FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251969. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANGELITO MONES y OGATIS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251969 (People of the Philippines v. Angelito Mones y Ogatis). — Angelito Mones y Ogatis (accused-appellant) assails the Decision 1 dated August 20, 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02554, which modified the Joint Decision 2 dated March 17, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. RTC-4975 and RTC-4976 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). CAIHTE
Facts of the Case
Version of the Prosecution
In the afternoon of September 22, 2012, Benjie Geronimo (Benjie) and Hilarion Geronimo (Hilarion), were at Noel Ogatis' (Ogatis) store at Barangay Codcod Lower, San Carlos City, together with Felixberto Gella (Gella), Jason Magbanua (Magbanua) and several other people, drinking Tanduay and playing billiards. 3 Accused-appellant arrived at the store at around 1:30 p.m. and headed to Ogatis' house which was near the store. 4
After some time, accused-appellant joined Benjie, Hilarion, Gella and Magbanua at the billiard table. While the game was ongoing, Hilarion went outside to urinate. Suddenly, accused-appellant pulled out his bolo and hacked Benjie, eventually killing the latter. When the latter fell to the ground, accused-appellant calmly walked away. Then, accused-appellant went to Hilarion and hacked him. 5
Dr. Arniel Laurence Portuguez (Dr. Portuguez), City Health Officer of San Carlos City, conducted the post-mortem examination on the bodies of Benjie and Hilarion. He concluded that Benjie Geronimo suffered 18 injuries, eight of which were fatal, and that Hilarion Geronimo suffered 11 injuries, three of which were fatal. Furthermore, he posited that the injuries of both victims were probably caused by a hard bladed instrument. 6
Ultimately, the State filed two Informations charging accused-appellant with violations of Article 248 of the RPC:
That on or about 3:00 o'clock P.M. of September 22, 2012 at Barangay Codcod Lower, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, [and] with treachery, did, then, and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack one BENJIE A. GERONIMO with the use of said weapon, hitting his head and different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries x x x. 7
That on or about 3:00 o'clock P.M. of September 22, 2012 at Barangay Codcod Lower, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, [and] with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack one HILARION G. GERONIMO with the use of said weapon, hitting his head and different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries x x x. 8
As regards the civil aspect of the case, Lorna Geronimo, Benjie's mother, testified that prior to his death, her son was earning P600.00 per week as a rice tiller and that more or less P57,300.00 was spent for his wake and funeral. 9 On the other hand, Chuchi Magbanua, common-law wife of Hilarion, testified that the latter was earning P600.00 per week as a farmer and that P25,000.00 was spent for his wake and burial. 10
Version of Accused-appellant
On September 22, 2012, accused-appellant went to Ogatis' house. He claims that when he arrived, Ogatis was not yet home. He passed by Ogatis' store and saw Hilarion, Benjie, Gella and Magbanua, who were drinking. Benjie handed him a glass of Tanduay which he did not accept. According to accused-appellant, this angered Benjie and caused him to walk away. Gella also approached him and offered him a drink. Again, he refused. He left the group and went inside Ogatis' house to charge his phone. 11
After a while, Ogatis arrived on his motorcycle. Accused-appellant saw Benjie place his arm around Ogatis while saying something. Upon entering his house, Ogatis told accused-appellant: "Be careful. They are planning to do something bad to you." 12 After the warning, Ogatis and a certain Jennifer Roman went to play billiards. Accused-appellant went with them. 13
It was then that Benjie pulled out a knife and approached accused-appellant. Benjie tried to stab the latter three times. Benjie allegedly said that he would stab accused-appellant because he was abusive to Hilarion. Benjie tried to stab accused-appellant again, but the latter was able to evade the attack due to the former's drunkenness. The two grappled and in the process, accused-appellant was able to take the knife. Thereafter, accused-appellant hacked Benjie with his bolo. Benjie ran away. Accused-appellant also ran, intending to go to the barangay to surrender himself. Hilarion blocked his way, and tried to hit him with a stone, but failed due to his drunkenness. Hilarion also tried to seize accused-appellant's bolo and failed. Accused-appellant then hacked Hilarion. Afterwards, accused-appellant went inside Ogatis' house to retrieve his cellphone and then went home. 14 DETACa
