SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248367. October 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MICHAEL GUMBAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248367(People of the Philippines v. Michael Gumban). — The instant case seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated April 24, 2019 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02308. The CA affirmed with modification the January 8, 2016 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. CBU-77026, which found accused-appellant Michael Gumban (Gumban) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. HTcADC
The Factual Antecedents:
On March 16, 2006, an Information 3 for Murder was filed against herein accused-appellant Gumban, together with five other accused, namely: Angelito Araneta @ "Pagong" (Angelito), Manuel Araneta @ "Wengweng" (Manuel) Arwin Englis @ "Bolalong" (Englis), Darwin Mondejar @ "Chief" (Mondejar) and Dennis Dela Cruz @ "Dencio" (Dela Cruz). The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2005 at about 7:15 in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with a kitchen knife and steel pipes, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly attack, assault, and stab SOLOMON GARBO JR. on the chest and strike the latter with the use of said steel pipes, and as a consequence of said injury, SOLOMON GARBO JR. was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Manuel was first to be arrested and tried. However, the case against him was dismissed on September 24, 2007 after the RTC granted his Demurrer to Evidence. On the other hand, the four other accused remain at-large. 5
Gumban, whose case is now the subject of this appeal, was arrested only on September 15, 2013. 6 He was arraigned on October 7, 2013 and entered a plea of "not guilty" to the crime charged. 7
After the termination of the preliminary conference and pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued against him.
Version of the Prosecution:
On November 20, 2005, at around seven o'clock in the evening, Solomon Garbo, Jr. (Solomon) was sitting and texting while grilling food outside his house. Meanwhile, Solomon's mother, Aurora, was tending to her store, which is situated just in front of his house. 8
Moments later, Aurora saw Gumban, together with Angelito, Manuel, Englis, Mondejar, and Dela Cruz, heading towards Solomon. Coming from behind, Gumban suddenly struck the side of Solomon's face with a steel GI pipe, while almost simultaneously, Angelito stabbed the victim on his chest with a knife. 9 Angelito then spat on Solomon's face and declared that he finally had his revenge. Some of the assailants then shouted, "who else is brave here?" and afterwards, they all ran away. 10
Aurora and Solomon's live-in partner shouted for help. A patrol car came and brought the victim to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. 11
Version of the Defense:
Gumban interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that on the night of the incident, he was in Minglanilla, Cebu working at DECA Home Subdivision as a construction worker where he had been employed for three years. 12 According to Gumban, he worked overtime until ten o'clock in the evening of November 20, 2005 and did not leave the workplace as he is a stay-in employee. 13 He further stated that he only returned to his residence in Tejero, Cebu City on November 26, 2005 and only learned of the incident then. 14 When Gumban found out that he was implicated in the crime, he went to Councilor Harold Seno to seek advice, who told him not to worry if he had not done anything wrong. As such, he went back to work and his normal life. 15
On September 15, 2013, while Gumban was playing basketball, Arnold Garbo, the victim's brother, approached him and told him that there was a pending warrant of arrest against him. Thus, they both went to the police station so that Gumban could clear his name. Upon arriving at the police station, Gumban submitted himself to the authorities and was subsequently detained. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Judgment dated January 8, 2016 the RTC held that Gumban committed the crime of Murder in conspiracy with Angelito. It gave full credence to the testimony of Aurora who clearly and unequivocally identified Gumban and his co-conspirator and narrated how they attacked and killed Solomon. 17 Moreover, the trial court held that the crime was qualified by treachery, but not evident premeditation, as the latter was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. 18 The RTC was not convinced by Gumban's defenses of denial and alibi. It took judicial notice of the fact that Minglanilla, Cebu, where Gumban claimed to be at when Solomon was murdered, was only about twelve (12) kilometers away from the crime scene and can be traversed in less than an hour; thus, the RTC ruled that it was not physically impossible for Gumban to be at the locus criminis at the time the crime was committed. 19 The dispositive portion of the RTC ruling states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the court finds the accused Michael Gumban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, in conspiracy with the other accused, and hereby sentences him to a prison term of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, jointly and severally, the sum of P75,000.00 as death indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P20,000.00 as temperate damages plus 6% interest per annum of the total amount of damages from the time this judgment become final until full paid. aScITE
