moral and exemplary damages, respectively.
SO ORDERED. 11
Hence, this appeal.
In a Resolution 12 dated December 7, 2016, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In his Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 13 dated March 1, 2017, appellant manifested that he was no longer filing a supplemental brief since all relevant arguments were thoroughly discussed in his Appellant's Brief. In its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 14 dated February 20, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) stated that it had already exhausted all issues and arguments in support of its position in its Brief before the CA.
Appellant raises the following issues in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 15 before the CA:
Issues
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PROSECUTION'S THREE AFFIDAVITS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THESE WERE NEITHER IDENTIFIED TO, NOR TESTIFIED UPON BY THE AFFIANTS. DETACa
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE SAME. 16
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious. Appellant should only be convicted of the crime of homicide.
The prosecution has sufficiently proven that appellant was the person who shot the victim based on Rondina's testimony. He was able to positively identify appellant as the killer because he was present inside the house when the victim was shot. He was able to clearly see the face of appellant as the shooter of the victim.
Further, the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Rondina is insufficient to overturn appellant's conviction. As aptly ruled by the CA, while there might have been initial inconsistencies with his testimony during cross-examination, he was able to clarify the events that transpired during the same cross-examination that the victim was indeed inside the house and that appellant was the one who entered the house and shot the victim. Thus, these inconsistencies are only minor and do not affect his credibility.
Nonetheless, the prosecution failed to prove that treachery attended the attack.
For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. 17
The mere fact that the victim had no weapon with which he could have defended himself is not sufficient to prove the existence of the first element of treachery, for settled is the rule that treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or must be conclusive as the killing itself. 18 Further, the mere suddenness of an attack should not be the sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence to show that the accused deliberately or consciously adopted the means of execution to ensure its success. 19
In this case, Rondina only gave one short statement regarding the alleged treachery that attended the killing, to wit:
Court
Q: Why do you say that the shooting was sudden?
Witness Aniceto Rondina
A: Because he suddenly entered and shot the victim. 20
Evidently, the general statement of Rondina regarding the suddenness of the attack is insufficient to prove that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. He simply testified that appellant "suddenly entered the door and shot the victim." He did not give any detail regarding the position of appellant when he entered the door, whether he was already aiming at the victim or whether he only drew his gun upon entering the house. The time interval between the sudden entry of appellant in the house and the act of shooting was not stated in the testimony. The only circumstance established in that lone testimony was that appellant suddenly entered the house but, with respect to the actual act of shooting, there was no detail provided whatsoever.
Likewise, the victim was shot only once in front, on his chest. The lone shot and the frontal position of the wound show that appellant did not consciously employ treacherous means to shoot the victim. Indeed, the prosecution was not able to present any evidence to prove that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by appellant to kill the victim. Thus, the second element of treachery was not present. aDSIHc
Proper penalty
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for the crime of homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no circumstance modifying the criminal liability, the penalty is applied in its medium period. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum sentence is taken from prision mayor, and the maximum is from the medium period of reclusion temporal. Hence, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The award of P94,438.00 as actual damages for the proven expenses incurred by the heirs of the victim relative to his death and burial must be affirmed. 21 The award of damages must, however, be modified. Pursuant to People of the Phils. v. Jugueta, 22 the crime of homicide entails the following awards of damages: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. In addition, the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is MODIFIED. Appellant Jerry Dauba y Ecarma is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and to pay the heirs of Alejandro Mahinay y Mancao the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P94,438.00 as actual damages. The amounts of damages awarded shall have an interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., took no part; Reyes, Jr., A., J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 4, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-9; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 44-51; penned by Judge Manuel L. Sese.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4. Referred to as "Chairman Dindo dela Cruz" in CA decision.
5. CA rollo, p. 45.
6. CA rollo, p. 32.
7.Id. at 47-50.
8.Id. at 51.
9.Rollo, p. 5.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Id. at 8.
12.Id. at 15-16.
13.Id. at 23-24.
14.Id. at 17-20.
15. CA rollo, pp. 28-42.
16.Id. at 30.
17.People of the Phils. v. Oloverio, 756 Phil. 435, 447-448 (2015); citing People of the Phils. v. Labino, 375 Phil. 1065, 1076 (1999).
18.People of the Phils. v. Estrellanes, Jr., et al., 309 Phil. 224, 238 (1994).
19.People of the Phils. v. Oloverio, supra note 17 at 449.
20. CA rollo, p. 68.
21. CA rollo, p. 50.
22. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).