THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210748. October 9, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. BERNIE MANRIQUE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 9, 2017, which reads as follows: caITAC
"G.R. No. 210748 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNIE MANRIQUE, Accused-Appellant.) — Under review is the decision promulgated on September 10, 2013 1 by the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the conviction for murder of the accused under the judgment rendered on July 11, 2011 2 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, in Legazpi City.
Accused Bernie Manrique was charged with murder for the killing of the late Divina Maravillo on October 21, 2001 through the information filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Albay in the RTC, alleging as follows:
That on or about October 21, 2001 at Camalig, Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, together with an unidentified person, acting in concert, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously repeatedly stab with a deadly weapon DIVINA MARAVILLO on different parts of her body, inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds which directly caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
It is noted that on March 28, 2008, the trial prosecutor informed the RTC that the other accused, Joey Sacayan, who had been tried earlier, had already been acquitted of the charge; and that the Prosecution would use the previously-marked pieces of evidence in the trial of Sacayan as evidence against Manrique. 4
The Prosecution presented against Manrique several witnesses, namely: (a) Myra Maravillo, an eyewitness to the killing of Divina Maravillo, her mother; (b) Riya Maravillo, younger sister of Myra, who was another eyewitness to the killing; and (c) Dr. Tirso B. Delos Reyes, Jr., the Rural Health Physician of the Municipal Health Office in Guinobatan, Albay, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the victim, and prepared the corresponding autopsy report. In contrast, Manrique was the lone witness of the Defense.
The version and evidence of the Prosecution follow.
Around 6:30 pm of October 21, 2001, Myra, then 13 years old, and her mother, Divina, were at the porch of their house. Myra was asking her mother to sign her school card. With them at the porch was barangay tanod Emily Herrera because she and the victim had planned to visit the chapel together. Riya, then 9 years old, was inside the house studying for her exam at the round table near the door but facing the porch, where she could see her mother and the others.
While Divina, Myra and Emily were at the porch, Manrique arrived with an unidentified companion. The two men introduced themselves as members of the New People's Army (NPA). Manrique wore a hat, but Myra nonetheless recognized him because they were all residents of Quirangay, Camalig, Albay, and because he had been involved in the killing of Emilio Maravillo, her father. Manrique asked Divina if she knew where a certain Bello lived. As the victim was pointing out to him the house of Bello, he suddenly grabbed her. At that juncture, his unidentified companion also held on to the victim. Myra, frightened by the acts of the accused, ran inside the house and hid behind the door leading to the porch, while Emily attempted to fend off the accused with a bolo but the latter ducked her attempt. From where she hid herself, Myra could hear her mother moaning. After the two men had left, Myra went out and found her mother bloodied and already lifeless. 5
Myra's recollection was fully corroborated by Riya. The latter testified that the man wearing the hat had stabbed her mother; and that her mother, despite being stabbed, had pursued her attackers but had shortly fallen to the ground because of her injuries. 6
The autopsy examination of the victim's cadaver was conducted by Dr. Delos Reyes, who attested that the victim had sustained 13 stab wounds in all; that the stab wound on her right chest, below the nipple, had been fatal because her liver had been thereby penetrated; that the stab wound at the right hypochondria region had injured the small intestines and could have caused internal hemorrhage; that the stab wound at the side of the torso had hit the intestines which protruded out of the wound, and could have caused hemorrhage, twisting and obstruction of the intestines; that of the two stab wounds at her back, two were fatal and could have caused death; and that in his opinion the assailant could have used a long knife of about six to eight inches in length and a blade of about one to two inches in width. 7 ICHDca
On his part, Manrique interposed alibi. He claimed that he had already been residing in Barangay Kawad in Sta. Rosa, Laguna on the day of the stabbing helping his uncle, Jose Manrique, tend to his corn farm; that prior to that time, he had resided in Quiranggay, Camalig, Albay, the place where he had grown up; that he had lived in Sta. Rosa, Laguna from 1998 until 2007 when the police arrested him pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued in this case; that he did not stab the victim; and that he knew the victim because they had been barriomates. 8
On July 11, 2011, the RTC convicted Manrique of murder and meted him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, 9 disposing:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused, Bernie Manrique, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, for the death of Divina Maravillo, and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua.
As regards civil liability, the Court hereby finds the accused liable to the legal heirs of Divina Maravillo for the sum of Php50,000.00 as moral damages, the sum of Php20,000.00 as temperate damages and the further sum of Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the CA promulgated the assailed decision on September 10, 2013 affirming the conviction of Manrique for murder with modification of the civil liability, 10 decreeing:
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) The accused-appellant Bernie Manrique is hereby ORDERED to pay the heirs of Divina Maravillo the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(2) The award in the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages is RETAINED;
(3) The award of Php20,000.00 as temperate damages is INCREASED to Php25,000.00;
(4) The award of Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages is OMITTED; and
(5) A 6% interest is imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 11
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
As noted on January 28, 2015, Manrique and the Office of the Solicitor General adopted their respective briefs submitted in the CA. He thus raises the lone assignment of error that:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 12
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Manrique argues that his guilt should not be judged only because of his defenses of alibi and denial being weak considering that Myra had not positively identified him as her mother's assailant.
