People v. Maceda, Jr. y Obias

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255436. October 19, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.OSCAR MACEDA, JR. y OBIAS, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 255436 (People of the Philippines v. Oscar Maceda, Jr. y Obias). — This appeal 1 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the June 22, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11501. The CA Decision affirmed the May 18, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Malolos City, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1766-M-2009 which found accused-appellant Oscar Maceda, Jr. y Obias (Oscar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

In an Information 4 dated April 20, 2009, Oscar, together with co-accused Felimon Maceda (Felimon), were charged of the crime of Murder as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of February, 2009, in the municipality of Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill one [Federico] Lumidao y Narciso, with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said gun the said Federico Lumidao y Narciso, hitting him on his body and inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law. 5

Both pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 6 Hence, pre-trial commenced and trial began right after. CAIHTE

Version of the Prosecution

During trial, the prosecution presented Christopher Bando (Bando), a cousin of Oscar and Felimon, as their witness. Bando testified that on February 21, 2009, all three of them, together with three other companions, were at his apartment having a drinking session that lasted from 9:30 p.m. to 12 midnight. 7

At around 12 midnight, Federico Lumidao (Lumidao), the owner of the apartment where Bando resides, told them to keep quiet as there are other residents already sleeping. 8 Oscar approached Lumidao and had a heated argument with him. Felimon was about to join the argument but was stopped by Bando. 9

After the incident, Bando told Oscar to go outside of the apartment. Oscar acquiesced. 10 Lumidao then asked Bando to accompany him to the municipal hall to blotter the incident; in response, Bando told him to wait as he will change his clothes. 11

After changing his clothes, Bando saw Lumidao already aboard his car. Thus, Bando just walked towards the municipal hall, and saw Oscar and Felimon on the way too. Thereafter, he saw both Macedas standing in front of Lumidao's car. Oscar then continuously fired shots at Lumidao. 12

The car slowed down while Oscar and Felimon proceeded to the squatters' area. When Bando approached the car, he saw Lumidao already lifeless. Bando went back to his apartment, told their other drinking companions about the incident, and they immediately went to the place where Lumidao was shot. Bando asked his companions to bring Lumidao to the hospital. However, for fear of being implicated, they instead went to the police station to report what they saw. As for Bando, he went to his uncle in the squatters' area to relay to him what he witnessed. 13

Upon being informed of the incident, the police led by Police Senior Inspector Ma. Amelita A. Mendoza conducted a joint ocular inspection of the crime place where they recovered four cartridge shells of a still unknown gun and one metal fragment. 14 Lumidao's corpse was then subjected to autopsy. The cause of death was determined to be hemorrhagic shock due to a gunshot wound to the chest. 15

To prove the expenses spent in connection with Lumidao's death, the prosecution also presented Florencia Cardenas (Cardenas), Lumidao's daughter. 16 Cardenas testified that she spent the amount of P60,000.00 for the casket and funeral service of her father. However, during the hearing, Cardenas was able to present an official receipt from Zaldy's Funeral Parlor in the amount of only P57,000.00 representing the casket and the funeral service. 17

Version of the Defense

On the part of the defense, Oscar took the witness stand and denied the allegations against him. He further alleged that he last saw Bando in 2018 and his brother, Felimon, in 2001 in Davao. 18

On the date of the incident, Oscar claimed that he was working at Calumpit Hardware in Bulacan, thus, it was impossible for him to be at Balagtas, Bulacan. 19

Furthermore, Oscar sought to discredit Bando's testimony by alleging that the latter had ill feelings towards him because Oscar was having an affair with Bando's live-in partner. Oscar claimed that he even had a misunderstanding with Bando on February 14, 2019, a week prior to the incident, after Bando discovered the affair. 20

The defense also presented Felimon who testified that on February 21, 2009, he was on his way home from work when he stopped at his cousin Bando's apartment to check if his brother was there. He claimed that he saw Bando having an argument with someone, later identified as Lumidao. 21 When Felimon approached Bando regarding his brother, the latter told him that Oscar was not there and asked him to leave. Upon seeing that Bando was carrying a gun, Felimon immediately left the place. 22 HEITAD

The following day, Felimon learned about Lumidao's death. He asked Bando about the same, and the latter simply asked him to be silent and not interfere. While in Bicol, he learned that he and his brother, Oscar, were being implicated in the death of Lumidao. 23

