SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252274. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JESSIE DELOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252274 (People of the Philippines v. Jessie Delos Santos). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11177 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated December 15, 2017 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Sorsogon City in Criminal Case No. 2005-6585. The RTC found Jessie Delos Santos a.k.a. "Esit" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedents
An Information 4 was filed charging accused-appellant and his brother Richard Delos Santos (Richard) with Murder committed as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of July 2005, at more or less 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay San Vicente, Municipality of Donsol, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with bolos, and with abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, did then, and there, conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacking, assaulting and hacking one Joel Emproso, on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. 6
Meanwhile, Richard remains at large. 7
Prosecution witness Jolito Lopez (Jolito) testified that on July 12, 2005, at around 9:00 p.m., he was at home when he heard someone shout for help. From his house, he saw accused-appellant and Richard chasing the victim Joel Emproso (Joel). Both caught up with Joel and hacked him using their bolos. Jolito tried to intervene and pacify them, but to no avail. Both of them even chased him up to his house when he fled. When accused-appellant and Richard left, he went to the barangay hall to report the incident. 8
Another witness, Edina Emproso (Edina), narrated that before Joel was brought to the hospital in Albay, he was able to give the identities of the persons who hacked him. 9
Further, Dr. Jose Amie Bataga (Dr. Bataga) testified that Joel was brought to the hospital where he was treated for several fatal stab wounds on his back or thoracic cavity. Despite showing initial signs of recovery, Joel eventually died due to hospital-acquired pneumonia. 10
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He asserted that at the time of the incident, he was cooking copra at Barangay Tambao, Donsol, Sorsogon which was far from the place where the incident took place. 11
Ruling of the RTC
On December 15, 2017, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of Murder. It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Moreover and without prejudice to the possible contribution of his co-accused, accused is directed to pay the heirs of Joel Emperoso n the sums of P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages. 12
The RTC noted that Joel was confined at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital because of the injuries he sustained from his fatal encounter with Richard and accused-appellant. Specifically, he suffered incised wounds at the left middle portion of his back, a hacking wound at the right part of his body which exposed his intestine, and an incised wound at his left elbow. 13 Based on the testimonies of the witnesses, accused-appellant and Richard took turns in hacking Joel while his back was turned against them. Edina, in particular, testified that Joel disclosed to her the identities of his assailants. Such information, the RTC declared, was considered as part of the res gestae as it was made by Joel himself immediately after a startling occurrence. 14 Moreover, accused-appellant remained responsible for Joel's death even if the hacking incident did not directly cause it considering that Joel was hospitalized because of the injuries inflicted by accused-appellant. 15
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 16 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction and held: (1) that Joel's death due to pneumonia was a direct, natural, and logical consequence of the fatal stab wounds inflicted upon him by accused-appellant and Richard as he would not have been hospitalized if he did not get hacked; 17 (2) that the prosecution witnesses' account of Joel's ordeal in the hands of the aggressors were detailed and consistent, and they positively identified accused-appellant and Richard as the persons who chased and hacked Joel before leaving him for dead; 18 and (3) that the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength when the brothers, with their superior number and use of bolos, took advantage of the unarmed victim. 19 It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated 15 December 2017 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that all award for damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 20
Hence, the appeal before the Court seeking affirmative relief and praying anew for the acquittal of accused-appellant. In compliance with the Resolution 21 of the Court dated September 14, 2020, both accused-appellant 22 and the People 23 manifested that, in lieu of supplemental briefs, they are adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA.
