THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197368. October 14, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO MEJICA Y PICARDAL AND ROMMEL MEJICA Y PADIOS, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 14, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197368 (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Mejica y Picardal and Rommel Mejica y Padios). — On appeal is the Decision 1 dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02702 affirming appellants' conviction for murder.
The Information 2 dated June 30, 2004 charged appellants with murder for the death of Federico P. Sabirit, Jr. When arraigned, appellants pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 3 Trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution established that at around 2:15 a.m. of June 28, 2004, Michael Badanoy had just gone to bed (in his house at No. 69 Panday Pira Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City) 4 when he heard somebody shouting "tama na yan!" He stood up near the window and saw Federico being stabbed by appellant Rommel Mejica, while appellant Romeo Mejica was spraying tear gas at Federico. Later, the barangay tanods brought Rommel to the precinct, and the Barangay Chairman arrested Romeo. 5 Another witness, barangay tanod Eddie Badanoy, testified that when he was informed about the stabbing incident, he proceeded to Panday Pira Street. There, he saw Rommel straightening a curved 12-inch bladed weapon, while Romeo was holding a tear gas. He also noticed that Rommel's shirt and hands were stained with blood. Eddie searched for Federico and found him sprawled at the back of a tricycle in Pioneer Street. 6
Moreover, Marvin Cabanban testified that at the time of the incident, he was along Panday Pira Street attending the wake of his grandfather when appellants arrived and approached Federico. Romeo suddenly sprayed tear gas on Federico's face. Thereafter, Rommel stabbed Federico on the right lower part of the stomach and right lower side of the back. Not satisfied, Romeo banged Federico's head on the pavement. Federico was able to run away and Romeo said, "pabayaan mo na yan, me tama na yan, hindi na makakalayo." 7 Jun Bolivar Gatchalian corroborated the testimony of Marvin Cabanban. 8
Dr. Filemon C. Porciuncula, Jr. conducted the autopsy and postmortem examination of Federico's body. Dr. Porciuncula affirmed on the witness stand his postmortem findings as stated in Medico-Legal Report No. M-362-04, to wit:
TRUNK & EXTREMITIES:
1) Area of multiple abrasion, right pectoral region, measuring 16 x 8 cm, 11 cm from the anterior midline.
2) Stab wound, right infrascapular region, measuring 0.7 cm x 0.3 cm, 7 cm from the posterior midline, superficial.
3) Stab wound, right infrascapular region, measuring 0.9 x 0.2 cm, 5.5 cm from the posterior midline, 19 cm deep, directed anteriorwards, upwards & lateralwards, piercing the right 9th intercostal muscle, lower lobe of the right lung, pericardial sac, inferior vena cava & right ventricle of the heart.
4) Abrasion, right lumbar region, measuring 0.8 x 0.6 cm, 2.5 cm from the posterior midline.
5) Area of multiple abrasions, right elbow region, measuring 5.5 x 4 cm along its posterior midline.
6) Incised wound, dorsum of the right hand, measuring 2.4 x 0.5 cm, 4.5 cm medial to its posterior midline.
7) Incised wound, dorsum of the left hand, measuring 1 x 0.1 cm, 6 cm lateral to its posterior midline.
8) Abrasion, dorsum of the left hand, measuring 1.2 x 0.7 cm, lateral to its posterior midline.