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision 24 dated May 18, 2018, the RTC found that it was clearly Oscar who killed the victim Lumidao by shooting the latter with a gun, with the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery. Thus, the RTC found Oscar guilty of Murder. 25 The trial court disregarded Oscar's defense of denial. 26

As for Felimon, the RTC found that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution witness Bando testified that he saw Felimon five meters away from Oscar when the shooting happened. Thus, Felimon could not have conspired with the accused in killing Lumidao. 27

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, accused Oscar O. Maceda, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Accused Oscar O. Maceda, Jr. is hereby sentenced to pay the heirs of Federico Lumidao the following:

1) Civil indemnity in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

2) Actual damages in the amount of Fifty-Seven Thousand Pesos (P57,000.00);

3) Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); and

4) Exemplary damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

With respect to accused Felimon O. Maceda, he is hereby acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Felimon O. Maceda is hereby ordered to be released from detention unless held for any other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED. 28

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Oscar appealed to the CA, insisting that the RTC: (1) gravely erred in giving full credence to the inconsistent, doubtful, and uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution's lone witness; and (2) gravely erred in convicting Oscar of Murder despite the failure of the prosecution to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor. 29

Giving due deference and respect to the findings of the RTC, the CA, in a Decision 30 dated June 22, 2020, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision as the latter was in the best position to assess the truthfulness of Bando's testimony. Thus, the dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 May 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Malolos, Bulacan is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 31 ETHIDa

Hence, this instant appeal. 32

Issue

Whether the CA correctly found accused-appellant Oscar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

Our Ruling

The Court dismisses the appeal.

Art. 248 of the RPC, as amended, defines and penalizes Murder, viz.:

ART. 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. (Emphasis supplied)

In accordance with the foregoing provision, the following elements must be established before a person can be convicted of the crime of Murder: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the RPC, as amended; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 33

In the present case, the prosecution successfully established the elements of the crime when it proved: that Lumidao was killed; that Oscar was positively identified as the person who shot Lumidao; that the attendant circumstance of treachery was present when Oscar attacked Lumidao unknowingly; and that the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide.

As to the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery, the RTC and the CA were correct in finding that treachery attended the commission of the crime, qualifying the offense to Murder.

Par. 16, Art. 14 of the RPC provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against another person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself or herself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

In short, for treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) that, at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or herself; and (2) that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him or her. 34

In the case at bar, the lone prosecution witness, Bando, witnessed the shooting incident and narrated the events in this wise:

FISCAL RAMOS:

Q Mr. Witness, on February 21, 2009, do you recall having met your (2) cousins? cSEDTC

A Yes, Sir.

Q Where at, Mr. Witness?

A They went to my house and we had a drinking sessions that night, Sir.

Q When you say to your house, you are referring to your apartment?

A Yes, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q What is the reason why they went to your apartment?

A Nothing, we had just a drinking session, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And will you tell us Mr. Witness, why your drinking session lasted only up to 12:00 o'clock that night?

A Federico Lumidao went downstairs from the second floor and he told us to be silent because there are persons who were sleeping at that time, Sir.

Q What was the reaction of your group, you and your companions in that admonition of the owner?

A Oscar Maceda talked to Federico, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q What happened next after Oscar Maceda approached Federico at the stairs?

A They had a heated argument, "nagkahablutan po ng damit silang dalawa," Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q After that, what did Federico Lumidao do, if any?

A He asked me to accompany him to the municipal hall to blotter the incident, Sir.

Q And what response did you give to him?

A I told him to wait, I will just get my clothes for me to wear it, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And what did you do, Mr. Witness, upon seeing that Federico Lumidao was already on board his car and x x x left you behind?

A I just waked n and I was able to see Oscar Maceda on our way, Sir.

Q And where did you see Oscar Maceda, on your way walking?

A In the street where the car passed by, in front of the car of Federico Lumidao, Sir.

Q And who was with Oscar Maceda, if any at that time?

A He was with Felimon Maceda, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mr. Witness, after that, what did these two (2) accused do next, if any?

A Oscar Maceda fired at Federico Lumidao, Sir.

Q How many shots were fired by Oscar Maceda?

A I cannot count because it was continuous, Sir.

