THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229355. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROMMEL MARIANO y ALCANTARA AND JOHN NOEL MEDINA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: DHIcET
"G.R. No. 229355 (People of the Philippines v. Rommel Mariano y Alcantara and John Noel Medina) — This is an appeal from the February 18, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06728, which affirmed with modification the February 26, 2014 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 09-6824-SPL. The RTC found accused-appellants Rommel Mariano y Alcantara (Mariano) and John Noel Medina (Medina), collectively referred as accused-appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In an Information 3 dated July 8, 2003, accused-appellants were charged with murder as follows:
That on or about March 28, 2008, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one John Doe whose identity is yet to be established, with the use of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and with treachery, attack assault and use personal violence upon one KEVIN JAMES BANTIGUE, by then and there stabbing him on the body, thereby inflicting upon the later [sic] mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of his surviving heirs.
That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and treachery are present.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
After accused-appellants were arrested on separate dates, they were detained at the San Pedro Municipal Jail. 5 They separately entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment, Mariano on March 3, 2009 6 and Medina on May 12, 2009. 7 Trial ensued thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
At around 1:30 o'clock in the morning of March 28, 2008, Dennis Capate (Capate) was about to leave Barangay San Roque, San Pedro, Laguna to buy "binalot" in Barangay Poblacion. He went to the house of his cousin Ronaldo Rudio, who was then sleeping, to borrow a tricycle for the purpose. While waking up Ronaldo at the second floor of the house, Capate heard a noise he described as "lagabugan" on the tricycle parked across the street from the house. Capate went out of the house with his cousin and saw Mariano, another cousin of Capate, and Medina, a fellow barangay resident, mauling Kevin James Bantigue (victim), a known mentally-ill person, inside the parked tricycle. Capate heard the victim ask accused-appellants "Bakit nyo ako binubugbog, anong kasalanan ko?", but Capate heard no reply to the question.
Suddenly, Mariano stabbed the victim once on the right side of his body and nonchalantly walked away with Medina. Thereafter, the victim alighted from the tricycle, walked a few meters then fell to the ground. Capate did not attempt to intervene and immediately left the area as he did not want to get involved.
At around 4:00 o'clock in the morning that same day, Capate came back from Barangay Poblacion and saw a commotion at the place where he saw the victim fall to the ground. There he saw the lifeless body of the victim.
Capate's initial refusal to get involved changed when his conscience was bothered by the victim's fate. He offered to testify and served as the only eyewitness to the crime.
Another prosecution witness, Evelyn Bantigue (Evelyn), is the mother of the victim. She testified that the day before the crime was committed, the victim asked for permission to go to a friend's house. When her son failed to return the following day, she reported the matter to the police in Las Piñas, where they live. A week after, some policemen came to her house and informed her that a dead body was recovered in Barangay San Roque, San Pedro, Laguna. Evelyn proceeded to the funeral home where the body was brought and identified the dead body as her son's. Later, she received an anonymous phone call telling her that accused-appellants killed her son. Evelyn relayed this information to the police, who said they were also in receipt of the same information. It was then that Capate offered to help in filing the case and to testify for the prosecution.
Evelyn also testified that the victim was 26 years old at the time of his death and was diagnosed with a mental illness. She also presented in court the original receipts of the expenses she incurred for the victim's burial.
The prosecution likewise offered the testimony of Dr. Voltaire Nulud of the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory, but his testimony was dispensed with when the defense admitted Medico-Legal Report No. M-172-2008 8(Medico-Legal Report) issued by said doctor after examining the body of the victim. The said report stated that the victim died of a stab wound in the trunk. 9 CAIHTE
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants both forwarded the defenses of denial and alibi.
Mariano testified that at 8:30 o'clock in the evening on the day of the incident, he returned to his house after plying his tricycle. He went to sleep at 9:30 o'clock in the evening, waking up at 8:30 o'clock in the morning the following day. He claimed that no untoward incident occurred that night. Mariano said he was arrested on January 25, 2009. He admitted to knowing Medina and that there was no reason for Evelyn to falsely accuse him of the crime. Mariano also said that he was not aware of Medina's whereabouts on March 28, 2008.
Medina, in his defense, testified that he was asleep at 2:30 o'clock in the morning on March 28, 2008. His house was a corner away from the place where the victim was stabbed. Medina also testified that Mariano was his neighbor in the same street. He was arrested on April 24, 2009, and claimed that, during the arraignment, Evelyn offered him his freedom in exchange for his testifying against Mariano. Medina said he declined the offer because he knew Mariano was innocent as they always ride their tricycles together. He said he knew the victim but not Evelyn, and that Capate had no reason to testify against him.
