FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249996. March 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINIC DOUGLAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249996 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dominic Douglas, Accused-Appellant.) — In this appeal, accused-appellant Dominic Douglas (appellant) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 13 November 2018 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01960 affirming the Judgment 2 dated 10 April 2014 of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City, Negros Occidental, which convicted respondent of murder and attempted homicide. HTcADC
Antecedents
Appellant, with his co-accused John Doe and Peter Doe, were charged with murder, in an Information dated 22 April 2009, which reads:
That on or about the 6th day of February, 2009, in the City of Victorias, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a firearms (sic), conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, taking advantage of their superior strength and with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one JERRY LIBO-ON y SAPAN, thereby inflicting [fatal] injuries upon him which caused his untimely death.
That evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, attended the commission of the crime when the accused all armed with firearms waylaid the victim and shot him without any warning or giving the latter an opportunity to defend himself.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
On the same date, a separate Information for attempted murder was filed against appellant and his co-accused, to wit:
That on or about the 6th day of February, 2009, in the City of Victorias, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with fire arms, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, taking advantage of their superior strength and number, and with treachery, and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one HOMER ESMAN y PERDIGEN, thus the accused had commenced the commission of the crime of Murder directly by over act, and if the accused were not able to accomplish their unlawful purpose, it was not because of their spontaneous desistance but because the victim was not fatally hit and was able to escape.
That evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, attended the commission of the crime when the accused all armed with firearms waylaid the victim and shot him without any warning or giving the latter an opportunity to defend himself.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
The CA presented the factual antecedents of the case in the following manner:
Version of the Prosecution
To establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely, Homer P. Esman ("Homer"), Dr. Jerry Pahamtang ("Dr. Pahamtang") and Rosemarie Libo-on ("Rosemarie"). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
On February 6, 2009, at approximately between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Homer was riding in the front seat of the tricycle driven by the victim, Jerry Libo-on ("Jerry"). They were on their way to Brgy. Estado when suddenly, appellant and two other persons appeared from the sugarcane field on their left. Appellant shot the victim, who slumped upon impact. Frantic, Homer jumped from the tricycle and ran away. While running, he looked back and saw the three persons shooting at him. Having escaped the scene unscathed, Homer proceeded to the house of Jerry's mother and reported the incident. He then went to the scene of the crime, together with Jerry's relatives, where they saw Jerry lying on the road. They brought Jerry to the barangay hall of Brgy. Estado, and from there, they used the barangay service vehicle to transport Jerry's body to Ikaayong Lawas Foundation, where a doctor unfortunately pronounced Jerry as dead.
Dr. Pahamtang testified that on February 7, 2009, at 9:20 a.m., he conducted the autopsy examination on the cadaver of Jerry and, issued the Autopsy Report and Certificate of Death in relation thereto. Dr. Pahamtang found that Jerry died due to hypovolemic shock secondary to massive hemorrhage due to gunshot wound on the left lateral chest, which injured the left lung and heart.
Meanwhile, Rosemarie, wife of Jerry, testified that she learned of her husband's death only on February 7, 2009, when she saw his body at the funeral home. For close to a month, Rosemarie suffered sleepless nights and loss of appetite due to the death of her husband. She also had to look for work at a sugarcane field to raise five of their common children, all minors of schooling age.
Version of the Defense
To refute the allegations against him, appellant Dominic Douglas proffered a different version of the events which transpired on said date and time. aScITE
Appellant testified that on February 6, 2009, at around 6:00 p.m., he was on his way to his grandmother's residence at Hacienda San Jose in Barangay X, which is approximately 4 kilometers from his residence in Hacienda Mimi of the same barangay. Somewhere in between Barangay Estado and San Jose, appellant was suddenly waylaid by three persons, who then asked him where he was headed to, and instructed him to lie face down near the sugarcane field. To appellant, it seemed as if the three persons were waiting for someone. Since the three persons were armed, appellant obeyed. Sometime later, appellant heard sounds from a nearing tricycle, succeeded by gunshots. He crawled and observed but could not identify the three persons. Appellant left the scene at around 7:20 p.m. and went on his way home. 5
Ruling of the RTC
On 10 April 2014, the RTC convicted appellant of murder and attempted homicide, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6793-40 — accused is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Homicide under Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the Revised Penal code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 2 years and 4 months and 1 day to 4 years 2 months of prision correccional medium. Accused is ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 to private complainant Homer Esmar;
2. In Criminal Case No. 6794-40, accused is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused is ordered to pay Civil Indemnity in the amount of P50,000; moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00; temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, to the heirs of Jerry Libo-on Y Sapan.