Issue
The sole issue before the Court is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
In the case of People v. Villanueva, 24 the Court laid down the essential elements of murder, to wit: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. One of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, which qualifies the killing of the victim to murder, is abuse of superior strength. 25
In the case of People v. Serafin, 26 the Court held:
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. 27
Here, both the RTC and the CA properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing of Joel to Murder. In concurring with the RTC, the CA found that accused-appellant and Richard took advantage of their superior strength as they attacked Joel with their bolos. Significantly, Joel was alone when he was hacked by the aggressors. The fact that he was unarmed while accused-appellant and Richard were both armed with bolos, clearly demonstrates that the latter two had superior advantage which they used as they took turns in hacking Joel. Under the circumstances, the notorious inequality of forces created an unfair advantage for the aggressors. 28
Accused-appellant's denial and alibi do not inspire belief. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses. An alibi shall only be considered upon clear proof that the accused was not at the locus criminis during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been there. 29 In this case, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at the crime scene. He admitted that he was at home at the time of the incident. In fact, according to him, his house can be reached in less than an hour by just walking. 30 Furthermore, Jolito was categorical and unequivocal in declaring that he saw accused-appellant and Richard in San Vicente in the evening of July 12, 2005. 31
Additionally, evidence would show that pneumonia was a mere complication of the stab wounds on Joel's back or thoracic cavity. While pneumonia is the immediate cause of Joel's death, this could not have resulted had he not been stabbed by the aggressors. 32 Ultimately, Joel's wounds were still the proximate cause of his death. Under the circumstances, the death certificate is not conclusive proof of the cause of death but only of the fact of death. 33 The CA aptly observed:
Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The essential requisites therefore are: 1) that an intentional felony has been committed; and 2) the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
As elucidated in earlier cases decided by the Supreme Court, every person is held to contemplate and be responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts. Hence, if a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in a manner as to put life in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of this felonious and wicked act, the same does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result. Therefore, neglect of the wound or its unskilled and improper treatment, which are themselves consequences of the criminal act, must in law be deemed to have been among those which are in contemplation of the guilty party and for which he must be responsible.
In this case, there is no question that the accused-appellant inflicted stab wounds upon the victim. As per testimony of Dr. Bataga, the stab wounds were fatal. As a result of the fatal stab wounds, the victim was hospitalized and there he acquired pneumonia. As the victim was admitted in the charity ward, he was dependent on the availability of medicines provided by the hospital. Eventually, for failure to receive the proper treatment, the victim died.
However, the fact that he died of pneumonia does not absolve the accused-appellant of liability. The brothers armed with bolos in hacking the victim and leaving him for dead only shows that they really intended to commit murder.
Furthermore, because of the fatal stab wounds sustained by the victim, he had no choice but seek medical attention from the hospital. This is the reason why he acquired pneumonia. In short, the victim could not have acquired pneumonia in the hospital had he not been hacked by the brothers. Hence, the victim's death due to pneumonia, was a direct, natural, and logical consequence of the fatal stab wounds inflicted upon him by the brothers. Therefore, the court a quo was correct in finding the accused-appellant criminally liable. 34 (Emphasis omitted).
Murder is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, 35 with reclusion perpetua. Thus, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua against accused-appellant. 36
Anent the award of damages, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Jugueta, 37 the Court affirms the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 38 The RTC likewise correctly awarded temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, in lieu of the actual damages. Finally, all the amounts due shall be subject to a legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES the Letter dated June 2, 2021 of Corrections Senior Inspector Raul B. Sinadjan, Jr., Chief, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant Jessie Delos Santos a.k.a. "Esit" at the said institution since April 23, 2018.
The appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11177 is AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 2005-6585 before Branch 52, Regional Trial Court, Sorsogon City, accused-appellant Jessie Delos Santos is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of Joel Emproso P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
2.Id. at 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Marie Christine A. Jacob and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 68-72; penned by Assisting Judge Rofebar F. Gerona.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.
5. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 4-5.
9. CA rollo, at 69.
10.Rollo, p. 5.
11.Id.
12. CA rollo, p. 72.
13.Id. at 69.
14.Id. at 71.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-14.
17.Id. at 9-10.
18.Id. at 12.
19.Id. at 13.
20.Id. at 14.
21.Rollo, p. 21.
22.Id. at 22-24.
23.Id. at 28-29.
24. 807 Phil. 245, 252 (2017).
25.Id., citing People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 743 (2012).
26. G.R. No. 246197, July 29, 2020.
27.Id., citing People v. Corpuz, 826 Phil. 801, 183 (2018).
28. See People v. Nazareno, 698 Phil. 187, 193 (2012).
29.People v. Torculas, G.R. No. 216979 (Notice), July 15, 2020, citing People v. Umampas, 807 Phil. 975, 990 (2017).
30. CA rollo, p. 71.
31.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
32.Id. at 12-13.
33.Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. v. CA, 255 Phil. 597, 604 (1989).
34.Rollo, pp. 9-10.
35. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes, approved on December 13, 1993.
36.People v. Torculas, supra note 29.
37. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
38.Id. at 848.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.