THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256465. September 7, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALMERANTE FLORES, SR. y GRANADA a.k.a. ALONG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 7, 2022, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 256465 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALMERANTE FLORES, SR. Y GRANADA A.K.A. ALONG, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court filed by accused-appellant Almerante Flores, Sr. y Granada a.k.a. Along (Almerante) from the Desisyon, 1 dated 28 August 2020, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13101. The Court of Appeals affirmed, with modification, the Decision, 2 dated 24 May 2019, of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Isabela (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 23-2870, finding Almerante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide.
The Facts
In an Information, dated 30 August 2016, Almerante was charged with Parricide before the RTC. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 26th day of August, 2016, in the [M]unicipality of Roxas, [P]rovince of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with a kitchen knife, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and stab for several times upon (sic) his own wife, Alice Flores, with whom he was united in lawful wedlock, inflicting upon her, multiple stab wounds that resulted in her massive bleeding, which directly caused her death. cSaATC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, Almerante pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4
The prosecution presented its lone witness, Richard Cabacungan (Richard), the husband of Almeda Flores (Almeda), daughter of Almerante, while the defense waived its presentation of evidence. 5
On 9 May 2001, Almerante was married to Alice Quiming-Flores (Alice), and their marriage produced three children — Almeda, Aljon, and Aries (Aries). 6
Because of disagreements with Almerante, Alice left their conjugal dwelling and moved to a rented apartment, bringing with her Aries, Almeda and Richard. 7
On 26 August 2016, at around 1:30 p.m., Almerante barged into the apartment of Alice to fetch and bring Aries home. 8 When Alice refused, Almerante became furious and brought out a knife from his waist and attempted to stab Alice. 9 Richard tried to stop Almerante and wrestled with him until he was able to get the knife from Almerante. 10 However, eventually, Almerante was able to regain possession of the knife. 11 Almerante ran towards Alice and stabbed her repeatedly. 12
Richard was ten meters away from Almerante and Alice when Almerante stabbed Alice to death. 13 After witnessing the killing, Richard immediately called the police for assistance. 14
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
On 24 May 2019, the RTC issued a Decision 15 finding Almerante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, accused ALMERANTE FLORES, Sr. y Granada is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of Parricide, defined and penalized under Art. 246, Revised Penal Code, as amended, thus SENTENCING him to suffer the penalty of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
Further, he is ordered to pay the Heirs of Alice Quiming-Flores (the Accused excluded), the amount of Seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000) as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 16
The RTC convicted Almerante of Parricide for the death of Alice. According to the RTC, the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that it was Almerante who stabbed his wife, Alice, causing her death, as witnessed and as vividly recounted by Richard when he testified. 17
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
On 28 May 2020, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Desisyon, 18 affirming, with modification, the Decision of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the Desisyon reads:
DAHIL SA MGA NABANGGIT, ang paksang apela ay hindi binibigyang saysay. Ang Hatol ng ika-23 Sangay ng Panrehiyong Hukuman sa Paglilitis ng Lungsod ng Roxas, Lalawigan ng Isabela, sa Kasong Kriminal Blg. 23-2870 ay pinagtitibay, ngunit binabago ang parusa sa reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole o walang hangganang pagkakakulong na walang karampatang pagkakataon para sa parol, at binabago ang mga danyos sa sumusunod: civil indemnity sa halagang P100,000.00; moral damages sa halagang P100,000.00; exemplary damages sa halagang P100,000.00; at temperate damages sa halagang P50,000.00 Ang lahat ng danyos ay magkakaroon ng interes na anim na porsyento (6%) mula sa petsa ng pagiging pinal ng hatol hanggang sa ito ay mabayaran.
ITO AY IPINAG-UUTOS.19 cHDAIS
The CA affirmed the conviction of Almerante of Parricide, but modified the penalty imposed by the RTC on him by increasing the monetary awards to be paid by Almerante to the heirs of Alice in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The CA also corrected the nomenclature of the penalty imposed by the RTC on Almerante considering that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty.
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue
Did the CA commit a reversible error in convicting Almerante and in modifying the penalties imposed by the RTC on him?
Discussion
The appeal has no merit.
The guilt of Almerante was proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The CA committed no reversible error in upholding the conviction of Almerante.
The guilt of Almerante was
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines Parricide:
Article 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
The elements of Parricide are as follows: (1) a person is killed; (2) the accused is the killer; and (3) the deceased is either the legitimate spouse of the accused, or any legitimate or illegitimate parent, child, ascendant or descendant of the accused. 20
All the elements are present in this case.
The fact of death of Alice and her marriage with Almerante are not disputed. These were conclusively proven by the Death Certificate of Alice, and the Certificate of Marriage of Alice and Almerante. 21
As to the identity of Almerante as the one who killed Alice, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish that it was Almerante who killed Alice. This was established by Richard, an eyewitness, in his testimony before the RTC:
THE COURT:
Q: You said that the accused stabbed Alice, what did he use in stabbing Alice?
THE WITNESS:
A: A knife, [Y]our [H]onor.
Q: Where did he get the knife?
A: I don't know where he got the knife, [Y]our Honor, but when he arrived in our boarding house, the knife was already with him.
Q: What did you do when you noticed him in possession of a knife.
A: I tried to grab it from him, [Y]our Honor.
Q: Were you able to get the knife from him?
A: Yes, [Y]our honor.
Q: So, how did he stab Alice when he was no longer in possession of the knife? ISHCcT
A: After I took it from him, he was able to recover it from me because he held my right hand, [Y]our Honor.