The RTC Ruling
In its judgment dated February 26, 2014, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged. It held that accused-appellants and a third person mauled the victim, and that Mariano stabbed the latter with a bladed weapon. The RTC gave credence to the positive identification made by Capate, who stated that he was three meters away when he saw accused-appellants mauling the victim. Capate could not have been mistaken in his identification, being Mariano's relative and Medina's fellow barangay resident. The RTC also opined that, while it was only Mariano who stabbed the victim, conspiracy was evident when they ganged up on the victim and simply walked away after the stabbing. The trial court described Capate's testimony of what transpired during the attack as factual, straightforward and convincing. His inconsistency as to where he was going at the time he witnessed the attack is excusable as his whole testimony is coherent and intrinsically believable, and his destination is only a minor detail. The RTC also found that Capate's belated execution of his sworn statement was not unusual in light of his hesitation to get entangled in such a crime. It also recognized that Capate only wanted justice served because his conscience was prickled by the killing.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was also deemed present by the RTC because the victim was feeble-minded and was only sleeping inside the tricycle when he was attacked by accused-appellants. It also considered that the allegation of abuse of superior strength, shown by the accused-appellants' ganging up on the victim with a weapon, was absorbed by treachery.
As to the defenses of denial and alibi proffered by accused-appellants, the RTC found them unpersuasive. While both claimed to be asleep at their respective houses at the time of the attack, both houses were located in the same street where the crime occurred. It was, therefore, not impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. Their excuses were also outweighed by the positive identification made by Capate, and were also not supported by any convincing evidence. Medina's allegation that Evelyn offered to have the case dismissed if he testifies against Mariano was also not supported by credible evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC's judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds both accused Rommel Mariano y Alcantara and John Noel Medina GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and are ordered to pay the victim's heirs the following amounts: Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Php88,800.00) as actual or compensatory damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as moral damages; Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) as exemplary damages and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from March 28, 2008, the date of the killing up to the finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED. 10
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its decision dated February 18, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment finding accused-appellants guilty of murder. It held that all the elements of murder were established in this case based on Capate's categorical testimony and the support lent to it by Dr. Nulud's medico-legal report. According to the CA, treachery was also properly appreciated by the RTC as the victim, who was unarmed and mentally ill, was stabbed by Mariano and was afforded no chance to defend himself. It likewise held that conspiracy was also present because there is evidence of a chain of circumstances showing a community of criminal design to kill the victim.
The CA disagreed with accused-appellants' argument that there was an inconsistency in Capate's testimony. It found that Capate was in the area where accused-appellants mauled and stabbed the victim while he waited for a tricycle ride. Also, as regard the argument that Capate's vision was possibly limited by the dark surroundings, the CA ruled that such a conjecture was only based on the failure of the prosecution to assert that the scene of the crime was illuminated. The absence of illumination in the crime scene does not detract from the positive identification of an accused because the relative significance of visibility depends on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. The CA also took note that, aside from personally knowing accused-appellants, Capate already saw the mauling of the victim for about 30 minutes while at another cousin's house located just across the street from where the tricycle was parked. DETACa
The CA agreed that reclusión perpetua was properly imposed. However, it modified the penalty by declaring accused-appellants ineligible for parole per Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346. It also modified the amount of damages awarded and the period upon which the 6% interest per annum shall be imposed. The dispositive portion of the CA's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the 26 February 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of City of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 in Criminal Case No. 09-6824-SPL is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-Appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is ordered to pay the heirs of Kevin Bantigue the amounts of PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000.00 as moral damages, PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and PhP88,800.00 as actual damages, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 11
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, and whether the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength and was committed in conspiracy.
The Court's Ruling
The prosecution's evidence proved the
The Court sees no reason to deviate from the factual conclusion reached by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellants mauled the victim, and that the victim was stabbed by Mariano during the mauling. The eyewitness testimony of Capate clearly described the acts done on the victim by accused-appellants. Capate's positive identification of accused-appellants prevails over the mere denial and alibis raised by accused-appellants. The medico-legal report also confirmed that the stab wound in the trunk was the cause of the victim's death and the other injuries sustained by the victim corroborate Capate's narration of what he saw that early morning.
The CA correctly passed upon the determination of the RTC that the defense of denial and alibi stood feeble as against the clear and categorical identification by Capate of accused-appellants as the attackers. It was established that accused-appellants' houses, where they claimed to be sleeping at the time of the incident, were located on the same street and near the scene of the crime. It was, thus, not physically impossible for them to carry out the attack. Neither did they present evidence or corroborating testimony that they were actually in their respective houses at the time of the incident.