There is about 1800cc of blood and bloodclots accumulated at the thoracic cavity. 9
On the other hand, Rommel testified that on June 28, 2004, at around 2:45 a.m., he was with his father, Romeo, waiting for a tricycle as the latter was about to go to work. Federico began to approach them and was about to pull out a bladed weapon. He tried to grab the weapon from Federico. While grappling for the weapon, he accidentally stabbed Federico, who suddenly ran away. He surrendered to the police telling them, "Nakaaksidente po ako ng tao." He admitted that his father had a misunderstanding with Federico because the latter was an addict who suspected that his father is a police asset. 10 DHITCc
For his part, Romeo narrated that at the time of the incident, his son, Rommel, accompanied him to wait for a tricycle. When he saw Federico running towards their direction, he ran away out of fear because Federico had stabbed him twice before. He went to the barangay, and when he turned his head, he saw Rommel and Federico wrestling. The barangay tanods arrested his son but Federico was able to run away. 11
In its Decision 12 dated January 22, 2007 in Criminal Case No. C-70917, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 129, Caloocan City, found appellants guilty of the crime of murder. The RTC found no reason to doubt the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The RTC agreed with their testimonies that Romeo sprayed tear gas on Federico's face and Rommel stabbed Federico to death. The RTC noted that the pattern of assault and attack resulting to Federico's wounds jibed with the post-mortem findings of Dr. Porciuncula. 13 The RTC did not believe the version of the defense that Rommel accidentally stabbed Federico. The RTC noted that Federico sustained multiple stab wounds. 14
The CA denied the appeal and affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 22 January 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 129, in Crim. Case No. C-70917, finding accused-appellants Romeo Mejica y Picardal and Rommel Mejica y Padios, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that, accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of the victim Federico P. Sabirit, Jr. the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php25,000.00 as temperate damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 15
The CA found that the prosecution was able to establish appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that the eyewitnesses positively identified appellants as the assailants of the victim. The appellate court noted that the testimonies of witnesses Jun Bolivar Gatchalian and Marvin Cabanban corroborated each other on material points that it was Romeo who came and sprayed tear gas on the face of the victim, and thereafter, Rommel stabbed the victim. Moreover, the CA stated that the location and number of wounds sustained by the victim indicate the appellants' deliberate intent to kill him. It further held that conspiracy was clearly shown by the conduct of appellants before, during and after the stabbing incident.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue is whether the CA erred in affirming appellants' conviction for the crime of murder.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the CA Decision. The rule is that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. 16 The resolution of factual questions is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court and absent any misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed. In the case of People v. Dela Rosa, 17 we explained that:
[T]he issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of witness, which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. . . . cEaSHC
In this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, which were upheld by the CA. We note that the RTC found the eyewitnesses as credible witnesses and did not believe the defense's version of the incident. Absent any showing that the RTC overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, the Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses. 18
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines the crime of murder, to wit:
ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity[.] (Emphasis supplied)
To be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide. 19
Likewise, 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 insure its execution, without the risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The requisites of treachery are:
(1) [T]he employment of means, method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and
(2) [D]eliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution. 20
From the evidence presented, we find that the foregoing elements of the crime of murder were duly established. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim, Federico, was killed by appellants Rommel and his father Romeo. Moreover, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was clearly shown in the manner by which the killing was perpetrated by the appellants. The records of the case show that without a warning, Romeo unexpectedly approached Federico and sprayed tear gas on his face in order to impair his eyesight and to make it impossible for him to defend himself. Thereafter, Rommel attacked Federico and stabbed him repeatedly, while Romeo continued spraying tear gas on Federico's face. From the foregoing, we find that the elements of treachery are present in this case.
Finally, in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 21
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02702 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellants are further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded in this case at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellants. (Reyes, J., on leave; Mendoza, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015; Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated September 30, 2015.)
SO ORDERED." CTIEac
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-40. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
2. Records, p. 2.
3. Id. at 17.
4. Rollo, p. 5.
5. TSN, October 14, 2004, pp. 6-16.
6. TSN, January 20, 2005, pp. 3-8.
7. TSN, January 13, 2005, pp. 5-14.
8. TSN, March 10, 2005, pp. 4-11.
9. Rollo, pp. 25-26; records, p. 85.
10. TSN, September 18, 2006, pp. 3-12.
11. TSN, November 15, 2005, pp. 4-8.
12. Records, pp. 145-173. Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre.
13. Id. at 169.
14. Id. at 163.
15. Rollo, pp. 36-37.
16. People v. Quigod, 633 Phil. 408, 420 (2010).
17. G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 548, 555, citing People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 229, 242.
18. People v. Obina, 632 Phil. 288, 293 (2010).
19. People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014, 714 SCRA 107, 127.
20. Cirera v. People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014, 730 SCRA 27, 47.
21. People v. Quisayas, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014, 721 SCRA 16, 36.