THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202063. October 11, 2017.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HERMINIO GIANAN, JR., RUEL SAN ANDRES y DELFINO, HENRY STA. ANA, RODOLFO AVENDAÑO, and FOUR (4) JOHN DOES, accused, HERMINIO GIANAN, JR., RUEL SAN ANDRES y DELFINO, and HENRY STA. ANA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 11, 2017, which reads as follows: SDAaTC
"G.R. No. 202063 (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERMINIO GIANAN, JR., RUEL SAN ANDRES y DELFINO, HENRY STA. ANA, RODOLFO AVENDAÑO, and FOUR (4) JOHN DOES, Accused, HERMINIO GIANAN, JR., RUEL SAN ANDRES y DELFINO, and HENRY STA. ANA, Accused-Appellants.) — This appeal assails the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on October 24, 2011 1 affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court in Camarines Sur (RTC) finding accused-appellants Herminio Gianan, Jr., Ruel San Andres y Delfino and Henry Sta. Ana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as charged. 2
Antecedents
The accused-appellants, along with four John Does, were charged in the RTC with murder under the information that alleged:
That on 16 January 2008 at around 4:30 in the afternoon in Barangay Tiera Nevada, Municipality of Tinambac, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously attack, assault, and shot (sic) Eddie A. Castuera, with the use of firearms, hitting and inflicting fatal multiple gunshot wounds on the body of victim Eddie A. Castuera, which were the direct and ultimate cause of his instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim in such amount that may be proven in court.
The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the same Code, as follows:
1. Treachery by waylaying, surprising and suddenly attacking with a shotgun the victim and when the latter was already lying on the ground, defenseless, by shooting him again on his head, thereby not giving him opportunity to defend and retaliate; and
2. Taking advantage of superior strength in terms of number and weapons, consciously adopted, which ultimately overwhelmed and overpowered the unarmed and defenseless victim.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
The CA summarized the factual antecedents as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
Wilfredo Caballero, a farmer and a resident of Tierra Nevada, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, testified that on January 16, 2008, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, while he was walking towards home coming from Sitio Duawan, he heard five (5) gunshots. Then, he met seven (7) men who were in a hurry coming from Tierra Nevada. From these seven, he was able to identify Rodolfo Avendaño alias "Ompong" and Herminio Gianan, Jr. alias "Okong." He observed that Avendaño was carrying a pipe that looks like a "sumpak." While walking, the men seemed to be discussing but since Caballero was already afraid and was already suspecting that they did something, he just continued walking. Upon reaching the highway which is very near his house, he learned that somebody by the name of Eddie Castuera was shot. Hence, he went to the Barangay Captain to report the incident. They then went to the place of incident where he saw the dead body of the victim. According to him, the place where he saw the body of the victim is more or less 400 meters away from the place where he saw the group of men. He has known Gianan for fifteen (15) years already since he played volleyball with Gianan who also married his neighbor.
Efren Arevalo, of Tierra Nevada, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, testified that, on January 16, 2008, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he was on a stream getting vegetables in Sitio Sagad, Brgy. Tierra Nevada. When he was already near the road going to the barangay proper of Tierra Nevada, he heard a gunshot. Positioned at the lower grassy portion of the road, he peeped and saw Avendaño holding a "sumpak." Then, he saw Gianan who immediately went about two (2) meters near the victim and shot him twice. He also saw and identified Ruel San Andres and Henry Sta. Ana who were guarding at about three (3) meters away from Gianan. During that time, there were students who were on their way home but San Andres and Sta. Ana ordered them to go back. Despite seeing the groups of students going back, Arevalo still remained where he was because he was afraid that the men would have seen him if he came out. At that time, he was between fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters from Avendaño, Gianan, San Andres and Sta. Ana. After Gianan shot the victim, the men left the place but still fired the gun twice. It took ten (10) minutes from the time Arevalo heard the gunshot until the time he left his place. He then ran towards Brgy. Tierra Nevada to report to Barangay Captain Oriel Mostar. Along with the barangay officials and tanods, they went to the place of the incident where he was able to identify the victim as Eddie Castuera. According to Arevalo, he was able to identify the four (4) men since Avendaño and Gianan are residents of Sitio Nabuksal, Tierra Nevada while San Andres is his cousin and he would see Sta. Ana in a "tupada" or in a cockfight together with Gianan. The day after the incident, he learned that Avendaño was killed by the policemen. acEHCD
According to Oriel Mostar, on January 16, 2008, while he was in front of a school, there were students who returned and told them that somebody was shot. As they were preparing to proceed to the place of the incident, Arevalo arrived and told him that someone was indeed shot. When they went to the place of the incident with other barangay officials and spectators, he was able to identify the victim as Eddie Castuera. Thus, he went directly to the police station to make a report. The policemen then conducted an investigation and recovered empty shells of bullets. The following day, Arevalo went to the barangay and told them that he was able to identify the perpetrators. However, since Arevalo was afraid to make a report, Mostar did not force him. After three (3) weeks, Arevalo returned to tell them that he was already willing to report to the police station.
