SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231882. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALDRIN MAGAT y RINOS, 1 REYNALDO CALDONA, AURELIO SIDRO, JR. y GARBO, RICHARD SEMBLANTE y OYAO, BENJIE JECOSALEM 2 y RABOR, ROMEO RAYGA y BARCO, and FREEMAN BAGARES y ROBERTO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231882 (People of the Philippines v. Aldrin Magat y Rinos,3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07614, which affirmed with modifications the September 26, 2013 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and Frustrated Murder.
Antecedents:
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
Accused-appellants Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblante y Oyao, Benjie Jacosalem y Rabor, Romeo Rayga y Barco and Freeman Bagares y Roberto (accused-appellants), were charged with the crimes of murder and frustrated murder under two (2) separate Informations which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 88[8]-V-05
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor accuses Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona y Requirma @ Larry and Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblante y Oyao @ Dante, Benjie Jecosalem y Rabor, and Ronaldo Ferreras Rejuso of the crime of "MURDER" committed as follows:
That on or about July 12, 2005, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, together with other persons whose real names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, without justifiable cause and with treachery and deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot with guns one Shirmon Choa y Li (victim) hitting him at different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
The aggravating circumstance of a band attended the commission of this offense.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 889-V-05
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor accuses Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona y Requirma @ Larry and Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblante y Oyao @ Dante, Benjie Jecosalem y Rabor, and Ronaldo Ferreras Rejuso of the crime of "FRUSTRATED MURDER" committed as follows:
That on or about July 12, 2005, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, together with other persons whose real names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, without any justifiable cause and with treachery and deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot with guns one Shirchung Choa y Li (victim) hitting him at different parts of his body, thus performing all the acts of execution which would constitute the crime of Murder as a consequence, but which nevertheless, did not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the herein accused, that is, due to the timely, able and efficient medical attendance rendered to the victim.
The aggravating circumstance of a band attended the commission of this offense.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 04 October 2005, five of the eight accused-appellants, namely: Aldrin Magat y Rinos (Magat), 5 Reynaldo Caldona y Requirma (Caldona), Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo (Sidro Jr.), Richard Semblante y Oyao (Semblante), and Benjie Jacosalem y Rabor (Jacosalem) were apprehended and committed to Valenzuela City Jail. They were arraigned on 14 November 2005 and pleaded not guilty to both offenses of Murder and Frustrated Murder.
Meanwhile, accused-appellant Romeo Rayga y Barco (Rayga) was apprehended and detained at the Rizal Provincial Jail. He was later transferred and committed to the Valenzuela City Jail on 09 October 2006. Subsequently, accused-appellant Freeman Bagares y Robenta (Bagares) was arrested on 30 July 2007, while accused-appellant Renaldo Rejuso (Rejuso) was arrested on 21 October 2007. These three accused-appellants were respectively arraigned on 06 February 200[7], 6 03 September 2007, and 26 November 2007, who all pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. Pre-trial was conducted and thereafter, trial ensued.
During trial, the prosecution moved to discharge one of the accused, Renaldo Rejuso as a state witness. This was granted by the trial court in an Order dated 21 June 2011 ratiocinating that there are no other prosecution witnesses which could pinpoint to the participation of Magat, Semblante and Jacosalem, in the crimes charged, other than the testimony of Rejuso.
Version of the Prosecution
Around 8:30 p.m. of 12 July 2005, four men were seen walking to and from, as if waiting for somebody, near the gate of Cabral compound located at Mulawinan Street, Lawang Bato, Valenzuela City. These men eventually went to a nearby store to eat and while eating thereat, a gray car came out of the compound at around 9:30 p.m. A man riding a motorcycle suddenly blocked the said car and pulled out a small gun. After uttering the word "tigil," he summoned the men eating at the nearby store towards the gray car and told them to force its occupants to open the door. In response thereto, the men positioned themselves on both sides of the car and simultaneously fired at it. A man who alighted from an owner-type jeep parked in a dark portion of the compound also fired at the car. Another man driving a Tamaraw FX slowly maneuvered his vehicle backwards and going towards the car, prompting the latter to turn to the opposite side of the street and speed up. Momentarily, the car began to move in a zigzag manner until it rammed into an electric post. Afterwhich, the men who blocked and fired at the car casually walked away and headed towards Vista Verde. Upon reaching an area that was not well-lighted, they ran and boarded a Tamaraw FX that was already waiting for them.
