People v. Matias y Bernardo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225504. January 19, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO MATIAS y BERNARDO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 225504 (People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Matias y Bernardo). — This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated 24 September 2015, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated 6 May 2013 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 221, Quezon City. The RTC found accused-appellant Reynaldo Matias (Reynaldo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the killing of Manuel Castro (Manuel).

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Appellant was charged under an Information for murder. 3 Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. 4

The evidence for the prosecution established the following: the accused Reynaldo is the uncle of the victim, Manuel. On 12 March 2009, at around 3 pm, Manuel and his friend Jopet Tulagan were reading a newspaper while seated on the gutter of the road in front of a warehouse on Road 1, Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. 5 Accused suddenly appeared and stabbed Manuel in the abdomen with a knife. The victim managed to run, but Reynaldo chased him and stabbed him again in the abdomen. 6

Manuel was immediately brought to the hospital. He, however, died that same afternoon. 7 aScITE

The version of the defense was as follows: at the time of the commission of the crime, Reynaldo was staying in the house of his aunt, Eugenia de Jesus, at Barangay Puturin, Valenzuela City, since he was then looking for a job. 8

Both parties stipulated the fact that the victim died of hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wounds. 9

RTC RULING

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, for which it sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Manuel by paying them as follows: (1) P50,000 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000 as moral damages; (3) P25,000 as temperate damages; and (4) P25,000 as exemplary damages. 10

The RTC noted that eyewitness Jopet Tulagan had given a detailed account of the incident and that he was able to positively and categorically identify the accused as the one who suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting victim, who had been seated on the gutter of the road while reading a newspaper. 11 His ability to identify the accused as the culprit was made possible because the latter was his long time neighbor and was known in his place as "Manager." 12

The RTC rejected the defense of alibi since the two places — Valenzuela City and Quezon City — could be negotiated in as little time as half an hour to less than an hour. 13

The RTC appreciated treachery as a modifying circumstance on the ground that the prosecution was able to establish that the attack upon Manuel was swift and unexpected. 14

CA RULING

Reynaldo filed an appeal, raising the following as errors: (1) the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the attending physician and the corresponding medical certificate that would show the nature and extent of the victim's injuries; 15 (2) treachery should not have been appreciated, since the victim was able to run away after the first stabbing and subsequently secure a hammer. 16

The CA affirmed appellant's conviction for the crime of murder. It ruled that lack of medical testimony or autopsy report is not crucial when there is a concatenation of events that leads reasonably and necessarily to the conclusion that death resulted from the wound inflicted. 17 It also held that the essence of treachery consists of the fact that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner. 18

The CA modified the amounts awarded as follows: civil indemnity was increased to P75,000, while exemplary damages were increased to P30,000. The accused was also ordered to pay the heirs of Manuel interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded, commencing from the date of finality of the Decision until full payment. HEITAD

The CA also declared appellant ineligible for parole.

We now rule on the case on final review.

OUR RULING

We DENY the Petition.

After a thorough review of the records of this case, particularly the issues proffered by appellant, we adopt the findings of the CA. We find no reversible error in its ruling, which is supported by existing jurisprudence.

Lack of autopsy report and expert testimony

Appellant reiterates his argument that the prosecution's failure to present the testimony of the attending physician and the corresponding medical certificate/autopsy report was fatal, as there was nothing to show the nature and extent of the victim's injuries.

We reject the argument.

It is not necessary for the prosecution to offer the testimony of a physician or a medical report/autopsy report, when all the facts and circumstances of the case lead inevitably to the conclusion that death was so produced. 19 Thus, in US v. Reodique, 20 the lack of medical testimony did not prevent the Court from reaching the conclusion that death resulted from a gunshot wound:

[T]he fact that the child was wounded by a gunshot wound in the left breast, that the shot penetrated deeply, that the wound bled considerably, and that, from that time forward, she showed symptoms of illness, had fever and cold extremities with death finally resulting. We are of the opinion that although there is no medical testimony on which the trial court could predicate the cause of death, there is, notwithstanding, a concatenation of events which leads reasonably and necessarily to the conclusion that death resulted from the wound inflicted. 21

In this case, the lack of an autopsy report or medical testimony is not crucial, given the stipulation of the parties that the cause of the victim's death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wounds in his abdomen. Hence, the defense has already admitted that the victim died due to the loss of blood and the injuries he sustained. An admission made by a party in the course of the same proceedings does not require proof. 22

Undoubtedly, the prosecution has established the nexus between the stabbing and the death of the victim. It has shown that Reynaldo stabbed Manuel in the abdomen twice, and that the latter's death was due to hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wounds. An autopsy report or a medical testimony is therefore rendered unnecessary. As aptly pointed out by the CA, there is a concatenation of events leading to the conclusion that death resulted from the wounds inflicted.

Treachery

Appellant also argues that treachery should not have been appreciated, considering that the victim was able to run away and subsequently obtain a hammer after the first stabbing.

We are not persuaded. The essence of treachery lies in the nature of an attack done deliberately and without warning — it must be done in a swift and unexpected manner, giving the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 23 Based on the testimony of Jopet Tulagan, he and the victim were just seated while reading the newspaper when the latter was stabbed by the accused who had suddenly appeared. 24 The witness even stated that he was temporarily unable to move because he was shocked by the sudden assault upon the victim. 25

Therefore, as correctly held by the CA, there was never an opportunity for the victim to defend himself or for his companion to protect him from the sudden attack. 26 Further, the fact that Manuel and Reynaldo had not quarrelled right before the killing was indicative of the treachery employed by the latter. Hence, the circumstance of treachery is clearly present in this case. ATICcS

That Manuel was able to run and subsequently get a hammer after having been stabbed for the first time by Reynaldo does not diminish the fact that treachery was committed. As held in People v. Gabrino, 27 the victim's capability to run after the first blow does not negate the treachery employed.

Penalty and Damages

We affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon appellant. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death. The lower courts were correct in imposing that penalty in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance that should have attended the commission of the crime.

The award of damages, however, must be modified, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, as follows: P75,000 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. 28 The Court likewise increases the award of temperate damages to P50,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 29

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 24 September 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals, Special Fourth Division, finding appellant Reynaldo Matias y Bernardo GUILTY of murder, and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant is ORDERED to pay the following amounts to the heirs of Manuel Castro: P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, P75,000 as exemplary damages, and P50,000 as temperate damages.

He is FURTHER ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. TIADCc

SO ORDERED." JARDELEZA, J., took no part; PERALTA, J., designated additional member per raffle dated January 17, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Justice Francisco P. Acosta, Chairperson, and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., rollo, pp. 2-10. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06201.

2. Penned by Assisting Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada, CA rollo, pp. 16-20. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No.Q-09-157858.

3.Rollo, p. 2.

4.Id. at 4.

5.Id. at 3.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8. CA rollo, p. 17.

9.Id. at 41.

10.Id. at 20.

11.Id. at 17.

12.Id. at 18.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 19.

15.Rollo, p. 5.

16.Id. at 7.

17.Id. at 5-7.

18.Id. at 7-8.

19. See US v. Reodique, 32 Phil. 458 (1915).

20.Id.

21.Id.

22. RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Section 4.

23.People v. Ohayas, G.R. No. 207516, 19 June 2017.

24.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

25.Id. at p. 8.

26.Id.

27. 660 Phil. 485 (2011).

28. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.

29. Id.