THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211165. April 25, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,vs. NELBERT DELA CRUZ, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 25, 2018, which reads as follows: TCAScE
"G.R. No. 211165 (People of the Philippines v. Nelbert Dela Cruz) — Before us on appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 30, 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01116, which affirmed the October 30, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 29 (RTC), finding Nelbert Dela Cruz y Segura (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
In an Information dated January 23, 2006, petitioner was charged for the crime of murder committed as follows:
"That on or about December 6, 2005, in the Municipality of Leganes, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm of unknown caliber, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot GARY SOQUINTO with the firearm the accused was then provided hitting and wounding the victim at the posterior aspect of his right arm which resulted to his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Upon arraignment on July 6, 2006, appellant pleaded "not guilty".
At the pre-trial, both parties stipulated that the appellant is the same person who was charged in the Information; that he was not a licensed firearm holder; and that appellant and the victim knew each other. Afterwards, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: Reynaida Soquinto (Reynaida) and Rolando Soquinto (Rolando), the victim's parents, and Dr. Owen Lebaquin (Dr. Lebaquin), the medico-legal examiner. Their testimonies established the following version of the events:
At around 9:40 o'clock in the morning of December 6, 2007, while Reynaida was walking towards the bamboo clumps, she saw her son Gary Soquinto (Gary) riding a bicycle. When he passed by the waiting shed, appellant suddenly appeared holding a shotgun and, without warning, shot Gary at the back. Thereafter, appellant approached Gary and boxed him on the head. Reynaida ran towards Gary. But when she was about three (3) arms-length away, she fainted when she saw Gary roll his eyes. After recovering, about a few minutes later, she saw her husband run towards Gary and loaded him on a pedicab. He was eventually transferred to an ambulance but he expired on the way to the hospital.
Rolando testified that his son borrowed his bike to buy a kilo of pork at the town proper. He was sitting beside the road when he saw Gary driving his bike. When Gary passed by the waiting shed, appellant suddenly appeared and shot him from behind. He ran towards his son to help and saw appellant escape towards his house. He tried to bring Gary to the hospital but he died on their way there.
Dr. Lebaquin of the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed that he prepared the Medico Legal Report No. M-891-2005 3 after he conducted an autopsy on the body of the victim. He concluded that the cause of death was hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds at the victim's right axillary area.
Dr. Lebaquin found that the victim suffered eight (8) wounds — the 1st wound was located at the back portion of his right shoulder, classified as a mortal wound, which alone could cause his immediate death; the 2nd wound, located at the back portion of the right shoulder, was a fatal wound that could also cause immediate death; the 3rd wound was located at the victim's right shoulder; the 4th wound, located at the upper portion of the right shoulder, was an entry wound of one of the pellets that exited at the lower arm and re-entered below his armpit and into his lungs; for the 5th and 6th wounds, the same entry and re-entry occurred with the pellets lodging at the right lung; the 7th wound was also classified as fatal while the eighth wound was classified as non-fatal for being a graze wound. 4 He then identified six (6) deformed metallic pellets which he recovered from the body of the deceased while at least 2 pellets exited the body. Dr. Lebaquin surmised that the victim could have been shot by a 12-gauge shotgun which contained nine pellets although such conclusion was still subject to the confirmation of a firearm examiner. If so, the victim must have been shot only once. He further opined that from the location of the wounds, the victim's assailant must have been situated around three (3) yards or more but less than six (6) yards away from him.
The defense presented appellant and Lydia Segura (Segura) as witnesses and proffered the following version of the facts:
Segura testified that while she was sitting outside her store, located beside the waiting shed of Brgy. San Vicente, Leganes, Iloilo, she saw appellant texting when Gary passed by riding a bicycle. Gary alighted from his bike and pulled a gun from his left waist. She saw Gary and appellant grapple for its possession until they both fell to the ground. Suddenly, the gun fired hitting Gary. She also refuted the testimonies of Gary's parents stating that they were not around when the incident happened and that they arrived only much later. Aside from her, there were two others who were near the scene of the incident, an old man who was busy with his work and a woman attending to her child.