The occupants of the car, later identified as Shirmon Choa (Shirmon) and Shirchung Choa (Shirchung), were brought to the Manila Christian University (MCU) Hospital. Shirmon was pronounced dead on arrival, whose cause of death was determined to be a gunshot wound, which led to cardiac-pulmonary arrest and hypovolemic shock. Shirchung, on the other hand, was later transferred to the Chinese General Hospital. According to the medical findings of Dr. Leo Olarte (Dr. Olarte), Shirchung suffered a gunshot wound on his left lateral proximal arm. It was also found that Shirchung sustained gunpowder burns on both forearms. Dr. Olarte opined that the physical injuries sustained by Shirchung will need medical attendance or will incapacitate him for work for a period of more than thirty (30) days.
Prosecution witnesses Renato Paltao, Jingo Cudiamat and Ronaldo Rejuso were able to identify the assailants as follows:
1. The man who was on board the motorcycle that blocked the victims' car was accused-appellant Reynaldo Caldona;
2. The men who were summoned by accused-appellant Reynaldo Caldona from the nearby store to block the victim's car and who fired simultaneously at the car were accused-appellants Freeman Bagares, Aurelio Sidro Jr., Romeo Rayga and Richard Semblante;
3. The man who alighted from an owner-type jeep and also fired at the car was accused-appellant Benjamin Jacosalem; and
4. The man who drove the Tamaraw FX that was used as the get-away vehicle was accused-appellant Aldrin Magat.
Version of the Defense
Responding to the accusations hurled against them, accused-appellants offer the defenses of denial and torture as follows:
Accused-appellant Caldona testified that at around 9:30 p.m. of 12 July 2005, he was buying plastic basins at Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City and only came to know of the present case when he was arrested on 02 August 2005 at the cockpit arena of Sta. Quiteria, Caloocan City. According to him, he was blindfolded and held by four (4) persons, to the point that resisting them would be futile. After two days, his blindfold was removed and learned that he, together with other persons, were already at the Police Anti-Crime Emergency Response (PACER) office in Camp Crame.
On the part of accused-appellant Magat, he testified that while sleeping in his house on the evening of 02 August 2005, someone kicked the door of his room and pointed a gun at him. Subsequently, he was pulled outside of his house, blindfolded, and forced to board a vehicle, where he was tortured and was being forced to admit his involvement in Shirmon's death. He stated that he did not know where he was brought since his blindfold was not removed but he heard voices of other persons being tortured. The said torture only stopped after three days, when he was brought to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG). Thereafter, Shirchung and two police officers mauled him in order for him to sign a document. Shirchung even told him to call his wife since he would deposit Two Million pesos (P2,000,000.00) to the person who would identify Shirmon's killer. As he could no longer bear the suffering, he was forced to sign the aforestated document.
Accused-appellant Jacosalem testified that on the night of 12 July 2005, he was at the bakery of Adela and Jose Duterte, and worked thereat during the night. He claimed to have been arrested on 02 August 2005 when someone held and pointed a gun at him at the Sta. Quiteria cockpit in Caloocan City at the time he and his co-worker Jun Bernas (Bernas) were about to enter the cockpit. They were handcuffed, blindfolded and forced to board a vehicle. He claimed that his blindfold was removed only when they reached the CIDG in Camp Crame. Afterwards, he was tortured, electrocuted and forced to admit to many cases of robbery and the instant case for murder. In order to moisten his throat, he was just made to drink from the cap of a softdrink bottle. He was likewise ordered to sign a document which he was unable to read. As to Bernas, he stated that he no longer knew what happened to him.
As to accused-appellant Semblante, he testified that on 12 July 2005, his wife asked him to bring a letter to the house of accused-appellant Sidro, Jr. so that the latter's wife could hand carry the same to their relatives in the province since she will be attending the town fiesta. He claimed that after bringing the aforementioned letter to the wife of Sidro Jr., and while he was on his way home, he was blocked by a pick-up vehicle at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 02 August 2005. Two men alighted from the said vehicle and pointed a gun at him. He then alighted from the motorcycle and realized that a vehicle was behind him. Thereafter, someone held his hands and made him lie down facing the ground. He was made to board the pick-up vehicle while someone held his head and hands.