SO ORDERED. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Aggrieved, Gumban appealed to the CA, averring that the trial court gravely erred: (a) in finding his guilt despite the apparent inconsistencies and incredulity of the testimony of the alleged witnesses; and (b) in affirming his conviction of Murder despite the insufficient allegation of treachery in the information. 21 Particularly, Gumban argued that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent as to: (1) who among the accused approached the victim first; (2) what the victim was doing when he was attacked; and, (3) what the victim's mother did after the gruesome incident. 22
On April 24, 2019, the CA promulgated its Decision denying Gumban's appeal. It found that the circumstance of treachery was duly alleged in the Information and was sufficiently proved during trial. 23 Anent the supposed inconsistencies raised by Gumban, the CA held that the same did not pertain to the elements of the crime, and hence, it cannot be a ground for his acquittal. 24 It was likewise unconvinced by the defenses raised by Gumban. 25 As to the award of damages, the CA modified the amounts granted to the heirs of the victim in order to conform to this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 26 The appellate court thus ruled:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED, the Judgment dated 8 January 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City, in Crim. Case No. CBU-77026 is AFFIRMED with modification increasing the amount of moral damages to P75,000.00 and the amount of exemplary damages to P75,000.00. Except as so modified, the rest of the monetary award and imposition of 6% interest per annum stand.
SO ORDERED. 27
Undaunted by the CA's unfavorable Decision, Gumban filed his Notice of Appeal 28 dated May 16, 2019.
In a Resolution 29 dated September 23, 2019, this Court notified the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. Both Gumban and the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs, having already exhaustively argued all the pertinent issues in the Briefs they had previously submitted before the CA. 30
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, which states:
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:
1. 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; x x x
Thus, for an accused to be convicted of Murder, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (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 RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 31
After a careful review of the records of the case, this Court finds that all such elements are obtaining in this case.
As to the first and second elements, it is apparent that Gumban, in conspiring with Angelito, succeeded in killing Solomon. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Similar to the physical acts constituting the crime itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 32 Here, both the lower courts found that Gumban's act of hitting the victim with a steel pipe and Angelito stabbing him on the chest almost simultaneously or immediately thereafter showed a unity of purpose or community of design. 33 Their acts demonstrated a coordinated and complementary action to deliberately kill Solomon, which they were able to fully accomplish.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. 34 Since none of the aforementioned exceptions are present in this case, this Court has no reason to overturn the findings of the lower courts.
In an effort to exculpate himself, Gumban asserted in his appeal that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were incredible, given the presence of inconsistencies pertaining to who among the assailants approached Solomon first, what Solomon was doing before the attack, and what Aurora did after witnessing the incident. HEITAD
Such argument deserves scant consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not weaken the witness' credibility. On the contrary, such inconsistencies strengthen, rather than weaken, one's credibility. 35 As long as the testimony of the witness is coherent and intrinsically believable as a whole, discrepancies relating to collateral matters do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of the witnesses' declarations. 36 What is important is the prosecution witness' consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. 37 In the case at hand, the points raised by Gumban are inconsequential and immaterial as they do not touch on the elements of the crime. Moreover, the prosecution witness clearly and categorically identified Gumban as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the inconsistencies pointed out by Gumban cannot be a ground to reverse his conviction.
