SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251746. August 4, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HARDELITO FILLARTOS, JR. y MATEO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 August 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251746 (People of the Philippines v. Hardelito Fillartos, Jr. y Mateo). — This is a Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant Hardelito Fillartos Jr. y Mateo (Hardelito), seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated October 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10593, affirming with modification the Decision 3 dated December 5, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82, finding Hardelito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The Case
This case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC charging Hardelito with the crime of Murder, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 24th day of January 2010, at around 12:30 o'clock in the morning, in Barangay Mat-i, Municipality of Sta. Fe, [P]rovince of Romblon, Philippines[,] and, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above[-]named accused, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with bladed weapon one PONCIANO BASA FERNANDO while said Ponciano Basa Fernando is asleep, thereby inflicting upon the latter injury, causing his instantaneous death.
With additional allegation that at the time of incident, the qualifying and aggravating circumstance of treachery was employed by the accused in the commission of the crime and that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation was attendant in the commission of the crime. 4
On March 11, 2010, Hardelito, assisted by counsel, entered the plea of "not guilty" to the crime charged. 5 Thereafter, pre-trial conference was conducted and on the merits ensued. 6
The Antecedents
Prosecution's version of facts
On January 23, 2010, at around 7:00 in the evening, while Alvin Mateo (Alvin) was watching television, Hardelito, his uncle, invited him to look for the latter's brother, Argie Fillartos (Argie). They first went to the house of Bebot Fernando (Bebot), Hardelito's brother-in-law. They, however, did not find Argie in Bebot's house. The two then bought a bottle of gin and drank it in the house of one Cocoy Visca. After drinking, the two decided to go home. 7
On their way home, they saw Argie at the talipapa of Mat-i, Sta. Fe, Romblon with Ponciano Fernando (Ponciano) and Arlan Capispisan, among others, having a drinking session. Alvin and Hardelito then waited for Argie's group to finish drinking. After the drinking session, Argie went to Barangay Guinhayaan, while Ponciano went to Bebot's house and slept at the terrace. 8
Hardelito invited Alvin to go to Bebot's house where they Round Ponciano sleeping at the terrace. Hardelito then asked Alvin to wait for him at the house's fence. From where Alvin was standing, he saw Hardelito stab Ponciano while the latter was still sleeping causing his death. Thereafter, Hardelito passed by Alvin and they ran away. 9
Defense's version of facts
On the evening of January 23, 2010, Hardelito was drinking gin with Alvin, Bido Musico, and Arnel Musico at the house of a certain Cocoy Musico. After their drinking session, Hardelito proceeded to the house of his sister, Maritess Fernando. While Hardelito was texting at the balcony of his sister's house, a shirtless man — later on identified as Ponciano — armed with a gun tucked in his waist and holding a knife, suddenly appeared and headed in his direction as if he was about to stab him. Startled and afraid, Hardelito grabbed Ponciano's knife and stabbed the latter. 10
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision 11 finding Hardelito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. It ruled that Hardelito's argument of self-defense lacks factual and legal basis. The RTC noted that Hardelito miserably failed to refute and overthrow the clear and straightforward testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, particularly that of Alvin, who witnessed the incident as it happened. 12 The RTC also observed the conflicting testimonies of Hardelito in his affidavit and cross-examination. 13 It likewise gave no credence to Hardelito's defense of denial. 14 Accordingly, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Hardelito Fillartos, Jr. y Mateo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby sentences them [sic] to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Ponciano Fernando as civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00; P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P10,000.00 as moral damages.
The Warden of Odiongan District Jail is hereby commanded to transfer the accused to the New Bilibid Prison for the service of their sentence.
SO ORDERED. 15
Unsatisfied, Hardelito appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 16 promulgated on October 11, 2019, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC as to the award of damages granted to the Ponciano's family. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the concurrence of all the elements of the crime of murder, 17 as qualified by treachery. It explained that Ponciano was completely defenseless when Hardelito attacked him considering that he was fast asleep. 18 The CA further concluded that Hardelito failed to show the presence of the elements of self-defense. 19 The fallo of the Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 5 December 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon in Criminal Case No. OD-1988 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, to wit:
(1) The awards of civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages against accused-appellant Hardelito Fillartos, Jr. shall be increased to Php100,000.00 each;
(2) The award of temperate damages shall also be increased to Php50,000.00;
(3) Accused-appellant Hardelito Fillartos, Jr. is also adjudged to pay the Heirs of Ponciano Fernando exemplary damages in the amount of Php100,000.00;
(4) All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 20
Aggrieved, Hardelito filed a Notice of Appeal 21 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Issue
Whether the guilt of Hardelito for Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite his claim of self-defense.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
At the outset, self-defense as a justifying circumstance which implies the admission by the accused of the commission of the crime charged against him. While generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent, the burden of proof is reversed in case the accused claims the existence of a justifying circumstance. Otherwise stated, when the accused admits killing the victim, but raises self-defense as a justifying circumstance, it is incumbent upon him to prove the presence of all the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. 22 An accused, therefore, can no longer be exonerated of the crime charged if he fails to prove the requisites of self-defense. 23
The essential elements of self-defense are as follows: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself. 24 "To successfully invoke self-defense, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack." 25
After a careful review of the records of this case, this Court upholds the findings of both the RTC and the CA, that Hardelito's claim of self-defense is unfounded and bereft of merit.
In the present case, Hardelito argues that although he admits to killing Ponciano, he acted merely in self-defense. He insists that prior to the stabbing incident, he saw Ponciano, armed with a gun and a knife, walking towards him and ready to attack. 26 Otherwise stated, Hardelito avers that it was Ponciano who was the aggressor and, in an attempt to protect himself from injury and death, he took a knife and stabbed Ponciano. 27
This Court is not persuaded.