While they were travelling, someone asked Semblante if he was Dante. He did not answer the said question and stated that he had a license and barangay clearance in his wallet, but he could not show the same to them because he was handcuffed. Thereafter, he was blindfolded. When he resisted and shouted, someone boxed his stomach and asked for his address. When the vehicle stopped, he was transferred to another vehicle, where he was asked to describe his wife. Subsequently, one of the men who accosted him said "Yun pala si Gina." From thence, he knew that that the men who arrested him were police officers. While still on board the vehicle, his head was placed inside a plastic bag and he was choked by covering his mouth and nose. He was likewise mauled while being asked for many names. According to the said men, he was involved in a killing incident in Metro Manila.
After a long time, the vehicle stopped and he was brought to a warehouse where he was tortured. While thereat, he heard other persons were also being tortured. When the torture stopped, he fell asleep, and upon waking up, he was made to board a vehicle that brought him to Camp Crame. At Camp Crame, he was first asked by a media practitioner about his participation in the killing of Shirmon Choa. After he answered that he did not know about the said crime as he did not know how to kill, the police officers dragged him away. He was thereafter incarcerated in a small cell. Semblante claims to have consistently denied the allegation of his involvement in the killing of Shirmon.
On the part of accused-appellant Sidro Jr., he testified that he was about to leave their house in Molino, Cavite in the morning of 02 August 2005 to peddle taho when he was arrested by men, some wearing civilian clothes and others wearing police uniform with their names covered by packaging tapes. They asked him if he was Gerioing Singkit and when he answered in the negative, he was pinned to the ground, his nape was stepped on by two (2) SWAT members, and was handcuffed. Thereafter, he was dragged and ordered to board their vehicle. His siblings and neighbor tried to intervene but they were also incarcerated.
Sidro Jr. was blindfolded and did not know where he was taken, but he thought it to be a big house because of the echo. He claimed to have been tortured therein by someone pulling down his shorts and electrocuting his genitals. The torture only stopped upon the orders of someone who called over the telephone and telling them that Sidro Jr.'s mother was already in Crame. While still blindfolded, he recognized his mother because of her embrace, voice and smell. He claimed that he was being forced to admit the killing of Shirmon, although he did not commit it. He was tortured and was kicked on his chest. When someone mentioned that there was a media coming to Crame, the persons therein wiped his shirt with handkerchiefs. He likewise saw his co-accused Semblante in detention.
Accused-appellant Bagares testified that on 03 August 2007, the PACER operatives arrested him from his place of work at Coca-Cola in Barangay Caluan, Pasig City, without any warrant of arrest. Some of his co-workers tried to intervene but they were told that he was involved in a kidnapping. When he asked why he was being arrested, the policemen merely told him not to resist or he would just be hurt. He was eventually boarded on a Revo and brought to Camp Crame, where he learned that he was being accused of kidnapping, murder and frustrated murder, and had a Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Peso (P250,000.00) reward for his capture. He claimed that he could have been implicated in the instant case as a "fall guy."
Accused-appellant Rayga testified that at the time of his arrest, a policeman in civilian clothes went to their house and asked him to read a piece of paper, which also contains a picture. According to him, the picture belongs to Ondo Contillas (Contillas). He, however could not read what was written on the paper as he did not receive any form of schooling, since his mother left them for someone else when he was still young and learned to read only when he was imprisoned. He also claimed that the picture in the piece of paper did not look like him. Thereafter, he was asked to go with the police officers and was handcuffed when they boarded the vehicle. During such time, he was accompanied by his common-law wife.
They eventually went to Tacloban City, where Rayga saw documents with a list of names and was asked if he knew the names listed therein. When he answered that he did not know how to read, the same were read to him. He, however, did not recognize any of the names. Afterwhich, a certain Dela Paz of the PACER asked him to be a star witness for the kidnapping of Arthur Picones (Picones) but he refused to do so. At that time, his common-law wife was already gone because she was ordered to go home. He was then brought to Camp Crame.
At Camp Crame, his head was placed inside a garbage bag. He was also mauled and forced to be a star witness so that no case would be filed against him. He however refused to do so because he could not implicate an innocent person in Picones' kidnapping. He likewise heard someone saying that a case should be filed against him. He was presented to the media and thereafter was transferred to the Binangonan Jail, where he was charged with kidnapping, together with his co-accused Bagares. 7 (Citations omitted)
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The trial court found accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged. 8 It anchored its ruling on the positive identification of the three prosecution eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were found to be credible. 9 It also rejected the defenses of denial, alibi, and torture raised by accused-appellants for being uncorroborated. 10
In finding accused-appellants guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder, the trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery as alleged in the Informations. 11 It observed that the victims had no opportunity to defend themselves from the attack, which was deliberately planned by accused-appellants. 12 However, as to the aggravating circumstance of band which was also alleged in the Informations, the trial court did not appreciate the same and did not provide any explanation therefor.
