People v. Mejia

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250896. May 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. TROY MEJIA alias "JOENARD VILLANUEVA ARCE", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250896 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Mejia alias "Joenard Villanueva Arce", Accused-Appellant.) — We DISMISS this appeal and affirm the Decision 1 dated 26 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08372, affirming the Partial Decision 2 rendered on 17 May 2016 of Branch 44, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, which found accused-appellant Troy Mejia alias "Joenard Villanueva Arce" (Troy) guilty of murder in Criminal Case No. 2011-0084-D.

The CA and the RTC uniformly found that the prosecution successfully established proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict Troy for the crime of murder. Prosecution eyewitness Joel A. Austria (Joel) categorically identified Troy as among those who mauled and killed the victim, John Isaguirre (John). 3 Moreover, the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength since there was a gross disparity of forces between Troy's group and John. Troy and his co-accused heavily outnumbered the lone victim and were armed with a knife and stones. John was unarmed with no real chance to defend himself. Hence, Troy and his co-accused abused their superior numbers and used weapons to ensure the killing of John. 4

In his appeal, Troy claimed the positive identification by the prosecution witness Joel was flawed. Likewise, Troy assailed Joel's credibility as the lone eyewitness. 5

The CA did not err in affirming the conviction.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the trial courts' evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Its findings on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 6 In this case, Troy was unable raise any circumstance that would warrant the application of the exception rather than the rule.

As to the effect of the supposed inconsistencies on the testimony of the prosecution witness, the Court, upon a review of the records, rules that these inconsistencies do not affect Joel's credibility considering that these refer to marginal and trivial matters. Discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the evidence for the prosecution as a whole, nor reflect on the honesty of the witness. The most honest witness may sometimes commit mistakes but such lapses do not necessarily impair his credibility especially when minor details are involved. Human memory may be temporarily paralyzed by a startling event especially if the same involves a person close to the witness. 7 CAIHTE

Far from being inconsistent, a review of Joel's testimony reveals a firm and positive identification of accused-appellant:

DIRECT EXAM. BY PROSECUTOR GO:

Q How many were these people you said you saw in the "talipapa" who later on attacked John Isaguirre?

A Four (4), ma'am.

Q If they were in the courtroom today were you able to identify them?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Can you please look around the courtroom and point if any of them are here?

A That fourth person seated there.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointed to a man who when asked his name answered himself as Joenard Arce.

PROSECUTOR GO:

Q Other than this person who identified himself as Joenard Arce, do you see other persons in this courtroom?

A No more, ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q When you saw them catching up John Isaguirre, what did the four (4) men do to John Isaguirre?

A They mauled John Isaguirre, ma'am.

Q What, if any, did you notice Joenard Arcew [sic] [w]as doing at the time he was able to catch-up with John Isaguirre?

A He was hitting John Isaguirre with stone.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Other than being hit with a stone and being mauled, what else did you see did the four (4) men do to John Isaguirre?

A He was kicked, ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Did you see what he did with that knife?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q What did they do with the knife?

A It was stabbed to John Isaguirre, ma'am. 8

Moreover, the CA and RTC were correct in disregarding Troy's defense of denial and alibi. Indeed, mere denial, when unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, crumbles in the face of a positive identification of the prosecution witness for between the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses and the negative uncorroborated assertions of appellant, the former deserves more credence. 9

Indeed, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of murder. The death of the victim was conclusively established by his death certificate. 10 As testified by Joel, he saw Troy and the co-accused maul the victim. Troy hit the victim with a stone while his co-accused stabbed the victim on the chest. Also, the CA aptly appreciated these united acts of Troy and his co-accused to have revealed a community of criminal design. Their acts constituted a whole collective effort towards their common criminal objective and were sufficient to establish conspiracy. 11 Furthermore, the autopsy report of the medico-legal officer corroborates Joel's testimony considering that the victim suffered from a peri-orbital left hematoma and a stab wound to the chest. 12 These pieces of evidence taken together have effectively overthrown Troy's presumption of innocence.

Lastly, the lower courts were correct in ruling that the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength. There is abuse of superior strength when the perpetrators of a crime deliberately used excessive force, thereby rendering the victim incapable of defending himself. The notorious inequality of forces created an unfair advantage for the aggressors. 13 Here, there can be no denying that Troy and his group acted in concert while taking advantage of their superior strength to ensure the successful execution of their crime. This is evident from the fact that there were four (4) of them against the victim who was alone. More importantly, their victim was unarmed while they were armed with stones and a bladed weapon.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated 26 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08372 is AFFIRMED. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. CA rollo, pp. 6-13; penned by Presiding Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.

3.Rollo, p. 11.

4.Id. at 13.

5. CA rollo, p. 49.

6.People v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748-766 (2002); G.R. No. 138989, 17 September 2002 [Per J. Corona].

7.People v. Villanueva, 333 Phil. 148-157 (1996); G.R. No. 114266, 04 December 1996 [Per J. Bellosillo].

8. CA rollo, pp. 100-102.

9.People v. Alabado, 558 Phil. 796-820 (2007); G.R. No. 176267, 03 September 2007 [Per J. Garcia].

10. CA rollo, p. 72.

11.People v. Evangelio, 672 Phil. 229-253 (2011); G.R. No. 181902, 31 August 2011 [Per J. Peralta].

12.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

13.People v. Credo, 713 Phil. 438-461 (2013); G.R. No. 197360, 03 July 2013 [Per J. Perez].