SO ORDERED. 6
According to the RTC, Homer's testimony was straightforward, categorical, and credible. The denial of appellant, an inherently weak defense, cannot overcome said positive testimony. However, while treachery was considered present in appellant's killing of Jerry, the same cannot be regarded in the charge of attempted murder. Homer, the victim in said case, was able to jump out of the tricycle and run away. Clearly, he had the opportunity to evade the attack and appellant can only be penalized for attempted homicide. 7
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed with modification accused-appellant's conviction for murder and attempted homicide, hence:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. This Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated April 10, 2014 of the RTC, Branch 40, Silay City, Negros Occidental, finding Dominic Douglas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide and Murder, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6793-40, Dominic Douglas is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum.
Dominic Douglas is ordered to pay private complainant Homer Esmar the following:
a) Civil indemnity — P20,000.00
b) Moral damages — P20,000.00
c) Exemplary damages — P20,000.00
d) Interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case No. 6794-40, Dominic Douglas is ordered to pay the heirs of Jerry Libo-on y Sapan the following:
a) Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b) Moral damages — P100,000.00
c) Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
d) Temperate damages — P50,000.00
e) Interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
In regard to the accused John Doe and Peter Doe, let Criminal Case Nos. 6793-40 and 6794-40 be temporarily ARCHIVED in the court of origin, subject to revival as soon as either said accused are identified and apprehended.
SO ORDERED.8
The CA affirmed the trial court's assessment, giving full faith and credence to the testimony of Homer. The police blotter, which was issued from the statement of the chief tanod, is only prima facie evidence and not conclusive as to the facts of the case. Moreover, the location of the gunshot wound does not conflict with the eyewitness' account stating appellant and his co-accused were situated at the left side of the road when the shooting started. Later on, Homer was able to recognize appellant since he was standing in front of the motorcycle where the headlight was focused. 9 HEITAD
Issues
The main issue for this Court's resolution is whether appellant was correctly convicted of murder and attempted homicide.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is partly meritorious.
Appellant was correctly convicted for the murder of Jerry.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by RA 7659. To successfully prosecute the crime, the following elements must be established: (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 RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 10
Based on the above elements of the crime, and after a judicious review of the records, the Court affirms the conviction of appellant for the murder of Jerry.
Appellant insists that the courts erred in giving credence to the testimony of Homer, which runs counter to the police blotter entry, the autopsy report, and the anatomical diagram. According to appellant, the police blotter states it was an "unidentified person in unknown firearm" who shot Jerry. Further, Homer testified seeing appellant in the middle of the road indicating a frontal attack. However, the autopsy report showed Jerry sustained a gunshot wound on the left lateral chest indicating the attack was coming from the left side. 11
The Court has repeatedly held the question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. Its assessment of the credibility of a witness is conclusive, binding, and entitled to great weight, unless shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered. Absent any showing the trial judge acted arbitrarily, or overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight affecting the result of the case, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves high respect. 12
At any rate, appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. The police blotter report referred to by appellant was derived from the statement of Chief Tanod Vergilio Verano (Verano), who appeared and reported the shooting incident to the police. 13 It is well to note that Verano is not an eyewitness to the crime and could hardly be charged with the knowledge of the perpetrator's identity. Moreover, entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value, as they do not constitute conclusive proof as to the authors of a crime. 14
The Court also fails to see any inconsistency between the testimony of Homer and the autopsy report or the anatomical diagram. Homer stated he saw appellant with two (2) companions emerge from the left side of the road and shoot Jerry while the tricycle he and Jerry were on was slowly moving uphill. He clearly saw appellant in front of the tricycle, to wit:
Q When Dominic Douglas and two companions came out of the sugarcane field, do you know what happened, if any?
A He shot Jerry Libo-on.
Q Who?
A Dominic Douglas
xxx xxx xxx
Q How did you come to know that the one who shot Jerry Libo-on is Dominic Douglas?
A Because he was at the center of the road and the light of our motorcycle was focused on him.
Q And what happened to Jerry Libo-on when he was shot?
A He slump. (sic)
Q How about you, what did you do, if any?