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
In view of the foregoing, in Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, this Court finds the accused ALDRIN MAGAT Y RINOS, REYNALDO CALDONA, AURELIO SIDRO JR. Y GARBO, RICHARD SEMBLANTE Y OYAO, BENJIE JACOSALEM Y RABOR, ROMEO RAYGA Y BARCO AND FREEMAN BAGARES Y ROBERTO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Consequently, they are ordered to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The accused Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblante y Oyao, Benjie Jacosalem y Rabor, Romeo Rayga y Barco [a]nd Freeman Bagares y Roberto are also held jointly and solidarily liable to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 as moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, this Court also finds the accused Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblante y Oyao, Benjie Jacosalem y Rabor, Romeo Rayga y Barco and Freeman Bagares y Roberto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder. Consequently, they are further ordered to suffer the penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal.
The sentence shall be served successively.
The period during which the accused were in preventive imprisonment shall be credited in their favor.
SO ORDERED.13
Thus, accused-appellants' appeal before the CA, assigning the following errors in their Brief:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF INTENT TO KILL.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF TREACHERY.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY.
V
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE OF DENIAL. 14
Plaintiff-appellee likewise filed its Brief, with its lone argument:
THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT APPELLANTS' GUILT FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED. 15
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for Murder and Frustrated Murder. 16 It held that the prosecution was able to prove their intent to kill based on their collective acts of simultaneously shooting at the victims' car. 17 It also noted that their acts were committed in unison, showing that their respective participation were interconnected and not dictated by separate and independent goals. 18 As to the alleged inconsistencies raised by accused-appellants, the CA held that these do not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies because such inconsistencies were minor and do not negate the fact of killing. 19
In convicting accused-appellants, the CA agreed with the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the crime. 20 In addition, it also appreciated the aggravating circumstance of band as alleged in the Informations since the crimes were committed by more than three armed malefactors acting together in the pursuit of their felonious scheme. 21 Accordingly, the appellate court modified the penalty and damages. 22
The fallo of the assailed CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 September 2013 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, accused-appellants shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and shall pay P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim's heirs. In Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, accused-appellants shall suffer an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and pay P40,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim's heirs.
SO ORDERED.23
Thus, this appeal. Both parties adopted their arguments in their respective Appellants' and Appellee's Briefs in lieu of Supplemental Briefs. 24 In addition, accused-appellant Rayga filed his own Supplemental Brief. 25
In the June 3, 2019 Resolution, 26 the Court resolved to set aside the October 13, 2016 Decision of the CA and to dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 888-V-05 and 889-V-05 that were filed before the RTC, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City insofar as accused-appellant Magat is concerned in view of his demise.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit. We find no convincing reason to reverse the appellate court's ruling.
Minor inconsistencies do not
In their Brief, accused-appellants argue that the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Renato Paltao (Paltao), Jingo Cudiamat (Cudiamat), and Ronaldo Rejuso (Rejuso), were insufficient and inconsistent to support their conviction. 27 They refer to inconsistencies as to the time of shooting, the reason why the victims accelerated their car, and the respective participations of accused-appellants in the shooting. 28
After a careful examination of the records, this Court is convinced that the inconsistencies do not discredit the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses.
First, the inconsistency as to time is too trivial as it involves only a time difference of 45 minutes to an hour. What is important is that all of the eyewitnesses testified that the shooting occurred in the late evening of July 12, 2005. 29
Second, the reason why the Choa brothers accelerated their car (whether it was because the Tamaraw FX drew closer to it or because accused-appellants began shooting at them) is subjective and dependent on the reasoning of the witnesses. It is thus not surprising for these reasons or opinions to vary.
Third, the differences as to the precise acts of each assailant, as perceived by the witnesses, may easily be attributed to the latter's different vantage points, being located at different places in the crime scene. Paltao, when he witnessed the shooting, was at the main gate of Cabral compound; 30 Rejuso, at the store across the compound; 31 and Cudiamat, at the corner of Mulawinan street and Pomfac factory. 32
This Court has previously held that "[m]inor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular incident which do not relate to the gravamen of the offense charged are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points, and other related factors." 33 We find this to be especially applicable in this case where there are many people involved — seven accused-appellants and three eyewitnesses — and the shooting occurred late in the night when it was dark.
