THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243196. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HERMAN LOSADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 7, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243196 (People of the Philippines v. Herman Losada). — On appeal 1 is the June 18, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08676, which affirmed with modification the July 28, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53 of Sorsogon City, finding accused-appellant Herman Losada (Losada) guilty of the crime of Murder for the death of Johnson Joven Orticio (Johnson).
Factual Antecedents:
The Information 4 charging Losada with Murder reads as follows:
That on or about 1:30 o'clock in the morning of February 13, 2010 at Barangay Dancalan, Municipality of Donsol, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill, with treachery and acting with discernment, while armed with a bladed weapon, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [stab] one JOHNSON JOVEN ORTICIO, which injury caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
On April 27, 2010, a warrant of arrest 6 was issued against Losada but no apprehension was made. Thus, in an Order 7 dated January 17, 2011, the RTC archived the case and issued a standing warrant of arrest 8 against him on the same date. It was only about two years later, or on May 23, 2012, that Losada was arrested and subsequently detained. 9 CAIHTE
After entering a plea of "not guilty," 10 trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On February 13, 2010, at around 1:30 in the morning, Rodel Molina (Rodel) and Losada, together with a certain Yulo, Yen, Attorney, Braulio and Ricky, were having a drinking spree in front of a store. The victim, Johnson, Losada's elementary classmate, arrived to return some bottles. 11
While Johnson was talking to the store's owner, Lorna, Losada stood up and went behind Johnson, pulled out a knife that was tucked in his waist, and stabbed Johnson in the right chest. Losada immediately ran away leaving his victim bleeding. Rodel then shouted for help. Barangay Captain Nieva and Kagawad Palles immediately brought Johnson to a hospital but he was declared dead on arrival. 12
The Necropsy Report 13 conducted by Dr. Owen B. De Guzman (Dr. De Guzman) showed that Johnson died due to a cardiopulmonary arrest caused by a stab wound in his chest, which possibly affected his heart and major vessels. 14
Version of the Defense:
Losada denied killing Johnson. He alleged that on the day of the incident, he visited Arsenia de Borja (Arsenia) to invite her son to work with him in Bulacan. Afterwards, at around 9:00 in the evening, accused-appellant, Arsenia and her children went to a dance. They went back to Arsenia's house after two hours and spent the night there. Losada went to Manila the next day. 15
Arsenia corroborated the accused-appellant's claim that he stayed with her family at their house on the night of the incident. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial
In its July 28, 2016 Decision, 17 the RTC found Losada guilty as charged.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused to be GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the Murder of Johnson Joven Orticio and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, accused is hereby condemned to pay the heirs of the victim P27,745.00 by way of actual damages, civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and P50,000.00 moral damages. 18
The trial court gave weight and credit to the prosecution's evidence which duly established that it was Losada who killed Johnson. The killing was attended by treachery as accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Johnson from behind and without any warning. The victim was unaware of the impending threat on his life as he was talking to Lorna at the time of the attack. Thus, Johnson had no reasonable opportunity to defend himself from Losada's attack. 19
The trial court also observed that all that accused-appellant could offer was an alibi, i.e., he was at Arsenia's house which was located near the store where the stabbing incident happened. This could clearly not outweigh the positive identification made by Rodel who saw how Losada stabbed Johnson. Moreover, accused-appellant's act of fleeing and hiding after the incident negated his claim of innocence. 20
Aggrieved, Losada appealed 21 to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its June 18, 2018 Decision, 22 the CA agreed with the RTC on Losada's guilty verdict but modified the awards of damages. It awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages and also ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Johnson P879,746.40 as indemnity for the loss of earning capacity.
The fallo of the CA Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 28 July 2016 Decision of the RTC of Sorsogon City, Branch 53, in Crim. Case No. 2010-7742 finding accused-appellant Herman Losada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of [M]urder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, the accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Johnson Joven Orticio the following amounts: Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) as moral damages; Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) as exemplary damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as temperate damages; and Eight Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six Pesos and 40/100 (Php879,746.40) as indemnity for loss of earning capacity.
Additionally, all the monetary awards shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid. HEITAD
SO ORDERED. 23
Herman thus filed a Notice of Appeal 24 before this High Court.
Issue
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved accused-appellant's guilt for the crime charged.
Our Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (RA 7659), viz.:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the prosecution must establish the presence of 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. 25
In the case at bench, prosecution witness Rodel positively identified Losada as the assailant of Johnson. He narrated how the killing incident transpired in a candid, straightforward and spontaneous manner. Rodel, Losada and their other companions were having a drinking spree in front of the store when Johnson arrived. While the victim was talking to Lorna, accused-appellant approached him from behind and suddenly stabbed him with a knife once in the chest. The singular fatal wound led to Johnson's untimely death.