Anent the third element, the records reveal that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery is said to be present 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 the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make." 38 Jurisprudence further explains that the essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and is done in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 39 Here, Gumban and Angelito came from behind and suddenly attacked Solomon, who was simply sitting down and using his phone while also grilling food. As correctly observed by the RTC and CA, Solomon was in no position and without any means to defend himself from the sudden and unexpected attack. 40
On this score, Gumban argued that he cannot be convicted of Murder because the Information filed against him did not specifically allege the acts that would constitute treachery. He heavily relied on the case of People v. Valdez, 41 where this Court held that the information against an accused mustspecify the details of the crime and any circumstance that aggravates his liabilitytherefor, and that the mere use or mention of the term "treachery" will notconstitute a sufficient averment as the same is but a conclusion of law. 42
This Court is not persuaded. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
The herein Information complied with the above-cited rule. To recall, the Information filed against Gumban provides:
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2005 at about 7:15 in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with a kitchen knife and steel pipes, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly attack, assault, and stab SOLOMON GARBO JR. on the chest and strike the latter with the use of said steel pipes, and as a consequence of said injury, SOLOMON GARBO JR. was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.43
From the foregoing, it can be gleaned that the Information clearly alleged and described the attack as sudden and unexpected, underscoring the fact that the victim did not have a chance to avoid it or have any opportunity to defend himself, which, as earlier mentioned, is the epitome of treachery. "The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." 44 Contrary to Gumban's contention, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged in the Information and he was adequately apprised of the charge against him. Hence, this Court agrees with the lower courts that the third element was met, considering that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently alleged and proved in the instant case.
With regard to the fourth element, it is undisputed that the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.
All told then, the prosecution was able to establish with certainty and prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of Murder. In light of the prosecution witness' positive identification of accused-appellant as one of Solomon's attackers, untainted by any ill or improper motive, Gumban's defenses of denial and alibi must fail. Such defenses, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are regarded as negative, self-serving, and undeserving of weight in law; it cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. 45 Under the circumstances, and as duly pointed out by both the RTC and CA, Gumban failed to prove his physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime during the time of its commission, considering that the place where he claimed to be at when the victim was murdered was only about 12 kilometers or one hour away. Thus, the Court sustains his conviction for Murder. ATICcS
Under Article 248 of the RPC, the penalty for murder is reclusionperpetua to death. There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery in this case, the appellate court correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties. 46 Anent the award of damages, while the CA correctly increased the award of moral and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each, this Court also deems it proper to modify the award of temperate damages from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00, which is in line with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 47
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02308 dated April 24, 2019 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-Appellant Michael Gumban is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. He is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim Solomon Garbo, Jr. the following amounts: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All amounts are subject to the legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (SAJ. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2846 dated October 6, 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. 5-18; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and concurred in by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
2. CA rollo, pp. 44-49; penned by Presiding Judge Gilbert P. Moises.
3. Records, pp. 1-3.
4.Id. at 1.
5. CA rollo, p. 44.
6.Id.
7. Records, pp. 67-68.
8. CA rollo, p. 45.
9.Id. at 62.
10.Id. at 62-63.
11.Id. at 63.
12.Id. at 46.
13.Id. at 29.
14.Id. at 46.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, p. 3.
17. CA rollo, pp. 46-47.
18.Id. at 47-48.
19.Id. at 48.
20.Id. at 49.
21.Id. at 24-25.
22.Id. at 30-33.
23.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
24.Id. at 11-12.
25.Id. at 17.
26.Id. at 18.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 19.
29.Id. at 29.
30.Id. at 30-31 and 34-35.
31.People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 677 (2017).
32.People v. Gerero, 791 Phil. 619, 623 (2016).
33.Rollo, p. 14.
34.People v. Lababo, 832 Phil. 1056, 1074 (2018).
35.People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 215 (2017).
36.People v. Manzano, 827 Phil. 113, 132 (2018).
37.People v. Pulgo, supra.
38. Revised Penal Code, Art. 14, par. 16.
39.People v. Racal, supra note 31.
40.Rollo, p. 11; CA rollo, p. 47.
41. 679 Phil. 279-296 (2012); CA rollo, pp. 37-41.
42.Id.
43. Records, p. 1; Emphasis supplied.
44.People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 4, 2020.
45.People v. Umapas, 807 Phil. 975, 990 (2017).
46.People v. Pulgo, supra note 35, at 220.
47.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 847 (2016).