What is important is that the collective testimonies of the three eyewitnesses point to accused-appellants as the assailants in the crimes, and that their individual testimonies corroborate one another's in all material points. They all testified that while the victims' car was exiting the compound, it was blocked by a motorcycle. Then, four men approached it. Accused-appellants positioned themselves on both sides and simultaneously fired at it. The victims' car sped up and eventually rammed into an electric post. Accused-appellants then escaped. From these, it is clear that the prosecution witnesses gave all the necessary affirmative testimonies to establish the fact of shooting.
The prosecution was able to
Accused-appellants argue next that the prosecution failed to prove their intent to kill since Shirchung only suffered a single non-fatal gunshot wound. 34
This Court disagrees.
Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by courts only through external manifestations. It is proved by evidence that may consist of "(1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused." 35
Here, intent to kill is clearly shown by the accused-appellants' physical acts of surrounding the victims' car and simultaneously firing at it, ensuring that whoever was inside would be hit. That Shirchung sustained only one gunshot wound is insignificant. What is crucial is that as a result of the shooting, both he and his brother were injured. While he survived, his brother did not. His survival may only be attributed to factors other than the supposed lack of intent to kill by accused-appellants.
The prosecution was able to
Accused-appellants also argue that the prosecution failed to establish treachery. According to them, there was no showing that they deliberately chose the method of assault with the particular objective of accomplishing the act without risk to themselves. 36
Again, We disagree.
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 the offender from the offended party's act of retaliation in self-defense. 37 It has two elements: (1) employment of means of execution that gives the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of such means of execution. 38
Both elements are present here.
First, accused-appellants' method of assault gave the victims no opportunity to defend or retaliate. Their car was suddenly blocked by a motorcycle and surrounded by armed men who simultaneously sprayed bullets at it.
Second, the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. The circumstances upon which the victims were attacked, as repeatedly described in this Decision, plainly show that the specifics of the event — including accused-appellants' choice of attack — was deliberately planned and not a mere product of a chance encounter or a spur-of-the-moment event.
From the foregoing, treachery is evidently clear.
The aggravating circumstance of
We also note that the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of band which was specifically alleged in the Informations. Article 14 (6) of the Revised Penal Code states that "[w]henever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.'' Based on the records, there were five malefactors (Bagares, Sidro Jr., Rayga, Semblante, and Jacosalem) who fired at the victims — and hence were armed with guns — during the commission of the crime. 39 Thus, the aggravating circumstance of band is present.
The prosecution was able to
Accused-appellants argue next that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy based on witness Rejuso's testimony that they did not escape together. 40
This Court is not persuaded.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 41 Here, conspiracy is evident from the behavior and conduct of accused-appellants on the night of the incident. They all acted in unison in waiting for their victims, firing at them, and escaping. That they escaped separately is immaterial. What is important is that their acts were coordinated and not dictated by separate and independent goals.
Positive identification prevails
Accused-appellants argue that their defense of denial should not be disregarded because the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, it is well-settled that denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of a witness. 42Here, it bears emphasis that accused-appellants never presented any proof to substantiate any of their defenses. Nobody corroborated their alibi. No medical document or any photo of their supposed injuries was presented to support their claim of torture. Neither was there any case filed against their alleged tormentors. Indubitably, their bare allegations cannot prevail over the positive identification of the three eyewitnesses.
Rayga's name was inserted in
In his Supplemental Brief, accused-appellant Rayga prayed that he be acquitted because his name was not included in the Informations and because he did not commit the crime. 43 While it is true that his name was not included in the Informations when these were filed, his and Bagares' names were subsequently inserted therein after they were apprehended. 44 This is sanctioned by the rule that "[i]f the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him [or her] or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record." 45
In fine, We are not persuaded by any of the arguments raised by accused-appellants in their Brief and those raised by Rayga in his Supplemental Brief. The CA correctly affirmed their conviction.