Rodel even demonstrated during trial how Losada stabbed Johnson in the right chest while standing behind the victim. 26 His testimony was duly corroborated by the findings of Dr. De Guzman, an expert witness, who opined that Johnson suffered one stab wound in the right chest, which could be inflicted even if the assailant was standing behind the victim. 27
Indubitably, no error can be imputed on the part of the CA and the RTC in giving full credence to the candid testimony of Rodel whose physical presence at the place where the crime was committed is likewise undisputed. Also, the trial court is in the best position to determine Rodel's credibility as a witness since it had the opportunity to observe the latter's deportment while on the witness stand. 28 Thus, its factual findings on the credibility of the witness, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on this Court. 29
The Court also agrees that treachery attended the killing. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself/herself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 30 The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the victim no chance to resist or escape. 31 As such, the presence of these two conditions must be clearly proved for treachery to be appreciated, to wit: (a) the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself/herself or to retaliate; and (b) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. 32 ATICcS
The means of attack employed by accused-appellant against Johnson was sudden and unexpected. Johnson was simply talking to Lorna who was manning the store when Losada suddenly stabbed him. The victim's back was towards the assailant and hence, he could not have noticed the impending danger on his life. Indeed, Johnson was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself from accused-appellant.
All that accused-appellant could offer as a defense was an alibi, an inherently weak defense. For alibi to prosper, however, an accused must prove: (a) that he/she was not present at the locus criminis, i.e., place where the crime was committed, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him/her to have been present there at the time the offense was committed. 33 Physical impossibility refers to the distance and facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. 34 An accused must therefore demonstrate that he/she was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. 35
Here, accused-appellant failed to successfully prove that he could not have been present in the store at the time Johnson was killed. The defense, through Arsenia, averred that the store was more than a kilometer away from Arsenia's house. 36 In People v. Ramos, the Court has recognized that a distance of "two kilometers, three kilometers, and even five kilometers were not too far as to preclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the crime scene." 37 Besides, Arsenia's house and the store are both located in the same barangay. Clearly, the mere fact that accused-appellant was at Arsenia's house did not preclude his presence within the vicinity of the store at the time the crime took place. 38
Furthermore, Rodel positively identified Losada as Johnson's assailant. The positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness, thus prevails over accused's alibi which can easily be fabricated. 39
Remarkably, Losada immediately ran away after the killing incident and was nowhere to be found. He was only arrested by the police officers two years later. It is a settled rule that flight is an indication of guilt or of a guilty mind. 40 Had he been really innocent, accused-appellant would not have absconded and went into hiding. "Indeed, the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion." 41
Verily, as correctly found by the CA and the RTC, the prosecution sufficiently established accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the RPC, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no presence of any aggravating circumstances in the instant case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly sentenced Losada to reclusion perpetua.
Anent the damages awarded to the heirs of Johnson, the Court affirms the awards or moral and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. 42 The award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is likewise correct in view of the penalty imposed. 43
We also find the award for loss of earning capacity to be just and in order. The prosecution sufficiently proved that Johnson, 33 years old, 44 was employed as a gardener at the time of his untimely demise. The Certification 45 dated June 13, 2013 issued by "Vitton" Beach Resort showed that he was earning P180.00 a day or equivalent to P1,080.00 a week. Such certification is sufficient basis for a fair and reasonable computation of the victim's loss of earning capacity. 46 Thus, the amount of P879,746.40 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity computed as follows was proper: TIADCc
Net Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income – Living Expenses]
= [2/3 (80 – age at death)] x GAI – [50% of GAI]
= [2/3 (80 – 33)] x P56,160.00 – P28,080.00
= [2/3 (47)] x P28,080.00
= 31.33 x P28,080.00
= P879,746.4047
Lastly, as correctly found by the CA, all monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid. 48
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 18, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08676 finding accused-appellant Herman Losada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Johnson Joven Orticio P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P879,746.40 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity. All monetary awards shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED." (J. Zalameda designated as additional Member per Raffle dated July 5, 2021 vice J. J.Y. Lopez who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2833)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-27.
2.Id. at 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
3. CA rollo, pp. 37-40; penned by Presiding Judge Rofebar F. Gerona.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 23.
7.Id. at 24.
8.Id. at 25.
9.Id. at 26.
10.Id. at 33.
11.Id. at 9, 167.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 15.
14. TSN, July 16, 2013, pp. 12 and 14.
15. TSN, May 6, 2015, pp. 4-19.
16. TSN, February 22, 2016, pp. 4-16.
17. CA rollo, pp. 37-40.
18.Id. at 40.
19.Id. at 39-40.
20.Id. at 38-39.
21. Records, p. 172.
22.Rollo, pp. 2-25.
23.Id. at 24-25.
24. CA rollo, pp. 111-112.
25.People v. Aquino, 829 Phil. 477, 485 (2018).
26. TSN, September 18, 2012, pp. 8-9.
27. TSN, July 16, 2013, p. 15.
28.People v. Naife, G.R. No. 233832 (Notice), July 1, 2019, citing People v. Ocdol, 741 Phil. 701, 714-715 (2014).
29.People v. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593, 598 (2015).
30. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 14, paragraph 16.
31.People v. Naife, supra.
32.People v. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24, 40 (2015).
33.People v. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 206 (2013).
34.Id.
35.Id.
36. TSN, February 22, 2016, p. 12.
37.Supra at 207.
38.Id.
39.People v. Villamor, 780 Phil. 817, 831 (2016).
40.People v. Donio, 806 Phil. 578, 596 (2017).
41.Id.
42.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
43.Id.
44. Records, p. 16.
45.Id. at 91.
46.People v. Bacero, 790 Phil. 745, 768 (2016).
47.Rollo, p. 24.
48.Id.