Q At that time the first shot was fired directed to Federico Lumidao, what happened to the car?

A The car started to move slowly going to the place where Metro Bank is located, Sir.

Q How about at the that time the second shot was delivered or fired, where was the car at that time?

A Still moving but swerving, Sir. AaCTcI

Q And while the car of Federico Lumidao was taking a curve or having its turn, what was Oscar Maceda doing, if any at that time?

A He was just standing, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mr. Witness, after this shooting incident, what did Oscar Maceda and Felimon Maceda do next, if any?

A They left and proceeded to the squatters' area, Sir.

Q And you having [witnessed] the incident, what did you do next, Mr. Witness?

A What I did was I went near the car to see Federico Lumidao, Sir.

Q And what did you find out, Mr. Witness?

A "Wala na po siyang malay," when I saw Federico Lumidao, I went back to his apartment and reported the matter, Sir. 35 (Emphasis supplied)

Bando's straightforward testimony positively and categorically identified Oscar as the person who shot Lumidao suddenly. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the qualifying circumstance of treachery does not even require that the perpetrator attack his or her victim from behind. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow. 36

The Court agrees with the findings of the CA when it stated that:

In the instant case, [Lumidao] was shot by accused-appellant while he was at his car. As he was in the driver's seat intending to proceed to the municipal hall, there was no opportunity for [Lumidao] to defend himself. There was no expectation of an attack from accused-appellant considering that they already went their separate ways after they left the apartment of [Bando]. As such, the attack of accused-appellant was sudden and unexpected, without offering [Lumidao] any chance to resist or escape therefrom. 37 (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, the Court accords great respect to the findings of the RTC, especially with regard to Bando's testimony, as the RTC was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess the truthfulness of their testimonies. Bando's testimony that Oscar used a gun to continuously shoot Lumidao is consistent with Lumidao's death certificate which reflected the cause of death as emanating from a gunshot wound and the number of cartridge shells found at the scene of the crime. Compared to Oscar's defenses of alibi and denial, the Court agrees that the testimony of the prosecution witness was more consistent with the evidence presented in court. Oscar did not even present a certification or time card to show that he was indeed working at Calumpit, Bulacan thus, impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime in Balagtas, Bulacan or its immediate vicinity.

Anent the imposable penalty, Art. 248 of the RPC, as amended, specifically provides that the crime of Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having qualified the killing to the crime of Murder, and there being no other aggravating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon Oscar is proper. EcTCAD

With respect to the award of damages, the Court further modifies the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 38

All these monetary awards shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 22, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11501 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Oscar Maceda, Jr. y Obias is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Federico Lumidao the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P57,000.00 as actual damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The letter dated April 13, 2022 of CSupt. Jayferson G. Bon-As, Acting Superintendent, NBP-MaxSeCom, Muntinlupa City, in compliance with the Resolution dated February 23, 2022, informing the Court that the accused-appellant was received for confinement in the institution on October 6, 2018, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Kho, Jr., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 10, 2022 vice Rosario, J., who recused due to prior participation in the CA.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-16.

2.Id. at 4-13. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Bonifacio Sison Pascua.

3. CA rollo, pp. 48-59. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo.

4. Records, p. 2.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 48-49.

7. TSN, October 6, 2010, pp. 4-5.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 6.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 6-7.

12.Id. at 7.

13.Id. at 8-9.

14. Records, p. 14.

15.Id. at 144.

16. TSN, June 1, 2015, p. 3.

17. TSN, August 10, 2016, p. 2.

18. TSN, February 5, 2018, p. 3.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 3-4.

21. TSN, February 8, 2017, pp. 3-4.

22.Id. at 5.

23.Id. at 5-7.

24. CA rollo, pp. 48-59.

25.Id. at 55.

26.Id. at 55-56.

27.Id. at 56.

28.Id. at 58-59.

29.Rollo, p. 8.

30.Id. at 4-13.

31.Id. at 13.

32.Id. at 14-16.

33.People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 234780, March 17, 2021, People v. Babor, 772 Phil. 252, 259-260 (2015).

34.People v. Calinawan, 805 Phil. 673, 683 (2017).

35. TSN, October 6, 2010, pp. 4-8.

36.People v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588, 600 (2017).

37.Rollo, p. 12.

38. 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).

nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. waked should be walked.