People v. Marasigan y Dudas

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 208030. September 16, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO MARASIGAN Y DUDAS, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 208030 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romulo Marasigan y Dudas, Accused-Appellant.)

This is an appeal from the 4 March 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 04622, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Pallocan West, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 13603, which found appellant Romulo Marasigan y Dudas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

Appellant was charged in the following Information, 3 the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 3rd day of May 2004, at around 3:00 [p.m. in] Barangay New Danglayan, Municipality of Bauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with [a] stainless kitchen knife (kutsilyo), with intent to kill, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said kitchen knife one Vivencio Maguindayao y Agito alias "Benjie," suddenly and without warning, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wound on his back, which directly caused his death.

Appellant entered a not guilty plea. Trial ensued.

Prosecution witnesses narrated that the victim, Vivencio Maguindayao y Agito (Vivencio), was seated on a mahjong table, watching four men playing the game when appellant suddenly emerged from behind the victim and stabbed him at the back of his neck. The witnesses claimed that appellant did it out of jealousy.

On the other hand, appellant claimed that he caught his wife and Vivencio naked and kissing inside their bedroom. After cursing them, he got hold of a knife and ran after Vivencio who managed to jump out of the window. When he finally caught up with Vivencio, appellant stabbed the latter. Thereafter, appellant went to the house of a friend where he was arrested by the police. Appellant's daughter testified that Vivencio and her mother had an extramarital affair.

On 1 July 2010, the RTC found appellant guilty of murder. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the accused Romulo Marasigan y Dudas guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery, penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as [a]mended by R.A. 9659, beyond reasonable doubt, with one mitigating circumstance, for which he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, and ordered to pay the heirs of Vivencio Maguindayao y Agito, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P44,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 [as] moral damages[;] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The accused['s] preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence.

Let a Commitment Order issue for the transfer of detention of the accused from the Provincial Jail of Batangas to the National Penitentiary/Bilibid Prisons [in] Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila. 4

The trial court gave credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Vivencio was stabbed from behind while he was watching a mahjong game. The trial court found appellant's alibi, that he attacked Vivencio immediately after catching him in bed with his wife, weak. The trial court, however, appreciated the mitigating circumstance of "vindication of a grave offense" 5 in favor of appellant when it was shown that the victim was having an extramarital affair with appellant's wife.

On 4 March 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming that of the RTC, with modification. The Court of Appeals reduced the award of exemplary damages to P10,000.00 and further imposed "an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from March 3, 2004[,] which is the date of the killing, up to the finality of this Decision, and interest at 12% per annum on said damages from [the] date of finality of this Decision until fully paid." 6 CHTAIc

The Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC that treachery attended the commission of the crime and that the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense should be appreciated in appellant's favor.

In the instant appeal, different versions of the stabbing incident are presented. Appellant admits to killing Vivencio but invokes the privilege granted under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant claims that he surprised his wife while she was in the act of sexual intercourse with Vivencio immediately before stabbing the latter. On the other hand, prosecution witnesses testified that Vivencio was stabbed by appellant from behind while the former was watching a mahjong game. The Office of the Solicitor General maintains that the accounts of the prosecution witnesses were "straightforward and replete with details that jibed on material points." 7

We uphold the weight accorded by the lower courts to the version of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found said testimonies "clear, straightforward and convincing respecting the identity of the culprit, the time and place where the stabbing took place." 8

We likewise affirm that the killing of Vivencio was attended by treachery.

In People v. Zulieta, 9 we held that —

"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 [ensure] its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and [an] unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." [In other words], an unexpected and [a] sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery. 10

In this case, Vivencio was completely unaware of the impending threat to his life. He was merely sitting on the mahjong table and watching the game when appellant suddenly attacked him by stabbing him at the back of his neck. The suddenness of the attack left him with no opportunity to resist or escape from his assailant.

Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which involves death or injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances, does not apply to appellant. In People v. Wagas, 11 we had the occasion to rule that under Article 247, the killing may "be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter." 12 Nobody corroborated appellant's claim that the attack was preceded by catching his wife and Vivencio having sexual intercourse. On the contrary, it was established that the victim had been sitting on the mahjong table for about three hours before he was attacked.

The lower courts were correct in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. Prosecution witnesses claimed that appellant was jealous of Vivencio; while appellant's own daughter confirmed that her mother had an illicit affair with Vivencio. These circumstances were what drove appellant to kill Vivencio. As correctly elucidated by the Court of Appeals:

As testified to by Mary Ann (appellant's daughter), her mother, (sic) (appellant's wife) and Vivencio were engaged in an existing illicit affair which started in 2000 when appellant went abroad as a seaman and persisted until the death of Vivencio. Her testimony was given credence by the trial court. Apart from that, rumors have it that indeed an illicit relationship existed between Vivencio and appellant's wife. It is therefore safe to say that the proximate cause of the commission of the crime may be traced to said illicit relationship.

In the ordinary course of things, the illicit relationship between Vivencio and appellant's wife must have trampled not only appellant's honor but also that of his family. As a consequence, perhaps even the mere sight of Vivencio must have triggered an uncontrollable emotional outburst on his part so that even a chance meeting may have caused in him an irresistible impulse powerful enough to overcome all reason and restraint, coupled with the fact that the illicit affair, the grave offense sought to be vindicated, appears to have continued on until the death of Vivencio. 13

During the trial, the spouse of the victim testified that she spent P44,000.00 for the funeral expenses, as evidenced by a receipt from the funeral parlor.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Pursuant to Article 63 thereof and taking into consideration the presence of one mitigating circumstance, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, 14 a modification in the award of damages is in order. Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Vivencio P44,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. EATCcI

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 04622 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant Romulo Marasigan y Dudas is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of Vivencio Maguindayao y Agito the sum of P14,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. These awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez; CA rollo, pp. 108-119.

2. Presided by Judge Albert A. Kalalo; id. at 9-16 and 70-77.

3. Records, p. 1.

4. Supra note 2, at 15 and 76.

5. Id. at 14 and 75.

6. Supra note 1, at 118.

7. CA rollo, p. 95.

8. Supra note 2, at 13 and 74.

9. G.R. No. 192183, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 202.

10. Id. at 210-211.

11. G.R. No. 61704, March 8, 1989, 171 SCRA 69.

12. Id. at 74.

13. Supra note 1, at 116-117.

14. People v. Las Piñas, G.R. No. 191723, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 571, 602.