People v. Felipe

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253556. June 28, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EFREN SALONGA FELIPE a.k.a. EFREN MANALILI, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 June 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253556 (People of the Philippines v. Efren Salonga Felipe a.k.a. Efren Manalili). — Efren Salonga Felipe a.k.a. Efren Manalili (Efren) was charged with the crime of Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 93, docketed as Criminal Case No. 16918. 1 The information reads:

That on or about April 26, 2015 in Orani, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon Alfredo Villamor [y] Fajardo @ "Tags," by then and there shooting him with [sic] firearm on the head, thereby inflicting upon the said Alfredo Villamor [y] Fajardo @ "Tags" mortal wound which were [sic] the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Efren pleaded not guilty. The trial then ensued. The prosecution established that on April 26, 2015, at around 8:00 p.m., Joewelly Latona (Joewelly) was inside their sari-sari store at Barangay Dona, Orani, cooking and watching television with Alfredo Fajardo Villamar (Alfredo). It was during this time that Joewelly noticed a motorcycle parked in front of their store. The passenger of the motorcycle was Efren, who alighted and went straight to Alfredo. Efren then pointed a gun at Alfredo's head. Efren fired the gun and uttered the words "putang ina mo Tags." Alfredo died instantaneously. Thereafter, Efren immediately hid the gun, boarded the motorcycle and left the scene. The police officers then received a call about the shooting incident. Upon arrival at the crime scene, the police officers saw Alfredo's lifeless body who sustained a single gunshot wound on the right ear. The police conducted an investigation. 3

On the other hand, the defense alleged that on April 26, 2015, Efren was in their store just beside their house, acting as a spotter for the pool billiard game amongst Allan Mar Anastacio (Allan), Leonardo Diego (Leonardo), and Romeo Dulay (Romeo). Meantime, Lourdes Roquin (Lourdes), a barangay kagawad, heard a loud noise and went outside their house. Lourdes saw the store owner across their house who seemed to be signaling something to her. Lourdes approached the store and saw Alfredo seated on a chair with blood dripping from his head. Lourdes asked Eva Latona (Eva) who the perpetrator was and the latter answered that a motorcycle stopped by their store and then one of the passengers alighted and bought a stick of cigarette. Eva further narrated to Lourdes that the same person uttered: "Putang ina mo, nandito ka lang pala" and then a gunshot was heard. Finally, Eva relayed to Lourdes that no one identified the perpetrator, since her husband was cooking in the kitchen and had his back turned from the incident. Lourdes called the barangay captain to report the incident. However, the barangay outpost was closed and its personnel were deployed in a basketball league. Lourdes decided to go to the basketball court to get the key. On her way, Lourdes told Efren about the shooting incident. Out of curiosity, Efren, Allan, Leonardo, and Romeo decided to go to the place of the incident. Thereat, they saw the victim's dead body. After some time, they decided to return to their pool billiard game. Romeo, being a retired police officer, decided to ask and stay around. Romeo was able to speak with Dennis Porlagi (Dennis), who was with the victim, and saw the actual shooting. Dennis told Romeo that the shooter was wearing a helmet, thus, was not identified. 4

On April 27, 2018, the RTC convicted Efren of the Murder qualified by treachery. The RTC ratiocinated that Joewelly was certain about Efren's identity as the perpetrator of the crime, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused EFREN SALONGA FELIPE a.k.a. EFREN MANALILI GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal by direct participation in the felony of MURDER qualified by treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby SENTENCES said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalties of CIVIL INTERDICTION for life and PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION. The accused is directed to PAY the heirs of victim Alfredo Villamor, Jr. y Fajardo @ Tags the amount of SEVENTY [-] FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00) as CIVIL INDEMNITY, SEVENTY [-] FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00) as MORAL DAMAGES, SEVENTY [-] FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00) as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php50,000.00) as TEMPERATE DAMAGES.

An interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum is imposed on the awarded damages to commence from the date of finality of this Judgment.

Pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the time spend by the accused on preventive imprisonment/detention pending trial shall be credited in the service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED. 5 (Emphases in the original.)

Efren elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11030. 6 Efren argued that Joewelly's sole testimony is incredible and replete with irregularities. Likewise, Efren maintained his defenses of alibi and denial. On May 27, 2019, the CA affirmed Efren's conviction and explained that the prosecution established all the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Judgment dated 27 April 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 93, Balanga City, Bataan, in Criminal Case No. 16918 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 7

Hence, this appeal. Efren assails the veracity of Joewelly's testimony which named the victim as Alfredo V. Fajarin instead of Alfredo Villamor. Also, Efren points out that Joewelly described the clothing of the perpetrator differently from that recorded in the police spot report.

The Court NOTES: (1) the letter dated March 17, 2021 of CTS Supt. Albert C. Manalo, Officer-in-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant Efren at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City since May 13, 2018; (2) the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief with profuse apology) dated May 17, 2021 of counsel for accused-appellant, repleading and adopting all the arguments raised in the appellant's brief, and dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief since no new issues material to the case were discovered; and (3) the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated March 30, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General sent via e-mail in compliance with the Resolution dated January 27, 2021, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief since its brief filed before the Court of Appeals is already exhaustive to support plaintiff-appellee's position.