The argument of the accused is belied by the records. Myra and Riya asserted that he had gone to their house and asked Divina for directions to the house of Bello; that while their mother was pointing to the house of Bello, the accused had quickly grabbed Divina, and his unidentified companion immediately also grabbed the victim; and that the accused had then stabbed the victim several times. He was thereby positively identified as the assailant who had stabbed Divina to death. TCAScE
In particular, Riya's identification testimony was as follows:
Q: How is it that you were able to see the porch area considering that you were inside the house?
A: I was fronting the outside part of the house.
Q: Now, as you were studying and three (3) women were talking, what happened if any?
A: While I was studying there were men who asked for directions of the house of a person x x x and my mother pointed to them the direction, one of the men grappled her arm and then she shouted.
Q: Now, you said there were men who were asking for direction. Now, can you give us the number of men who were asking for directions? How many were they?
A: They were three men.
Q: Can you please describe to us each the three men that you have seen asking for direction?
A: There three (3) men, one of them in a hat and the other two (2) men were wearing a bonnet.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who among the men asked for direction from your mother?
A: The man wearing a hat.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that your mother's hand was pulled by one of the men. Who among the three (3)?
A: The man wearing a hat pulled my mother's arm and then my mother shouted because there was a gun already pointed at her temple x x x and then I saw that there were already two (2) men holding each of my mother's arm and other man who was wearing a hat was stabbing my mother.
Q: Let us go to identification, you said that your mother shouted because one of the men poked a gun at her head, who among the three (3) men poked a gun at her?
A: The man wearing a hat.13
To establish murder, the Prosecution must prove the following requisites, namely: (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 Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 14
The Prosecution competently established all the foregoing requisites of murder. The person killed by Manrique was Divina, and the killing did not constitute parricide or infanticide. The killing was attended by treachery. Under the law, 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 the offender arising from any defense that the offended party might make. 15 The fatal stabbing of Divina was attended by treachery because she had been unaware of the impending attack against her considering that Manrique and his cohort had only come to ask her for directions to the house of Bello, and that she was merely responding to the request for directions by pointing out the way to the house of Bello. It was while she was thus responding when Manrique suddenly grabbed and stabbed her. His cohort also grabbed and held her arms during the assault of Manrique, ensuring that she would not escape the assault or that she would not be able to retaliate. She was weaker than her assailants, and her being taken by surprise had rendered her totally defenseless. The killing of the victim was quickly executed without risk to any of the assailants. In this regard, abuse of superior strength, being absorbed by treachery, should not be appreciated. 16
The requisites for evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. 17 The circumstance of evident premeditation could not be appreciated against Manrique because there was no proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim had been hatched by him and his co-conspirator. Neither was there any proof showing the lapse of an appreciable time before the plan to kill was carried out. 18 cTDaEH
The self-serving alibi of Manrique that he was in Sta. Rosa, Laguna helping his uncle in planting corn at the time of the stabbing was not corroborated by satisfactory and competent evidence; hence, it could not be held to overcome the positive identification of him as the assailant. The identifying witnesses, who were undoubtedly present at the time of the assault, had definite familiarity with Manrique, a former resident of the area. Moreover, he had been involved in the killing of their own father a few years earlier. Indeed, denial and alibi were frequent defenses in criminal prosecutions, and should be disregarded for being inherently weak when unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Such defenses inexorably pale in comparison to the positive declarations of credible witnesses affirming the actual participation of the accused in the commission of the crimes. 19
Conformably with People vs. Jubueta, 20 the Court modifies the civil liability awarded to the heirs of the late Divina Maravillo. Manrique is liable to pay to them P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. We declare that the CA erroneously deleted exemplary damages despite the presence of the attendant circumstances of treachery. In murder, indeed, exemplary damages are always allowed to the heirs of the victim based on the presence of the attendant or qualifying circumstance. Also, P50,000.00 as temperate damages should be granted to the heirs in lieu of actual damages for the expenses incurred for the burial of the victim. And, lastly, all such amounts shall earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 10, 2013 with the MODIFICATION that accused BERNIE MANRIQUE is ORDERED TO PAY to the heirs of the late Divina Maravillo P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest of 6% per annum on all such damages from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
The accused shall further pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Rebecca L. De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 17-22; penned by Judge Frank E. Lobrigo.
3.Id. at 17.
4.Id. at 27.
5.Rollo, p. 8.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 8-9.
9. CA rollo, p. 22.
10.Id. at 94-101.
11.Id. at 100-101.
12.Id. at 43.
13. TSN dated October 26, 2009, pp. 7-11.
14. Article 248, Revised Penal Code; People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 522.
15.People v. Dones, G.R. No. 188329, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 261, 270.
16.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174371, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 708, 721.
17.People v. Sebastian, G.R. No. 131734, March 7, 2002, 378 SCRA 557, 561.
18.People v. Sison, G.R. No. 172752, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 156, 171.
19.Dinamling v. People, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015, 760 SCRA 27, 50.
20. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 380.