Accused-appellant admits that he had a slight disagreement with Hilarion on account of the latter's carabao eating the sugarcane and damaging the crops on the farms — of which he was the caretaker — owned by the father-in-law of his former employer, Stephen Fresquito (Fresquito). 15 He avers that Benjie and Hilarion were drunk at the time of the incident, and that he did not sustain any injury apart from that on his nail. 16 He further claims that he had talked to Hilarion on three prior occasions, and that apart from verbal arguments, there was never any physical altercation between them. 17
Fresquito and Ogatis were also presented to corroborate the statements made by accused-appellant. Ogatis also claimed that he saw Hilarion giving Benjie a knife and that Benjie told him that he will do something to accused-appellant. 18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder under Article 248 of the RPC because his claim of self-defense was unsubstantiated. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court concluded that Benjie and Hilarion did not exhibit unlawful aggression towards accused-appellant, and that accused-appellant failed to demonstrate that he was constrained to defend himself from such aggression. 19
Furthermore, the trial court observed that the injuries sustained by Benjie and Hilario demonstrate that accused-appellant's attack was treacherous. The number and location of the injuries sustained by both victims portray that they had no opportunity to defend themselves. The victims' injuries also indicate that the means employed by accused-appellant to repel the alleged attack was neither reasonable nor necessary. 20
With respect to the testimony of Benjie and Hilarion's heirs regarding the civil aspect of the suit, the trial court found that Chuchi Magbanua failed to present official receipts, and that the receipts submitted by Lorna Geronimo were irregular because they appear to have been issued by a single person based on a cursory examination of the handwriting thereon. 21
Accordingly, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of murder, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in each case. The trial court also ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Benjie and Hilarion P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, and costs of suit. 22
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA arrived at the same conclusion as the trial court that accused-appellant failed to support his claim of self-defense. In particular, the CA found that accused-appellant cannot claim self-defense because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Benjie and Hilarion. Gella and Magbanua testified that no altercation preceded accused-appellant's assault on Benjie and Hilarion. In the absence of aggression, there was nothing for accused-appellant to repel. 23
Moreover, the CA concluded that accused-appellant's intent to kill Benjie and Hilarion was clear, because he inflicted 18 injuries on the former (eight of which were fatal) and 11 injuries on the latter (three of which were fatal). 24
The CA also concurred with the trial court that the killing of Benjie and Hilarion was attended by treachery because accused-appellant suddenly attacked his unsuspecting victims, depriving them of any chance to retaliate and defend themselves. The CA also observed that accused-appellant deliberately planned the attack because he waited until Hilarion left before attacking Benjie. After attacking and killing Benjie without warning, accused-appellant did the same to Hilarion. Ultimately, the CA concluded, accused-appellant adopted such mode of attack to ensure the death of his victims with the least possible risk to himself. The conclusion is further supported by the fact that accused-appellant only suffered one injury on his nail, compared to the several wounds sustained by his victims. 25 Consequently, the CA found accused-appellant liable for two counts of murder and sentenced him to two reclusion perpetua. 26
Pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 27 the CA modified the amounts awarded by the trial court. For each count of murder, accused-appellant was ordered to pay the heirs of the victims P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The amount of temperate damages was also increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00 pursuant to the rule in Jugueta regarding the failure of heirs of the victims to present sufficient documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses. 28
The CA imposed six percent interest per annum on all awards from the finality of its Decision until full payment. 29
Proceedings before the Court
In the Court's Resolution 30 dated July 13, 2020, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs.
The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 31 dated October 26, 2020 stating that accused-appellant has exhaustively discussed his arguments in the Appellant's Brief 32 dated October 25, 2016, filed with the CA. Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 33 dated November 20, 2020, declaring that it is adopting the discussion in its Appellee's Brief 34 dated March 7, 2018, to avoid being repetitious.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is unmeritorious.