A I jumped out of the motorcycle. 15
xxx xxx xxx
Q Why, where were these people when they positioned themselves, when they started shooting Jerry Libo-on?
A At the sugarcane field at the left side of the road.
Q So, in other words, if these persons were at the left side of the road, where was Jerry Libo-on, in what particular side of Jerry Libo-on these persons were?
A Left side.
Q You said, they started shooting with Jerry, were they still in front or at the side?
A At the front of Jerry.
Q Meaning to say, right in front of the motorcycle where Jerry Libo-on was driving?
A Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When these persons shot Jerry Libo-on, in what particular side of the road?
A At the left side.
Q And you said, at the left side likewise of Jerry Libo-on?
A Yes, Sir. 16
The above statements do not contradict the position of the gunshot wound on the left lateral chest as can be seen even on the anatomical diagram presented by the prosecution. 17 Moreover, Dr. Pahamting, who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of Jerry, never made any conflicting findings or conclusions, thus:
Q In this anatomical diagram, did you indicate the wound that you found on the cadaver of the victim? ATICcS
A The anatomical actually illustrated the specific site of the wound in relation to the cadaver of the victim. And on the front page of that anatomical diagram, there are two figures. Figure on the left is the (sic) representing the front view cadaver. The area near the left lateral chest, is the approximate location of the gunshot wound I just mentioned. And on the back page of the same anatomical diagram, the two (2) figures representing the left and the right side of the cadaver, on the left side of the cadaver at the upper chest near the axilla is also likewise marked as the side of the wound, same wound I mentioned, and that marking for this wounds (sic) to the one on the front page of the anatomical diagram, Sir. 18
xxx xxx xxx
Q Doctor, in your Necropsy Report particularly on the physical findings, you have only made an entry of gunshot wound found on the body of the victim Libo-on, Jerry?
A Yes, Sir.
Q You have measured the wound as 1 cm. in diameter-lateral chest-Left level of anterior intercoastal space mid-axillary line-penetrating the Chest cavity, causing injury to the Left Lung and Heart. Doctor, in your findings, this represents the entrance of the wound?
A Yes, Sir. 19
It is difficult to discern how the findings of Dr. Pahamting and his above testimony can discredit the statement of Homer that appellant emerged from the left side of the road and shot the victim. In any case, the supposed inconsistency referred to by appellant as to position of the assailant and the victim during the shooting is a trivial matter insufficient to destroy Homer's credibility. His testimony ultimately placed appellant at the locus criminis. 20
Further, Homer's credibility is strengthened by a lack of any motive to lie against appellant. Where there is no evidence showing the witnesses of the prosecution are actuated by ill will or improper motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated, and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 21
To emphasize, findings of fact of the trial courts are generally accorded great weight except when it appears on the record that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant fact or circumstance which if considered, would have altered the result. 22 In this case, no such fact or circumstance were misapprehended by the RTC or the CA in affirming appellant's guilt for the killing of Jerry. The positive identification by the eyewitness ultimately outweighs appellant's alibi and denial, which are inherently weak defenses. 23
The Court also agrees with the ruling of the RTC and the CA anent the presence of treachery in the killing of Jerry. "In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender." 24
In the instant case, treachery was shown by appellant's act of waiting for the victim to pass by and suddenly shooting him without any instigation. Jerry was not in any position to defend or retaliate since he was just driving the tricycle unaware of any kind of risk to his life until appellant, together with his co-accused, appeared and shot him. Appellant consciously adopted an attack, which was deliberate, swift, and sudden. To be exact, appellant ambushed Jerry when he made such surprise attack. Accordingly, appellant's conviction for murder stands.
Appellant's guilt for attempted homicide was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Both the lower courts gave full faith to the testimony of Homer and thus, convicted appellant of attempted homicide. However, appellant insists the sole evidence against him is the lone testimony of Homer without any other corroborating evidence. There was no medical certificate or even a police blotter to prove the fact of shooting.
We are not persuaded.