Dr. Michaelangelo Oñate was presented to testify on the medico-legal certificate he issued in connection with the death of Castuera. He examined the body of Castuera three (3) hours after his death when the body was still warm. According to him, he found a gunshot wound with the back of the right ear as the entry point and the left eyebrow as the exit point. There were also two (2) gunshot wounds in the right nipple area, four (4) in the anxillary area, two (2) in the right arm, and two (2) in the right wrist. One of the gunshot wounds in the axillary area was deep enough to penetrate the victim's lung cavity. The fatal wound in the victim's head that penetrated the brain and exited the left eyebrow had the presence of tattooing which shows that the distance of the assailant to the victim was less than one foot since tattooing could have resulted only when the victim was less than twelve (12) inches from the assailant. According to him, there were at least two (2) guns used in the crime. The gunshot in the head was caused by one gun and the rest of the wounds by a different gun.
Marites Velarde Castuera, the wife of the victim, only learned about her husband's demise when she was informed by a co-teacher. Her husband, who was 46 years old and a Municipal Fire Marshall in Tinambac from 2009 up to the time of his death, earned more or less P23,500.00 every month as shown in the certificate of payment. The funeral services in connection with the burial and wake of her husband amounted to P25,000.00 and approximately P40,000.00, respectively. 4
Version of the Defense
Ruel San Andres claimed that, on January 16, 2008 at 4:30 in the afternoon, he was in Canayonan, Tinambac, Camarines Sur because he was attending the wake of his mother's cousin whose name he did not know. He was there until the following morning. According to him, he was only implicated because when the police was (sic) searching for a person to file a case against, he was one of those who were taken because he had a record for attempted murder filed by his aunt. He does not personally know Gianan and Sta. Ana because the latter lived far from his house. He only came to know them during arraignment in court. He only recognized Avendaño because the latter has a farm near his house.
Henry Sta. Ana denied his participation in the killing of Castuera and claimed that, at the alleged time of commission, he was at the house of his sister, Sonia Hipolito, in Barangay Baybay, Calabanga to accompany his brother-in-law in fishing. He did not know the reason why he was implicated as one of the perpetrators of the crime. He had only been in Tinambac once when he was still ten (10) years old. He has only seen Gianan once in Harubay, Calabanga but, at that time, he did not know the latter's name. He also did now know San Andres and Avendaño.
Sonia Hipolito corroborated Sta. Ana's assertion that he was at her house on January 16, 2008 since according to her, that day, her husband asked Sta. Ana to make a chair out of bamboo. At 4:30 in the afternoon, her husband and Sta. Ana left to go fishing and returned the following morning.
Herminio Gianan testified to prove his innocence. According to him, he used to live in Tierra Nevada until the year 2006 before transferring to Sipocot. He admitted that there was a case against him for rape filed by a certain Kagawad Picaso. However, said case was dismissed but he alleged that Picaso threatened him that a case will be filed against him to bring him back to jail which made him decide to transfer residence to Sipocot. He claimed that he did not know San Andres and Avendaño and that he only saw Sta. Ana once at a fiesta celebration in May 2008 but he did not personally know him. Moreover, he was not in Tierra Nevada at the time when the crime happened. He believes that he was only implicated in this case because of the threat of Picaso whom he had not seen since he was released from jail in August 23, 2006. 5 SDHTEC
On August 5, 2010, the RTC convicted the accused-appellants of murder, as charged, decreeing:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused Herminio Gianan Jr., Ruel San Andres y Delfino and Henry Sta. Ana beyond reasonable doubt judgment is hereby rendered convicting the above-named accused of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and each of the above-named accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. They are likewise ordered to jointly and solidarily liable to pay the heirs of Eddie A. Castuera, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00, indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the amount of P3,200,550.60 and to pay the costs. However, the charge insofar as Rodolfo Avendaño is concerned is hereby ordered dismissed due to his death during the pendency of this case as shown by his death certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Tinambac, Camarines Sur dated August 20, 2008.
Considering that accused Herminio Gianan, Jr., Ruel San Andres y Delfino and Henry Sta. Ana have undergone preventive imprisonment during the pendency of this case, they shall be credited in the service of their sentence with the time they have undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for by law. Herein accused are likewise meted the accessory penalties as provided for under the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED. 6
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction through the assailed decision, 7 holding thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63 of Calabanga, Camarines Sur holding Herminio Gianan, Jr., Ruel San Andres y Delfino and Henry Sta. Ana guilty of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.8
Issue
In this appeal, the accused-appellants attack the credibility of the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses, particularly that of Arevalo, an eyewitness, for being contrary to natural human experience. 9
Ruling of the Court
We find no reversible error in the CA's affirmance of the conviction of the accused-appellants.