After a painstaking review of the records, We find that the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of murder for the death of Benjie and Hilarion because the prosecution adequately established the existence of the elements necessary for a conviction therefor.
The elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Indubitably, the fourth element is present in this case.
As regards the first element, We find that the death of Benjie and Hilarion has been adequately established. 35 The post-mortem examinations 36 dated October 2, 2012 indicate that Benjie and Hilarion died due to "shock secondary to severe intercranial hemorrhage secondary to multiple hacking wounds of the head." 37 Dr. Portuguez also testified that Benjie and Hilarion both sustained multiple hacking wounds which resulted in their death. 38 aDSIHc
As to the second element, the identity of accused-appellant as the person who killed Benjie and Hilarion has been confirmed through the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Both Gella and Magbanua positively identified accused-appellant as the person who killed Benjie and Hilarion. 39 Moreover, accused-appellant invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense, 40 which amounts to an admission that he caused the death of Benjie and Hilarion. 41
According to accused-appellant, Benjie and Hilarion assaulted him on separate occasions which impelled him to protect himself. 42 We have previously ruled that a claim of self-defense may be appreciated when the following elements are present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 43
While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies primarily on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 44 Here, accused-appellant failed to clearly and convincingly prove that the victims exhibited any unlawful aggression towards him. Eyewitnesses for the prosecution narrated that accused-appellant, without being attacked or provoked by Benjie, took hold of his bolo and hacked the latter. 45 Similarly, Hilarion did not assault accused-appellant before the latter hacked him. 46 Therefore, there was nothing for the latter to defend against.
In addition, accused-appellant's testimony contradicts his claim of self-defense. He positively declared that he was able to disarm Benjie before he hacked him. 47 At that point, any unlawful aggression on the part of Benjie ceased to exist which meant that he no longer had the right to kill, or even wound his former aggressor. 48
Assuming arguendo, that Benjie and Hilarion attacked accused-appellant, the means employed by the latter was not reasonably necessary to repel or prevent their aggression. Records show that Benjie sustained 18 injuries, eight of which were fatal, while Hilarion sustained 11 injuries, three of which were fatal. 49 On the other hand, accused-appellant admitted that his only injury was that on his nail 50 and that Benjie and Hilarion were inebriated to the point that he was able to evade their attacks. 51 As demonstrated by the nature and number of the wounds suffered by Benjie and Hilarion, the means employed by accused-appellant was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged attack that the latter sought to prevent. 52 Hence, his claim of self-defense must fail.
Because it has been established that accused-appellant killed Benjie and Hilarion without any lawful cause, We proceed to determine whether the killings were attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate or escape; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attacked employed by him. 53
Accused-appellant claims that treachery cannot be appreciated in this case because his attack was not sudden or unexpected 54 and because he did not deliberately choose the means of attack against his victims. 55 The circumstances of the assaults depict otherwise.
First, the prosecution established that prior to both hacking incidents, there was no confrontation between accused-appellant and the Geronimos. 56 Then, accused-appellant only attacked Benjie when he was already drunk 57 and when Hilarion went outside of Ogatis' store to relieve himself. 58 Next, accused-appellant hacked Benjie on the head eight times, which fractured his skull. 59 After killing Benjie, accused-appellant calmly went to where Hilarion was and, without warning, proceeded to hack him 60 on the head three times. 61 When accused-appellant attacked Hilarion, the latter was also drunk. Notably, accused-appellant consistently claimed that he did not partake of alcoholic beverages leading up to the incidents in question 62 which meant that he was more alert than his victims.
Taken together, the foregoing circumstances betray accused-appellant's scheme of taking advantage of Benjie and Hilarion's drunkenness to ensure that they cannot defend themselves or retaliate against him. He also consciously targeted the heads of Benjie and Hilarion to ensure that they become incapacitated, ensuring the success of his malevolent enterprise.