Homer's testimony, although uncorroborated, can be relied upon. Well-settled is the principle that the testimony of a single witness, if straightforward and categorical, is sufficient to convict. 25 It is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of the lone witness. For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness. 26
We are aware that Homer testified appellant and his two (2) companions all fired shots at him, which runs contrary to his initial Affidavit 27 dated 11 February 2009 and Investigation Report dated 07 February 2009 28 prepared by Asst. Investigator PO2 Carmelino C. Tio that he was shot at by one of the suspects but was not hit. However, the inconsistency is not too significant to discredit Homer's claim that he was shot at. Regardless of the number of persons who tried to fire shots at him, and who among them actually fired the shot, the undeniable fact remains that appellant and his co-perpetrators, acting in conspiracy, intended to kill Homer by shooting at him, albeit missing their mark, as the latter tried to flee. Thus, they have commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts, only that they failed to perform all the acts of execution when they missed their shot, which should have produced the felony by reason of some cause other than their own spontaneous desistance. TIADCc
Likewise, We agree with the CA that attempted homicide and not attempted murder is proper. This, considering that Homer was able to escape immediately after Jerry was shot.
Damages awarded should be modified to conform with current jurisprudence.
The RTC and the CA correctly determined the penalty of appellant for murder as reclusion perpetua. However, the CA erred in setting the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to Php100,000.00 each. Based on People v. Jugueta, 29 said amounts are only proper when the penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua due to Republic Act No. 9346. Therefore, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be reduced to Php75,000.00 each. The award of temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 is proper since no receipts for hospital or funeral expenses were presented in court. All these amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this resolution until fully paid. 30
On the other hand, the imposable penalty for attempted homicide is prision correccional, which is two degrees lower than reclusion temporal, the penalty for homicide. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the imposable penalty of prision correccional, taking into account the modifying circumstances, if any. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty should be imposed in its medium period. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision correccional has to be reduced by one degree, which is arresto mayor. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor in any of its periods. 31 Hence, appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum.
Further, We likewise affirm the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of Php20,000.00 each. However, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of Php20,000.00 is deleted pursuant to People v. Jugueta. Similarly, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 13 November 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01960 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6793-40, appellant Dominic Douglas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Homicide. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum. Appellant is likewise ordered to pay Homer Esman Php20,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php20,000.00 as moral damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 6794-40, appellant Dominic Douglas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay the heirs of Jerry Libo-on y Sapan Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages and Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from 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.Rollo, pp. 5-18; penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Egardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court) and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Court of Appeals.
2.Id. at 19-35.
3. Records, Crim. Case No. 6794-40, p. 1.
4. Records, Crim. Case No. 6793-40, p. 1.
5.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
6. CA rollo, p. 59.
7.Id. at 55-57.
8.Rollo, pp. 16-17.
9.Id. at 10-15.
10.People v. Dayrit, G.R. No. 241632, 14 October 2020 [Per CJ. Peralta].
11. CA rollo, pp. 44-48.
12.People v. Elizalde, 801 Phil. 1008 (2016), G.R. No. 210434, 05 December 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
13. Records, Crim. Case No. 6794-40, p. 16.
14.People v. Mansueto, 391 Phil. 611 (2000), G.R. No. 135196, 31 July 2000 [Per CJ. Davide].
15. Records, Crim. Case No. 6794-40, pp. 174-175 (TSN, 17 November 2009, pp. 7-8, Witness Homer P. Esman).
16.Id. at 184-186 (TSN, 17 November 2009, pp. 17-19, Witness Homer P. Esman).
17.Id. at 81.
18.Id. at 224-225 (TSN, 06 April 2010, pp. 10-11, Witness Dr. Jerry Pahamtang).
19.Id. at 230 (TSN, 06 April 2010, p. 16, Witness Dr. Jerry Pahamtang).
20.People v. Castro, 588 Phil. 872 (2008), G.R. No. 172370, 06 October 2008 [Per J. R.T. Reyes].
21.People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, 27 February 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
22.Peoplev. Corpin, G.R. No. 232493, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
23.Peoplev. Pilpa, G.R. No. 225336, 05 September 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
24.People v. Ivero, G.R. No. 236301, 03 November 2020 [Per CJ. Peralta].
25.Peoplev. Callao, G.R. No. 228945, 14 March 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
26.Peoplev. Cabote, 420 Phil. 867 (2001), G.R. No. 136143, 15 November 2001 [Per J. Puno].
27.Rollo, p. 12.
28. Records, Criminal Case No. 6794-40, p. 14.
29. G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
30.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013), G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013 [Per CJ. Peralta].
31.Cabildo v. People, 642 Phil. 737 (2010), G.R. No. 189971, 23 August 2010 [Per J. Nachura].