FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207100. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLINARIO CUAL LORETO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207100 (People of the Philippines vs. Apolinario Cual Loreto). — For review is the Decision 1 dated August 14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00367, denying accused-appellant Apolinario Cual Loreto's (Loreto) appeal and affirming with modifications the Decision 2 dated March 9, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, Branch 42, in Criminal Case No. 15232, finding Loreto guilty of Murder. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. The 9 March 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 15232, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant Apolinario Cual Loreto is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is ordered to pay Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos ([P]75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos ([P]75,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty[-]Five Thousand Pesos ([P]25,000.00) as temperate damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos ([P]30,000.00) as exemplary damages to the heirs of Dionesio Elum, all with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 3
Loreto, also known as "Bugoy", was an employee of the victim Dionesio Elum (Elum) and was accused of killing the latter on the night of September 19, 2000. According to prosecution witness Petronilo Galapate II (Galapate), he was walking home from the market when he saw Loreto, who was then stooping and armed with a short firearm, heading towards Elum's house in Poblacion, Siaton. Intrigued by Loreto's strange behavior, Galapate hid behind the bushes in front of Elum's house and snooped. Elum was inside his house, seated at the dining table and was facing a jalousie window. He then saw Loreto take a shot at Elum from the window outside the house, after which Loreto ran towards the street. Galapate heard Elum cry for help, and the child who was with Elum inside the house shouted and cried. He immediately told his parents and neighbors of the incident and together with his neighbors, they proceeded to Elum's house. Elum was brought to the hospital where he expired 30 minutes later. The cause of death was internal hemorrhage due to gunshot wound. 4 Galapate revealed the identity of the shooter to the police only two days after the incident because he was scared, although his neighbors knew of it because he told them immediately after the incident. TIHDAa
A paraffin test was conducted on Loreto on September 20, 2000, and results showed the presence of gunpowder nitrates on his hands, which confirmed the possibility that he fired a gun the day before. According to Philippine National Police forensic chemist Police Inspector Josephine Llena, gunpowder stays on the hands of a shooter for 72 hours or 3 days. 5
Loreto was arrested on January 8, 2001 and is presently incarcerated at the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. 6 His defense was alibi. He claimed that at the time of the incident, he was in Elum's bunk house in Balastro, which was about 12 kilometers away from Elum's house in Poblacion, Siaton. He was with Elum's live-in partner Ester, her helper Rona and one Tongkoy Dagoy, and they were mixing fertilizer. He was brought to the Municipal Hall of Siaton on September 20, 2000 by Boy and Coro Silva on the ruse that his mother, together with a pregnant woman, was looking for him. 7
The RTC found the prosecution's evidence convincing and convicted Loreto of Murder, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the guilt of accused Apolinario Loreto, nicknamed Bugoy, having been proved beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and after appreciating the mitigating circumstance stated in the immediately foregoing, the said accused is hereby sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Further, accused is also ordered to indemnify the Heirs of Dionisio Elum the sum of fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) and to pay the exemplary damage of twenty thousand pesos ([P]20,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 8
The mitigating circumstance referred to above by the RTC was Loreto's "voluntary submission" to a paraffin test. 9
The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the amount of damages awarded in favor of Elum's heirs. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 10
Loreto insisted that the veracity of Galapate's testimony is "highly questionable." 11 He cited "inconsistencies" and "incredible" statements in the testimony of Galapate, to wit: (1) he testified that Loreto shot Elum from the window where the latter was facing, but Dr. Nestor Baron who attended to Elum at the hospital and issued the certificate of death testified that the bullet's point of entry was at the right forearm and traversed to the right arm, penetrating the right mid auxiliary area; (2) he testified that after shooting Elum, Loreto ran and passed by him but Loreto did not notice him; (3) he made contradicting statements when he said that the first time he saw Loreto was when the latter was about to enter Elum's house, but later said that he saw him the first time between Bonifacio and Villanueva streets; and (4) he testified that he was at the crime scene when the police arrived, but Senior Police Officer 3 Franco Rubio stated that no one was inside the house when they arrived. 12
The CA, however, rebuffed Loreto's arguments and sustained the RTC's appreciation of the weight and credence of Galapate's testimony. It ruled that Galapate testified in a candid and straightforward manner, and remained steadfast in his narration of the events during cross-examination. 13 He was consistent in his testimony regarding the identity of Loreto as the shooter, and this was backed by the result of the paraffin test conducted on Loreto. The CA also rejected Loreto's arguments on the alleged inconsistencies in Galapate's testimony as these were explainable. In addition, the CA found no ill motive on the part of Galapate to falsely testify against Loreto. 14 Further, the CA rejected Loreto's defense of alibi, especially in the light of Galapate's positive identification. 15SaIHDA
The CA, nevertheless, correctly set aside the RTC's appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of Loreto's "voluntary submission" to a paraffin test, ruling that it did not qualify as a voluntary surrender. Loreto neither voluntarily submitted himself to the authorities nor presented himself to persons of authority. Instead, he was fetched by Boy and Coro Silva and brought to the Municipal Hall on a pretext. 16
The Court went over the records of this case and found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the CA and the RTC. The rule is that factual findings of the trial court are, except for compelling or exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court especially when fully supported by evidence and affirmed by the CA. 17 There exists no compelling or exceptional reason in this case such that these factual findings should be set aside.