The accused-appellants direct attention to portions of Arevalo's testimony that supposedly disclosed that they had seen him right after the incident just as they were leaving the scene of the crime. They argue that such testimony does not inspire belief considering that it defies reason that they would still have allowed themselves to be seen and recognized by anyone who had witnessed them shoot and kill a hapless victim. 10
The argument of the accused-appellants does not persuade. It may be reasonably assumed that they would not have allowed Arevalo to survive if, as he claimed, they had known of his having witnessed their commission of the crime. But such assumption is inappropriate and unwarranted herein considering that there was no indication in the records to the effect that they had actually seen Arevalo or known of his presence nearby as they were leaving the scene of the murder. On the contrary, Arevalo adequately explained that their being on a higher ground and his being on a lower ground covered with tall grasses might have prevented them from discovering and knowing his presence nearby. Moreover, Arevalo did not make himself conspicuous to them by deciding to remain concealed where he was because of his apprehension that they might see him then and there. 11
Both the RTC and the CA considered Arevalo's recollection of the events credible and consistent, and preferable to the accused-appellants' denial and alibi. Admittedly, he had a clear view from where he was hiding of how the crime was executed. He also disclosed how he recognized and was able to identify the accused-appellants. The fact that they did not impute any ill motives to him for testifying against them was equally revealing. We can only conclude that his testimony was to the truth. It is relevant in that regard that his testimony was corroborated by Caballero, who also identified Gianan and Avendaño as the persons he had seen coming from the scene of the crime along with five other men. 12 AScHCD
When the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight of the testimonies, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. More so is this true when such findings have been affirmed by the CA on appeal, for it is settled that the trial court's findings of fact, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding upon this Court, which is not a trier of facts. 13
We affirm the common findings of the RTC and the CA on the attendance of 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. The following requisites of treachery must be established before it may be appreciated, namely: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by them. 14
The following observations by the RTC on the attendance of treachery during the execution of the crime are cogent and fitting, and thus worthy of reiteration herein, to wit:
It appears in the evidence of the prosecution that the above-named accused were together in the commission of the alleged crime. The victim then was at that time unarmed and the accused were all armed with "sumpak" and as such, the victim being unarmed has no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Likewise, the means that the accused had adopted and the fact of the wounds or injuries that was suffered by the victim and the use of the weapons were clearly indication (sic) that they have consciously adopted the alleged execution. Treachery was present in the alleged killing of the victim. The attack was sudden which the victim has no opportunity to defend himself. So that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. x x x 15
The CA further observed that the accused-appellants had used guns in killing the victim. The defenseless victim was already lying on the ground when Gianan went towards him and shot him at close range, thereby ensuring the victim's death. 16
We uphold the lower courts' common findings on the presence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or how an illegal objective was to be carried out. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. In order to hold an accused liable as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. 17
All the accused-appellants were present at the place of the incident. When Gianan shot the victim, Avendaño held a sumpak, while Sta. Ana and San Andres secured the scene by herding passersby away. Such circumstances indicated the concert and common design among the accused-appellants in killing the victim. 18
Lastly, we hereby award to the heirs of the late Eddie Castuera P3,200,550.00 (representing half of his gross income) 19 as indemnity for loss earning capacity of the victim. With murder having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and conformably with People v. Jugueta, 20 we further grant P75,000 as civil indemnity; P75,000 as moral damages; P75,000 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages (in lieu of actual damages for the burial expenses incurred by the heirs). In addition, all the monetary awards shall bear interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully satisfaction. 21
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 24, 2011 by the Court of Appeals subject to the MODIFICATIONS that the accused-appellants HERMINIO GIANAN JR., RUEL SAN ANDRES y DELFINO and HENRY STA. ANA shall pay to the heirs of the late Eddie Castuera the amounts of P3,200,550.00 as damages for loss of earning capacity; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction. AcICHD
The accused-appellants shall further pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-21; penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso and Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta.
2.Id. at 20-21.
3. CA rollo, pp. 87-88.
4.Id. at 130-136.
5.Id. at 138-140.
6.Id. at 37-38.
7.Supra note 1.
8.Id. at 20-21.
9. CA rollo, pp. 67-84; rollo, pp. 47-56.
10.Rollo, p. 53.
11.Id. at 15.
12.Id. at 15-16.
13.Decasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172184, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 267, 287.
14.People v. Calinawan, G.R. No. 226145, February 13, 2017.
15. CA rollo, p. 96.
16.Rollo, p. 19.
17.People v. Agpawan, G.R. No. 123853, August 25, 2000, 339 SCRA 58, 61.
18. CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
19.People v. Cabilto, G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80, August 8, 2001, 362 SCRA 325, 336.
20. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 381-382.
21.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 459.