Q: What did you do when he held your right hand?
A: I was not able to do anything because he was able to recover the knife from my possession, [Y]our Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. MADRIAGA:
Q: You were still inside the house when you were able to wrestle the knife from the accused?
THE WITNESS:
A: We were already outside[,] Ma'am.
Q: So, you ran away from the accused?
A: No[,] Ma'am[.] He was the one who ran away from me.
Q: How far is the accused from you when he ran away?
A: More or less thirty (30) meters, Ma'am.
Q: And you were afraid then, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: So you did not follow the accused when he ran away?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: So you were not able to see the accused because you did not follow him?
A: I did not follow him up to the place where my mother-in-law was stabbed but I saw him kill my mother-in-law, Ma'am.
THE COURT:
Q: How far was Alice from you when she was stabbed by the accused?
A: Ten (10) meters only[,] [Y]our Honor. 22
It is well-settled that the factual findings of the trial court, moreso when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. 23 Particularly, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. 24
In People v. Invencion, 25 the Court explained:
It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, or the carriage and mien. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts. We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar. (citations omitted)
The Court thus fords no reversible error on the part of the CA in affirming the conviction of Almerante for Parricide.
The proper penalties to be
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 26 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 27 CAacTH
The Court notes that while the Information charging Almerante with Parricide alleged that treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime charged against him, both the RTC and the CA did not provide a discussion on the appreciation of the two aggravating circumstances against Almerante. Yet, the RTC, as affirmed by CA, imposed the maximum penalty on Almerante.
Settled is the rule that aggravating circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. 28 While the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution, treachery was sufficiently proven so as to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
There is evident premeditation when the following elements concur: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 29
Evident premeditation was not established because the prosecution's evidence was limited to what transpired in the apartment of Alice when the crime took place. The prosecution did not present any proof as to when and how Almerante planned and prepared to kill Alice. Absent clear and positive proof of the overt act of planning the crime, mere presumptions and inference thereon, no matter how logical and probable, would not be enough. Thus, in this case, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to aggravate the offense.
Meanwhile, the essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 30
For treachery to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the following elements must be proven: (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and, (b) said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 31 These elements are extant in the facts and as established by the testimony of Richard.
To emphasize, Alice was caught off guard not just when Almerante barged into her apartment, but also when Almerante suddenly pulled out a knife from his waist when Alice refused to give Aries to Almerante. While Alice was initially able to run away from Almerante, the stealth, swiftness, superior strength, and the manner by which the attack was carried out by Almerante gave Alice no chance when Almerante repeatedly stabbed her. It is thus undeniable that Almerante's sudden and unexpected onslaught upon Alice evidences treachery.
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the crime of Parricide with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that an aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, and taking into consideration the provisions of Republic Act No. 9346, 32 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 33 providing guidelines for the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties, the Court affirms the penalties imposed by the CA on Almerante.
As to the monetary awards, the Court likewise finds that, in accordance with People v. Jugueta, 34 the CA correctly increased the monetary awards to be paid by Almerante to the Heirs of Alice as follows: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
For these reasons, the appeal must be denied for Almerante's failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its assailed Desisyon. 35
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by accused-appellant Almerante Flores, Sr. y Granada a.k.a. Along is DENIED. The Desisyon of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13101, dated 28 August 2020, is AFFIRMED. IAETDc
SO ORDERED.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13101, dated 28 August 2020, penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and, concurred in by Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (Now a Member of this Court) and Bonifacio S. Pascua (CA Decision), pp. 8-17.
2. Id., Decision of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Isabel in Criminal Case No. 23-2870, dated 24 May 2019, penned by Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza (RTC Decision), pp. 18-22.
3. Id., CA Decision, p. 9; RTC Decision, pp. 18-19.
4. Id., CA Decision, p. 9; RTC Decision, p. 19.
5. Rollo, CA Decision, p. 9; RTC Decision, p. 19.
6. Id.
7. Id., CA Decision, pp. 9-10; RTC Decision, p. 19.
8. Id., CA Decision, p. 10; RTC Decision, p. 19.
9. Rollo, CA Decision, p. 10; RTC Decision, pp. 19-20.
10. Rollo, CA Decision, p. 10; RTC Decision, p. 20.
11. Id., CA Decision, p. 10; RTC Decision, p. 20.
12. Id., CA Decision, p. 10; RTC Decision, p. 20.
13. Id., CA Decision, p. 10.
14. Id., CA Decision, p. 10.
15. Supra at Note 2.
16. Id., RTC Decision, p. 22.
17. Id., RTC Decision, pp. 20-21.
18. Supra at Note 1.
19. Rollo, CA Decision, p. 16.
20. People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 217022, 3 June 2019.
21. Rollo, CA Decision, p. 16; RTC Decision, p. 19.
22. Id., CA Decision, pp. 11-12.
23. Villarba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020.
24. Id., citing People v. Corpuz, 812 Phil. 62, 88 (2017).
25. G.R. No. 131636, 5 March 2003.
26. Ramos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218466, 23 January 2017.
27. Id.
28. People v. Derilo, G.R. No. 117818, 18 April 1997.
29. People v. Gayon, G.R. No. 230221, 10 April 2019.
30. People v. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, 4 September 2019.
31. People v. SPO2 Menil, G.R. No. 233205, 26 June 2019.
32. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, 24 June 2006.
33. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, 4 August 2015.
34. G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
35. Supra at Note 16.