To exculpate himself, appellant claimed that it was Gary who brought the gun. He echoed Segura's testimony that he was outside Lydia's store texting somebody when Gary suddenly stopped near him. He heard Segura warn him, "Nelbert, look out for Gary," because Gary had a firearm. Before he could react, Gary already whipped him with the pistol breaking a tooth. Gary was balancing on his bike when he hit him. So when Gary tried to hit him again, he held up his hand causing both of them to fall on the ground. They wrestled for some time before the gun fired. He was shocked by what happened. He said that he had no intention to kill Gary and that it was only an accident. After that, he heard Segura shouting for help. No one got near them because he was still holding the gun. At the sight of Gary's father who was running towards them, he fled and ran away. After three (3) months of hiding from the police officers, appellant surrendered. He said that as soon as he found out that there was a warrant for his arrest, he immediately came out of hiding. cTDaEH
Ruling of the RTC
On October 30, 2009, the RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The fallo of the Decision 5 reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearm and corollary to Section 2 (a) of Republic Act 9346, the accused [Nelbert dela Cruz] is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Gary Soquinto the following:
1.) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity
2.) Php50,000.00 as moral damages
3.) Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages
4.) Php36,000.00 as actual and temperate damages
5.) To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED." (boldface omitted)
The RTC rejected appellant's claim that the killing of the victim was accidental based on the findings of Dr. Lebaquin that the assailant must have been standing behind the victim at his right side from the nature and location of the wounds, thereby proving the qualifying circumstance of treachery while negating the defense of accident. It further ruled that that spontaneous and vivid account of the witnesses of what happened that fateful day clearly proved that the killing was intentional. It also did not appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as appellant only did it after finding out that there was a warrant for his arrest instead of doing it spontaneously.
Aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal before the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its August 30, 2013 Decision, 6 the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It held that relationship between the witness and the victim per se does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive. Rather, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would make the testimony even more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative to accuse somebody other than the real culprit. 7 The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated October 30, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 06-62233 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, 6th Judicial Region, Iloilo City is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 8
Undeterred, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal before this Court. 9
On August 18, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution 10 where both parties manifested that they will adopt the same arguments in their separate briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
Appellant highlights the relationship of the victim to the alleged eyewitnesses whose testimonies cannot be given credence as they are motivated by their desire to avenge their loss, thus, making their judgments impaired by their grief. Appellant also claims that the element of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to the conflicting testimonies of the witnesses.
The Court's Ruling
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented in the appeal, the Court finds that appellant Nelbert Dela Cruz y Segura failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its August 30, 2013 decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In finding appellant guilty of murder, both the RTC and the CA gave full weight and credence to the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, which are corroborated by the findings of Dr. Lebaquin. It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect especially when affirmed by the CA, 11 as in this case.
In prosecutions for murder, the prosecution must establish that: (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 is not parricide or infanticide. 12
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that Gary was killed by appellant. The vivid and spontaneous testimonies of the eyewitnesses were sufficient to prove that appellant shot Gary from behind. Their testimonies were corroborated by the findings of an expert witness, who opined that the victim was shot from behind, at his right side, at a distance of three (3) to six (6) yards by a twelve-gauge shotgun or a firearm that could discharge pellets. The manner by which appellant shot the victim ensured the killing without risk to himself, since the victim was unaware of what was about to happen. This demonstrates the traitorous manner of the attack, proving that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
With respect to the credibility of the witnesses, appellant claims that the eyewitnesses are not detached witnesses which make their testimonies biased and not credible. As observed by the courts a quo, mere relationship between the witness and the victim does not make the testimony of the latter incredible. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit. 13 cSaATC
Moreover, it bears emphasizing that between the two versions, it is the prosecution's version which matches the evidence found by Dr. Lebaquin. His testimony negated the defense of accident by the appellant as the accidental firing due to grappling could not have happened if he was that far away from Gary.
Lastly, in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, 14 the Court finds it necessary to increase the amounts of damages awarded in these cases. Thus, the amounts of exemplary damages, civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to P100,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC NO. 01116, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Nelbert Dela Cruz y Segura is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and should suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Gary Soquinto the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; P36,000.00 as actual and temperate damages; and costs of the suit with interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 30-41, penned by Judge Gloria G. Madero.
3. Records, p. 146.
4.Id.
5.Rollo, p. 41.
6.Supra note 1.
7.Rollo, p. 9.
8.Id. at 11-12.
9. CA rollo, pp. 96-97.
10.Rollo, pp. 27-28.
11.People v. Ramos, et al., 715 Phil. 193, 207 (2013).
12.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 743 (2012).
13.People v. Dayaday, G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017.
14.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).