RULING

We stress that the CA and the RTC's assessment on the credibility of the prosecution witness and the veracity of his testimony is given the highest degree of respect, 8 especially if there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case. 9 Moreover, the trial court had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witness, having evaluated his emotional state, reactions, and overall demeanor in open court. Here, Joewelly positively identified Efren as the perpetrator of the crime. Joewelly vividly recalled how Efren shot Alfredo in the head. More importantly, Joewelly personally witnessed the brutal crime committed against Alfredo. Joewelly had no motive to perjure against Efren other than to see that justice is done. The earnest desire to seek justice is not served should Joewelly abandon his conscience and prudence to blame one who is innocent of the crime. Contrary to Efren's argument, the supposed error on Joewelly's testimony was made by the prosecutor and not the witness himself. Nonetheless, the prosecution was able to rectify the mistake, to wit:

FISCAL CARDINES:

Now, if you know, where was ALFREDO V. FAJARIN also known as Tag at that time?

WITNESS:

He was also watching t.v. inside our store, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL CARDINES:

Tags, are you referring to the victim Alfredo Villamar Fajardo in this case?

WITNESS:

Yes, Sir.

At any rate, the supposed irregularity does not affect the fact that Joewelly positively identified Efren as the perpetrator of the crime. Similarly, the difference in the color of clothing of the assailant is too trivial to warrant consideration. As the CA aptly observed:

x x x While there may be a difference in the description of the clothes the alleged perpetrator was wearing in the Spot-Report [vis-à-vis] what was described by prosecution witness Latona during his testimony, what is important is that said prosecution eye witness was able to positively identify [the] accused-appellant as the perpetrator because he knew him for the past six years and not merely on the basis of the clothes he was wearing. Besides, the supposed inconsistency pointed out between "white shorts, brown six-pocket shorts pants" [vis-à-vis] "sando and dirty white shorts" is too trivial to be given any consideration. It is well-settled in jurisprudence that for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as [a] basis for acquittal, such must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for [sic] the crime charged. x x x.

Corollarily, Efren's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witness. These negative defenses are self-serving and undeserving of weight in law absent clear and convincing proof. 10 To be sure, the corroborating testimonies of defense witnesses were hearsay. Lourdes testified on what was narrated to her by the store owner Eva. Lourdes even admitted that she did not personally see the shooting incident. Allan merely went to the crime scene and saw the victim. Allan did not likewise see the shooting incident. Romeo supposedly interviewed Dennis. If indeed Efren was not the perpetrator of the crime, he could have presented the direct eyewitnesses Eva and Dennis. Yet, Efren opted to present hearsay testimonies that are inadmissible in evidence. In any event, for the defense of alibi to prosper, Efren must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was somewhere else when the crime happened and that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. 11 Nevertheless, the records disclosed that Efren's store and the crime scene were in the same locality. Lourdes even attested that the place where she saw Efren is just 200 meters away from the crime scene. Thus, it was not physically impossible for Efren to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing.

In the crime of Murder, the following elements must be present: (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 Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide. 12 Here, it is clear that Efren shot Alfredo in the head causing his instantaneous death. Further, the killing was attended by the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery because Alfredo had no opportunity for defense or retreat. Efren shot Alfredo without warning. Alfredo was utterly oblivious to any impending attack as he was watching television. The suddenness of the attack caught Alfredo by surprise and in a position that precluded him from defending himself, thus, ensuring the execution of the crime. Lastly, killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.

In sum, the CA and the RTC correctly found Efren guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the crime of Murder is punishable with Reclusion Perpetua to death. Absent any other aggravating circumstance, the RTC properly imposed the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The awards of P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, P75,000.00 exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages are likewise in accordance with prevailing law and jurisprudence. 13 The award of damages shall all earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the resolution until fully paid.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 27, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11030 is AFFIRMED. The accused-appellant Efren Salonga Felipe a.k.a. Efren Manalili is found guilty of Murder and is meted the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused-appellant is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, P75,000.00 exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages. All awards for damages shall earn an interest rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 3.

2.Id. at 4.

3.Id. at 5.

4.Id. at 5-6.

5.Id. at 3-4.

6.Id. at 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser.

7.Id. at 15.

8.People v. Jemreich Matignas, et al., 428 Phil. 834, 868-869 (2002), citing People v. Basquez, 418 Phil. 426, 440 (2001); People v. Jaberto, 366 Phil. 556 (1999); People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 401 (1998).

9.People v. Orosco, 757 Phil. 299, 310 (2015), citing People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701, 721 (2009).

10.People v. Togahan, 551 Phil. 997, 1013-1014 (2007).

11.People v. Madelo Espina, 383 Phil. 656, 668 (2000), citing People v. Francisco, 373 Phil. 733, 747 (1999); People v. Baniel, 341 Phil. 471, 481 (1997); People v. Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130, 139 (1997); People v. Henson, 337 Phil. 393, 402 (1997).

12.Ramos v. People, 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).

13.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 847-849 (2016).