There is conspiracy between
The CA concurred with the RTC's findings that conspiracy and the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were present, as alleged in the information filed against accused-appellants.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 12 While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, the evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing, considering that conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. 13
Meanwhile, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing the means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 14 Well settled is the rule that the circumstances which would qualify a killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself. There must be a showing, first and foremost, that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution without risk to himself. It does not always follow that if the attack was sudden and unexpected it should be deemed with treachery. 15
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. 16 aDSIHc
Mindful of the foregoing principles in reviewing the record, the Court finds that there was conspiracy in the killing of the victim. However, neither the qualifying circumstance of treachery nor abuse of superior strength was established with moral certainty in this case.
We agree with the RTC and CA's pronouncements that accused-appellants' actuations of mauling the victim and afterwards walking away after Mariano stabbed the victim show the community of criminal design to kill. Though he said that Medina tried to stop Mariano from stabbing the victim, 17 Capate also said that Medina was standing behind Mariano, which makes it doubtful if Capate correctly read Medina's movement as an attempt to stop the stabbing. He was also near enough to hear the utterances of the parties to the incident, as shown when he testified that the victim told his attackers "Bakit nyo ako binubugbog, anong kasalanan ko?", 18 yet he stated Medina never said anything 19 when Mariano proceeded to stab the victim. Capate also testified that Mariano and Medina simply walked away after the stabbing. 20 All these strongly evince Medina's concert with Mariano to attack by mauling the victim first then later stabbing him.
With conspiracy ascertained, both accused-appellants become responsible for the ultimate outcome of their criminal design. They are, thus, both liable for the killing even if only one of them stabbed the victim.
The qualifying circumstance of
As to the attendance of treachery and abuse of superior strength that qualified the killing to murder, record reveals that these were not established by the prosecution with moral certainty. Capate's testimony on direct examination, as to what occurred that very early morning, states:
Q. At around 2:30 in the early morning of March 28, 2008, do you still recall where were you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you please tell us where were you then?
A. I was waiting for a ride going to Poblacion, sir.
Q. Why were you there?
A. To buy binalot, sir.
Q. At 2:30 in the morning?
A. At 1:30 I was waiting for a ride until 2:30, sir.
Q. During that time that you were there, do you recall of any unusual incident that transpired?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that unusual incident?
A. I saw him mauling, sir. (Witness pointing to a person).
Q. Will you tell us the person you call him what?
A. Alias Tukne [Mariano] and Jon-Jon [Medina], sir.
Q. What were alias Tukne and Jon-Jon doing?
A. I saw them they were mauling somebody inside the tricycle, sir.
Q. When you said Jon-Jon and Tukne, who are they mauling?
A. Kevin, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Where was he hit or what part of his body was stabbed?
A. (Witness pointing to his right "tagiliran" — below).
Q. Where did Kevin proceed?
A. He just walked around three meters and he fell face down, sir.
Q. What did you do when you saw that?
A. I left the area because we might get involve, sir.
COURT:
Q. You said we, whom are you referring to?
A. I was with my cousin Ronaldo Ridio a jeepney driver and at that time he woke up, ma'am.
PROS. DE LEON:
Q. You mentioned that you were with your cousin, why were you with him?
A. At that time I intended to borrow the tricycle but there was no available tricycle at that time, sir.
Q. Were you able to borrow the tricycle?
A. No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx 21
Capate continued on cross-examination, thus:
ATTY. CABANLAS:
Q. In your direct examination, p. 6, you said "I was with my cousin Ronaldo Rodio, a jeepney driver and at that time he woke up." Was Ronaldo Rodio sleeping at that time?
A. I was trying to wake him up at the second floor of his house because I want to borrow his tricycle to buy "binalot" and that time I already heard noise ("lagabugan") in the tricycle, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Going back to the question, how far was that tricycle from the house of Ronald Rudio?
A. Just across the street, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q. Where were you when you witnessed that incident, you were in the house of Ronald Rudio or in the street?
A. When I went out, I saw them stabbing Kevin James, Your Honor?
Q. You said earlier that you were waiting for a ride to go to the Poblacion when you saw the accused mauling Kevin James? ETHIDa
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And now, you are saying that you were inside the house of Ronald Rudio when you saw the incident?
A. "Hindi po, noong time na pong yun, noon pong binubugbog nila yan, nasa taas pa kami, siyempre, hindi naman papatayin yan, siyempre mga bata ho 'yan, hindi kami nag-alala . . . after na mag-usap kami ng pinsan ko talaga, siya ho mismo ay tumestigo na pinsan ko rin, mas malapit siya, pero nakita ko ho siya, sinasaksak niya po."22
The RTC concluded that treachery attended the killing of the victim because he was mentally ill and was sleeping at the time of attack. However, Capate testified that, although he heard "lagabugan" in the tricycle from the second floor of his cousin's house, 23 the attack against the victim was already ongoing when Capate looked at the street. 24 He never said that he saw the victim asleep when the attack commenced.