There is no question as to the fact of Elum's death. Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of Loreto as the perpetrator. The Court agrees with the CA that the alleged inconsistencies in Galapate's testimony were adequately explained, thus:
We have scoured the records and transcript of stenographic notes and find no significant contradictions sufficient to propel Us to question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Dr. Baron merely testified that it could be possible that the assailant was at the side of Dionesio when the former shot the latter. Mere possibility does not necessarily equate to definitiveness.
As to the alleged impossibility of [Loreto] not to notice the presence of [Galapate], this has been clearly explained by [Galapate] . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
It is therefore clear from the foregoing that [Galapate] hid himself behind the bushes for the very reason that he did not want [Loreto] to find out that he had witnessed the gruesome incident. . . . . 18
The testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be clear and straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court. Further, discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witness' declarations. 19
That Elum's killing was attended and qualified by treachery is likewise established. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. 20 In this case, evidence proved that Loreto surreptitiously shot Elum while the latter was completely oblivious to the attack, rendering him helpless and unable to defend himself. DHIaTS
Loreto's defense of alibi must also fail. For alibi to prosper, it must be proved, not only that the accused was in another place when the crime was committed, but that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission altogether. 21 In this case, the Court adheres to the RTC's findings on this score:
Although [Loreto] alleged that he was just at Balastro in the evening of the shooting incident, but such allegation is being negated by the fact that [Loreto] was seen drinking in the public market at Poblacion of Siaton few hours before the killing incident and that at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of September 19, 2000, an hour after the shooting, [Loreto] was also seen unusually driving fast and without headlight a motorcycle from the lower direction or from downtown towards Balastro, moreso, the intended witnesses for [Loreto] never appeared to defend him. Balastro is just 12 kilometers from the Poblacion where the shooting incident happened and motorcycle is the easy means of transportation to escape from the crime scene in this case. . . . . 22
Consequently, the CA correctly affirmed Loreto's conviction for the crime of murder.
The Court also sustains the penalty imposed on Loreto. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes a person convicted of murder with reclusion perpetua to death, and with treachery having been proven and appreciated, the maximum imposable penalty, therefore, should be death. Republic Act No. 9346, 23 however, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; thus, the penalty for the crime was correctly reduced to reclusion perpetua. The same should be imposed without eligibility for parole. 24
Finally, the Court affirms the amount of civil indemnity and damages awarded by the CA, as these are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. 25
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Consequently, the Decision dated August 14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00367 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 126-150.
2. Issued by Judge Ibarra B. Jaculbe, Jr.; id. at 70-85.
3. Id. at 149.
4. Id. at 129-130, 73.
5. Id. at 77.
6. Id. at 128.
7. Id. at 80.
8. Id. at 85.
9. Id. at 84-85.
10. Both Loreto and the People of the Philippines (appellee), as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that they will not be submitting supplemental briefs; rollo, pp. 38-40, 35-36.
11. CA rollo, p. 65.
12. Id. at 65-66.
13. Id. at 136.
14. Id. at 143.
15. Id. at 143-144.
16. Id. at 145-146.
17. People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 196434, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 604, 608.
18. CA rollo, pp. 141-143.
19. Alicando v. People, G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 662.
20. People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Dearo, Paulino Luague and Wilfredo Toledo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013.
21. People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 198789, June 3, 2013, 697 SCRA 121.
22. CA rollo, p. 84.
23. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
24. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 provides that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." See also People v. Dearo, supra note 20; People v. Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 23; People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 548.
25. People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 198789, June 3, 2013, 697 SCRA 121; People v. Camat, G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012, 677 SCRA 640; People v. Adviento, G.R. No. 175781, March 20, 2012, 668 SCRA 486.