Hardelito's version of what transpired, specifically that the victim, Ponciano, was about to attack him while he was using his phone, hence, he was constrained to defend himself, is vague, and too implausible to merit any weight. Further, his inconsistent statements during trial and in his affidavit cast doubt as to his credibility.
As found by the CA, in his Judicial Affidavit, Hardelito stated that he grabbed the knife from Ponciano which he then used to stab the latter. However, during trial, he changed his statement and said that he got the knife on top of the terrace to stab Ponciano. 28 Likewise, contrary to the claim of Hardelito that he stabbed Ponciano at the lower portion of his body, the prosecution, through Dra. Jane Cawaling (Dra. Cawaling), established that Ponciano was fatally stabbed in the chest. 29 These inconsistencies belie Hardelito's claim of self-defense. Accordingly, without a clear showing that Ponciano attacked or tried to attack Hardelito, this Court finds that unlawful aggression on the part of Ponciano cannot be deemed to have occurred.
In contrast, the prosecution, through its witnesses, was able to prove that it was Hardelito who suddenly attacked Ponciano, while the latter was sleeping.
The testimony of Alvin, on cross-examination, was on point, thus:
Q: When the two of you arrived, where was Ponciano Fernando?
A: He was sleeping in the terrace, sir.
Q: Now, what did Hardilito Fillartos do when the two (2) of you saw Ponciano Fernando sleeping in the terrace?
A: I was told by Hardilito Fillartos to wait for him in the fence, sir.
Q: And you waited in the fence?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you can see the terrace while standing in that fence?
A: I can see, sir.
Q: Now, what did the accused do while you are [sic] standing in that position?
A: He went to the place where Ponciano Fernando was sleeping and stabbed him, sir.
Q: What did he do next?
A: After stabbing Ponciano he passed by me and we go [sic] home, sir.
Q: You saw the stabbing incident?
A: Yes, sir. 30
Alvin's testimony, undoubtedly supports the version sell forth by the prosecution that Hardelito stabbed Ponciano with a knife while the latter was sleeping. Indubitably, Alvin positively identified Hardelito as the unlawful aggressor in the case. Weighed against the positive, straightforward, and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, Hardelito's claim of self-defense must necessarily fail. "Where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, there can be no self-defense." 31
As things are, to be convicted of the crime of murder, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (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; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 32 In this case, these requisites have been established by the prosecution.
As testified to by Dra. Cawaling, Ponciano died of hypovolemic shock due to a penetrating stab wound. 33 The element, therefore, that a person was killed is obtaining in this case.
That Hardelito killed Ponciano was established through the prosecution witnesses, particularly Alvin. As above-quoted, Alvin, Hardelito's own nephew, testified that it was Hardelito who stabbed Ponciano, leading to the latter's death. 34 He witnessed first-hand the incident on that fateful night.
The fatal stabbing of Ponciano was attended by treachery, a qualifying circumstance listed under Article 248, notably alleged in the Information.
For treachery to be appreciated, two (2) elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate or escape; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him. 35 These conditions were present in the killing of Ponciano.
The assault upon Ponciano was deliberate, swift, and sudden. In fact, Ponciano had no opportunity to protect or defend himself considering that he was sleeping at the time of the attack. Obviously, he was unarmed and unaware of Hardelito's plot to kill him. It may further be deduced that, the means, method, or manner of execution of the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by Hardelito to ensure the unhampered execution of his plan to kill Ponciano.
Finally, the killing of Ponciano was neither parricide nor infanticide.
All the elements of the crime of murder being present in this case, the RTC and the CA, thus, correctly ruled in finding Hardelito guilty of the said crime.
The Penalty
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As regards the award of damages, however, further modification must be made. To recall, the CA granted the heirs of Ponciano moral damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages each amounting to P100,000.00. 36 Each of these monetary awards need to be reduced to P75,000.00 considering that the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, not death. As enunciated in People v. Jugueta: 37
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
xxx xxx xxx
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00 38
On the other hand, the award of temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is retained. All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated October 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10593, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Hardelito Fillartos, Jr. y Mateo is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ponciano Fernando the following amounts: (i) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (iv) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2.Id. at 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 49-52; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ramiro R. Geronimo.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 5.
9.Id.
10. CA rollo, p. 50.
11.Id. at 49-52.
12.Id. at 50-51.
13.Id. at 51.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 51-52.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
17.Id. at 8.
18.Id. at 11.
19.Id. at 12-13.
20.Id. at 14-15.
21.Id. at 17-18.
22.People v. Macaraig, 810 Phil. 931, 937 (2017), citing People v. Samson, 768 Phil. 487-502 (2015).
23.People v. Japag, G.R. No. 223155, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 70, 77-78, citing People v. Gumayao, 460 Phil. 735, 746 (2003).
24.Ganal, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 248130, December 2, 2020, citing People v. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24, 36 (2015).
25.Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020, citing People v. Tica, 817 Phil. 588 (2017).
26. CA rollo, p. 41.
27.Id.
28.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
29.Id. at 10-11.
30.Id. at 9-10.
31.People v. Albao, 350 Phil. 573, 590 (1998).
32.People v. Ohayas, et al., 811 Phil. 141, 147-148 (2017), citing People v. Alvarez, 752 Phil. 451-463 (2015).
33.Rollo, p. 8.
34.Id. at 9-10.
35.People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 245306, December 2, 2020, citing People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
36.Rollo, p. 15.
37. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
38.Id. at 847-848.