In a final bid to exonerate himself, accused-appellant avers that the Informations filed against him are insufficient bases for convicting him of two counts of murder because treachery was not properly alleged. 63 Citing People v. PO2 Valdez, 64 he argues that "the use of the term treachery [does not] constitute a sufficient averment, for that term standing alone, [is] nothing but a conclusion of law, not an averment of fact." 65 He claims that the Informations are defective because they "do not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended" the killing of Benjie and Hilarion. 66
While there is merit in accused-appellant's argument, We find that his failure to timely raise the defects as issues during trial amounts to a waiver of such defects. 67 During arraignment, accused-appellant voluntarily entered his plea with assistance of counsel and proceeded to trial. 68 He did not assail the defects in the Informations through filing a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars and only raised the defects in the Informations for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the trial court and CA's appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance is proper. ETHIDa
On the matter of damages, the CA correctly modified the awards granted by the trial court, pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 69 Accused-appellant is obliged to pay the heirs of Benjie and Hilarion P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 70 The CA also appropriately increased the amount of temperate damages to P50,000.00, 71 in accordance with the Court's pronouncement in Jugueta. An interest at the rate of six percent per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02554 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Angelito Mones y Ogatis is found GUILTY of two counts of Murder. He is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count, to be served successively. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Benjie Geronimo and Hilarion Geronimo P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages in each case. All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (Former Member of this Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga; rollo, pp. 5-21.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Kathrine A. Go; CA rollo, pp. 54-60.
3.Rollo, p. 9; CA rollo, p. 57.
4. TSN dated May 27, 2014, pp. 7-8.
5. CA rollo, p. 57; TSN dated May 27, 2014, pp. 8-9.
6.Rollo, p. 9.
7. Records, p. 1.
8.Id. at 173.
9.Rollo, p. 9.
10.Id. at 10.
11.Id.
12. CA rollo, p. 58.
13.Rollo, p. 10.
14. TSN dated November 17, 2015, pp. 7-9.
15.Id. at 11.
16.Id. at 9-10.
17.Id. at 11-12; rollo, p. 11.
18. CA rollo, p. 58.
19.Id. at 58-59.
20.Id. at 59.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 59-60.
23.Rollo, pp. 12-17.
24.Id. at 17.
25.Id. at 17-19.
26.Id. at 20.
27. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
28.Rollo, pp. 19-20.
29.Id. at 20.
30.Id. at 28-29.
31.Id. at 42-43.
32. CA rollo, pp. 22-46.
33.Rollo, pp. 37-38.
34. CA rollo, pp. 69-87.
35. Records, pp. 10, 31, 126.
36.Id. at 8, 49.
37.Id. at 8.
38. TSN dated April 29, 2014, pp. 5-6.
39. TSN dated May 27, 2014, pp. 3 and 9-10; TSN dated July 22, 2014 pp. 3-5; TSN dated February 24, 2015, pp. 4-5, 12-17.
40. TSN dated November 17, 2015, pp. 7-10; CA rollo, p. 36.
41.People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 245306, December 2, 2020; People v. Del Castillo, 679 Phil. 233, 251 (2012).
42. TSN dated November 17, 2015, pp. 7-10.
43.People v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 801 (2004).
44.People v. Tica, 817 Phil. 588, 595 (2017).
45. TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 9; TSN dated February 24, 2015, p. 12.
46.Id.; TSN dated February 24, 2015, p. 16.
47. TSN dated November 17, 2015, p. 8.
48.Supra note 44 at 596.
49.Rollo, p. 9.
50. TSN dated November 17, 2015, pp. 9-10.
51.Id. at 7-9.
52.People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 245306, December 2, 2020; Belbis, Jr. v. People, 698 Phil. 706, 722 (2012).
53.People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
54. CA rollo, p. 39.
55.Id. at 40.
56. TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 9.
57. TSN dated February 24, 2015, p. 18.
58.Id.
59. TSN dated April 29, 2014, p. 4.
60. CA rollo, p. 19.
61. TSN dated April 29, 2014, p. 5.
62. TSN dated November 17, 2015, p. 5.
63. CA rollo, p. 42.
64. 679 Phil. 279 (2012).
65. CA rollo, p. 44.
66.Id. at 43.
67.People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.
68. Records, pp. 44-45.
69.Supra note 27.
70.Rollo, p. 20.
71.Id.