This Court also finds no error in the appellate court's modifications to the penalty in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of band, viz.:
The crime of murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. With the aggravating circumstance of band also found to be present, the greater penalty of death is the imposable penalty pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Nevertheless, in lieu of death penalty, the imposition upon accused-appellants of the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. It must however be added that accused-appellants are not eligible for parole. As to the crime of frustrated murder committed against Shirchung Choa, Article 61, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua [], which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal has a range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the maximum of reclusion temporal, because the aggravating circumstance of band attended the commission of the crime. As to the minimum penalty, the same shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Accused-appellants should thus suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 46 (Citations omitted)
However, We modify the award of damages consistent with the guidelines provided in People v. Jugueta: 47
I. For those crimes like[,] Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
xxx xxx xxx
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. 48 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, We further award temperate damages of P50,000.00 to Shirmon's heirs, representing Shirmon's burial and funeral expenses, 49 in addition to the CA's award of civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages; and in Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, We award civil indemnity of P75,000.00 to Shirchung, 50 and increase the appellate court's award of moral and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each. 51 However, We delete the award of temperate damages for lack of basis.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The October 13, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07614 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS to the damages awarded:
1. In Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, accused-appellants 52 are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Shirmon Choa temperate damages of P50,000.00, in addition to the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, accused-appellants 53 are ORDERED to pay Shirchung Choa civil indemnity of P75,000.00. Further, the Court of Appeals' award of moral and exemplary damages of P40,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively, is INCREASED to P75,000.00 each, and its award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is DELETED.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. In the June 3, 2019 Resolution, the Court already resolved to set aside the October 13, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07614 and to dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 888-V-05 and 889-V-05 that were filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City insofar as accused-appellant Aldrin Magat y Rinos is concerned in view of his demise. See rollo, pp. 69-72.
2. Also referred to as "Jacosalem" in the records.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
4. CA rollo, pp. 77-121; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.
5. See note 1.
6. While the CA Decision states "2006," the Certificate of Arraignment states ''2007" (Records, Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, p. 90).
7.Rollo, pp. 3- 10.
8. CA rollo, pp. 120-121.
9.Id. at 115.
10.Id. at 114-116.
11.Id. at 116-117.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 120-121.
14.Id. at 51-52.
15.Id. at 132.
16.Rollo, p. 16.
17.Id. at 12.
18.Id. at 15.
19.Id. at 13.
20.Id. at 14.
21.Id. at 15.
22.Id. at 16.
23.Id. at 16-17.
24.Id. at 47, 51-52.
25.Id. at 74-78.
26.Id. at 69-72.
27. CA rollo, pp. 65-70.
28.Id. Specifically, accused-appellants refer to the following:
(1) that Paltao testified that he witnessed the incident at around 9:30 p.m., but Cudiamat said that it happened at around 10:15 to 10:30 p.m.;
(2) that Paltao testified that four persons stopped the car, yet Rejuso stated that only one man who was onboard a motorcycle stopped it;
(3) that Rejuso testified that the reason why the victims accelerated their car was because accused-appellant Magat drove towards it, but Cudiamat and Paltao testified that the acceleration was due to the several men who tried to stop it;
(4) that during the hearing, Rejuso pointed to Caldona, Bagares and Semblante as the persons who fired at the victims' car, yet Paltao pointed to Caldona, Rayga, Semblante and Sidro Jr.;
(5) that Rejuso testified that Sidro Jr. pulled the door of the victims' car, but Cudiamat and Paltao did not mention such event in their respective testimonies; and
(6) that Paltao saw two get-away vehicles (a car and a motorcycle), yet Cudiamat only saw one (a car).
29. TSN, June 18, 2007, p. 6; TSN, April 8, 2008, pp. 3-4; TSN, August 17, 2010, p. 28.
30. TSN, June 18, 2007, p. 4.
31. TSN, August 17, 2010, p. 47.
32. TSN, April 8, 2008, p. 4.
33.People v. Foncardas, 466 Phil. 992, 1007 (2004), citing People v. Castillano, 448 Phil. 482, 507 (2003). Emphasis supplied.
34. CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
35.Yap v. People, G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018, citing De Guzman, Jr. v. People, 748 Phil. 452, 459 (2014).
36. CA rollo, pp. 71-72.
37. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14 (16).
38.People v. Espina, G.R. No. 219614, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173, 186 (2018).
39.Seerollo, p. 6.
40. CA rollo, p. 73
41. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 8 (2).
42.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020, citing People v. Mat-An, 826 Phil. 512, 524 (2018).
43.Rollo, pp. 75-78.
44. Records, Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, p. 1; Records, Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, p. 1.
45. RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 7.
46.Rollo, p. 16.
47.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806-856 (2016).
48.Id. at 847-848, 853.
49.Id. at 853.
50.Id. at 848.
51.Id.
52. See note 1.
53.Id.