SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233531. June 27, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROMEO N. GARCIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 June 2018which reads as follows: ASEcHI
"G.R. No. 233531 (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo N. Garcia). — The Court resolves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Romeo N. Garcia (Romeo) from the Decision 1 dated March 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07785. The CA sustained (with modification) the Decision 2 dated September 21, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Basco, Batanes, Branch 13, which found Romeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and imposed on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 3
The Facts
On April 27, 2009, Romeo was accused of Murder 4 under the following Information:
That on or about 7:20 in the morning of February 27, 2009 in Barangay Sta. Rosa, Itbayat, Batanes, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, with malice aforethought and with deliberate intent to take the life of VEDASTO P. VALIENTE, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with treachery and abuse of superior strength attacked VEDASTO P. VALIENTE by hacking the latter from behind with a karit-type bolo, wounding the latter on the right ear extending to buttocks causing the direct and instantaneous death of said VEDASTO P. VALIENTE. cSaATC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
The records show that on February 27, 2009, Alex Valiente (Alex) and Rodolfo Mina (Rodolfo) were conversing at each other in front of a store owned by Melan Labrador when Vedasto Valiente (victim) arrived on board his motorcycle. 6 The victim stopped at the store and talked with Alex and Rodolfo. While they were having conversation, Romeo suddenly came from behind the victim, walked towards the latter and hacked the victim with a "karit" type bolo at his nape. The victim then fell from his motorcycle to the ground. 7 After the incident, Romeo immediately fled towards the direction of the Municipal Hall. 8
Shocked, Rodolfo immediately ran and headed to the victim's residence to inform the latter's relatives of the incident. He then went to the police station to report the incident. Afterwards, he proceeded to the Municipal Hospital and requested for an ambulance. 9
The victim was brought to Itbayat District Hospital where he was given first aid. The Medico-Legal Report 10 dated February 27, 2009 discloses that the victim suffered a hack wound at the nape area. 11 The report reads:
Physical Examination:
> massive bleeding oozing from the carotid arteries
> Hacked wound length — 25 cm
width — 12 cm
depth — 8 cm
> unconscious & irregular breathing
Treatment:
> Ligation & suturing done
> pronounce [sic] dead @ 7:40 am emergency room 12
For his part, Romeo admitted having hacked the victim. 13 He narrated that he had previous quarrel with the victim in November 2008 when the victim's dog attacked Romeo's pig and Romeo testified, "minura nya ako."14
In the morning of February 27, 2009, Romeo alleged that he was about to buy cigarette when he saw the victim conversing with Alex and Rodolfo. According to Romeo, he did not plan to kill the victim. He just intended to hack the victim only on the shoulder. 15 Romeo, however, accidentally hit the victim upward towards the ear. 16 He likewise claimed that he shouted "demonyo ka!" before hacking the victim. 17 cHDAIS
Romeo, after the hacking incident, went to the police station and surrendered himself as well as the object he used to hack the victim. 18
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision 19 dated September 21, 2015, the RTC found Romeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. It sentenced Romeo to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the cost. 20
Ruling of the CA
The CA, in its Decision 21 of March 9, 2017, affirmed the RTC decision with modification, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated September 21, 2015 of the [RTC] of Basco, Batanes, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 736 is AFFIRMED BUT MODIFIED to read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, based on the evidence adduced, this Court finds [Romeo] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The period which [Romeo] has been under preventive detention shall be deducted in full from the penalty herein imposed until the date of the promulgation of judgment.
[Romeo] is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased victim, Vedasto Valiente, the following amounts: (1) P75,000.00, Philippine Currency, as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00, Philippine Currency, as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00, Philippine Currency, as exemplary damages, plus interest at six percent (6%) per annum on the damages awarded, commencing from the time of finality of this Decision until full payment thereof. [Romeo] is further ordered to pay the cost. ISHCcT
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.22
The CA held that the prosecution duly established the requisite quantum proof of evidence to prove the elements of murder. 23 As the RTC did, it gave more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and found that Romeo deliberately intended to kill the victim. Per Dr. Roel Nicolas' testimony, the position, measurement and location of the hack wound is fatal. 24 The CA further pointed out that the severity and extent of the victim's wound would only lead to the inevitable conclusion that the victim was indeed killed with deliberate intent. 25
The CA likewise agreed with the RTC's finding that treachery attended the killing of the victim. 26 In addition to testimonial evidence, the location 27 of the wound also indicates that the victim was hacked from behind, with his back facing Romeo. The victim's position, according to the CA, was obviously disadvantageous to him as he was not in a position to retaliate or defend himself. 28
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is unmeritorious.
The CA and the RTC correctly convicted Romeo of the crime of murder qualified by treachery.
Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 29 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), one of which is treachery.
The killing committed in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 30 The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. 31 CAacTH
In this case, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim was unaware of the imminent peril to his life. He was not forewarned of his impending death. The victim was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when Romeo hacked him. This circumstance is bolstered by the testimonies of Alex and Rodolfo, the eyewitnesses to the crime. Their version is likewise supported by physical evidence showing that the victim, without a warning, was hacked from behind at his nape area. Clearly, Romeo's execution of the killing left the victim with no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
The Penalty
The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, with reclusion perpetua to death.
The Court agrees with the CA in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Romeo, pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 7 of the RPC. The requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance are that: (1) the accused has not been actually arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. 32
Romeo sufficiently proved the presence of the foregoing requisites. He had voluntarily yielded himself, as well as the "karit" type bolo that he used in hacking the victim to the police station for proper disposal. Notably, this happened immediately after the hacking incident. This shows that the surrender was spontaneous on Romeo's part, indicating his intent to unconditionally submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or he wished to save them the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture.
Thus, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and conformably with Article 63, 33 paragraph 3 of the RPC, Romeo was correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties, due to the absence of an ordinary aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime.
The Awarded Indemnities
On Romeo's civil liability, the prevailing rule is that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, as in this case, the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. 34 IAETDc
The imposition of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all damages awarded from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid as well as the payment of costs is likewise sustained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07785, finding accused-appellant Romeo N. Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring; CA rollo, pp. 82-103.
2. Rendered by Judge Ramon B. Baroña; id. at 12-18.
3.Id. at 18.
4.See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248.
5. Records, p. 1.
6. CA rollo, p. 13.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 14.
9.Id. at 13.
10. Records, p. 7.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13. TSN, November 20, 2014, p. 4.
14.Id. at 5.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 7-8.
17.Id. at 14.
18.Id. at 9.
19. CA rollo, pp. 12-18.
20.Id. at 19.
21.Id. at 82-103.
22.Id. at 99-100.
23.Id. at 90.
24.Id. at 96.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 96-97.
27.See the dorsal portion of the Medico-Legal Report dated February 27, 2009, records, p. 7.
28. CA rollo, p. 97.
29. Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
With evident premeditation;
With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
30. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 14 (16).
31.People of the Philippines v. Nestor M. Bugarin, G.R. No. 224900, March 15, 2017.
32. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 13, paragraph 7; see also People v. Rebucan, 670 Phil. 363, 393 (2011).
33. Article 63.Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
34. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373.