"As this Court held in People v. Castor, where the lone eyewitness was not able to observe the commencement of the assault, he could not, therefore, testify on how it all began and developed. x x x [T]he Court held in the Castor case that absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder." 25
Further, there is also no showing that Mariano's act of stabbing was the result of prior meditation, calculation or reflection on his part. Mariano did not appear to have pondered on or prepared to stab the victim. Capate testified that he was surprised when Mariano suddenly stabbed the victim when the mauling was already going on for 30 minutes. 26 These affirm the impulsiveness of the change in the mode of attack by Mariano, and the resort to stabbing as spur of the moment. If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no treachery, even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it was not deliberately sought by the accused, but was purely accidental. 27 Also, since Capate was not able to see how the attack commenced, there is no way of knowing with certainty if the victim was caught by surprise by accused-appellants, which leaves room for the possibility that the victim was aware of an impending attack.
That the victim was known as mentally ill also does not advance the allegation of treachery in this case. As earlier stated, Mariano was not shown to have consciously and deliberately adopted the use of a bladed weapon on the victim on the understanding that the victim will not be able to parry the attack because of his mental weakness. The decision to utilize a bladed weapon to stab the victim was not a previously calculated move that aims to exploit the victim's diminished mental capacity to achieve a wicked goal.
Regarding the allegation of abuse of superior strength, such abuse means "x x x to use purposely excessive force that is out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked." 28 In this case, the single stab, although inflicted on an already mauled victim, would not qualify as such excessive force disproportionate to the means of defense still available to the victim. The prosecution failed to show a notorious inequality of forces between accused-appellants and the victim, especially since, in uttering "Bakit nyo ako binubugbog, anong kasalanan ko?", the victim appeared capable of grasping reality and was aware of his surroundings at that time despite being mentally ill. Also, that there were two attackers and only one victim does not immediately equate to abuse of superior strength. The records do not show that accused-appellants attacked the victim in a manner showing that they deliberately took advantage of their combined strength.
In fine, the Court finds that courts a quo were correct in holding accused-appellants guilty of killing the victim in conspiracy with each other, but have no basis on the record to conclude that treachery or abuse of superior strength attended such killing. The downgrading of their conviction for murder to homicide is in order, and the penalties to be meted on accused-appellants must be adjusted accordingly.
Accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide committed in conspiracy with each other and are liable, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, to suffer the penalty of reclusión temporal in its medium period, which is from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. After applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are sentenced an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusión temporal, as maximum. They are also liable to solidarily pay the heirs of the victim the following amounts in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence: 29 P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P88,800.00 as actual damages, as the victim's mother duly proved during trial through the presentation of original receipts the expenses she incurred for the victim's funeral; 30 and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The imposition of interest at 6% per annum on the amounts to be paid by accused-appellants from the time of the finality of this resolution until full payment is also proper.
WHEREFORE, the February 18, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 06728 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that accused-appellants Rommel Mariano y Alcantara and John Noel Medina are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and are meted the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusión temporal, as maximum, and are ordered to solidarily pay the heirs of Kevin James Bantigue (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P88,800.00 as actual damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as moral damages. These amounts are also subject to legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 124-133; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
2.Id. at 43-50; penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
3. RTC record, p. 1.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 14, 26. Mariano was later transferred to the Laguna Provincial Jail (Id. at 85).
6.Id. at 21.
7.Id. at 32-33.
8. RTC record, p. 119 and dorsal.
9.Id. at 119.
10. CA record, p. 49.
11.Id. at p. 132.
12. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 8.
13.People v. Magno, et al., 379 Phil. 531, 556 (2000).
14. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14.
15.People v. Ramirez, 280 Phil. 29, 39 (1991).
16.Valenzuela v. People, 612 Phil. 907, 917 (2009). Citations omitted.
17. TSN, November 17, 2010, pp. 4-5.
18. TSN, June 16, 2010, p. 5.
19.Supra note 17.
20.Supra note 18.
21. TSN, June 16, 2010, pp. 4, 6.
22. TSN, November 17, 2010, pp. 5-6.
23. Id. at 5.
24. Id. at 3-4.
25. People v. Lug-aw, et al., 299 Phil. 306, 318-319 (1994).
26. TSN, June 16, 2010, p. 6.
27. People v. Recto, 419 Phil. 674, 700, (2001).
28. People v. Bracia, 617 Phil. 558, 583, (2009).
29. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846 (2016).
30. Exhs. "J" and its sub-markings, RTC record, pp. 54-56, 131-132, 137.