People v. Montaño

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249465. December 2, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FELIPE MONTAÑO @ "OMPONG" AND ARNULFO MONTAÑO @ "ONDO,"accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249465 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Montaño @ "Ompong" and Arnulfo Montaño @ "Ondo,"Accused-Appellants). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 28 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02505. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated 21 February 2017 of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, in Crim. Case No. 99-07-283 finding Felipe Montaño (Felipe) and Arnulfo Montaño (Arnulfo) (collectively, appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

Antecedents

Appellants and Floro Montaño @ "Poyodong" (Floro) were indicted for murder in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:

That on or about the 26th day of May 1999 in the Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, stab, hack and wound Bienvenido C. Peleño with the use of bladed weapons which each of the accused provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting multiple and fatal hack, stab and incised wounds on the different parts of the body of Bienvenido C. Peleño which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Upon arraignment, all three entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. 4 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

On 26 May 1999, at around 7:00 p.m., Bienvenido 5 Peleño (Bienvenido) and his wife, Cristina, were heading home when she saw Floro and his sons, herein appellants. Cristina walked ahead as her husband conversed with Floro and his sons. She was but a few meters away from the men when she saw appellants and Floro, armed with bladed weapons, gang up on Bienvenido, and hack and stab the latter several times until he was lifeless. Cristina shouted for help. Her screams were heard by Perpetua Manasis 6 (Perpetua) who went over to investigate. Perpetua saw appellants and Floro fleeing while carrying bolos of different sizes. She also saw Bienvenido's lifeless body. 7

Dr. Angel A. Cordero (Dr. Cordero) conducted the post mortem examination on the cadaver of Bienvenido. Her findings showed that the "[cause] of death [was] shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab and hack wounds [on] the different parts of the body hitting the vital organs." 8

Version of the Defense

At about 6:00 p.m. of 26 May 1999, Floro was outside his house when he heard a hissing sound which prompted him to run. As he was running, his ear was hit by a long bolo. When he stopped, a person he did not recognize was using a long bolo to stab him but he was able to parry the attack with his left hand. Floro later realized that it was Bienvenido attacking him. Bienvenido again tried to deliver a hacking blow, which Floro was able to evade. Floro countered by stabbing Bienvenido with the short bolo he was carrying. Bienvenido hacked into Floro three (3) times, and the latter retaliated each time by stabbing him back. In the end, Floro decided to leave but Bienvenido stabbed him causing his short bolo to be thrown away. The two (2) then grappled for possession of the long bolo, with Floro wresting the weapon and using it to hack Bienvenido on the head twice. Afterwards, Floro went home and informed his family about the incident. He took their advice to leave their place. 9

On the other hand, Felipe narrated that, after taking his dinner on 26 May 1999, he heard his neighbor Cristina asking for help and shouting that Floro killed her husband. Felipe then went to Barangay Captain Leonides Donzal (Donzal) and told the latter what he heard. Donzal advised him to leave his house. Fearing for their lives, Felipe and his family spent the night in a house in a ricefield and later stayed with his in-laws. Upon learning that there was a warrant for his arrest, Felipe went to the municipal hall to inquire about the case filed against him and was subsequently arrested for killing Bienvenido. 10

For his part, Arnulfo claimed that it was impossible for him to be with his father when the stabbing incident took place since he was then in another barangay, i.e., Barangay Sta. Cruz, where public transportation was unavailable at nighttime. 11 His whereabouts on the night in question was corroborated by Vivencio Maaño (Maaño). 12

Meanwhile, as the trial was ongoing, Floro died on 23 October 2011. Thus, the RTC, in its Order dated 23 November 2011, dismissed the case against him. 13

Ruling of the RTC

On 21 February 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision, 14 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Finding the accused FELIPE MONTAÑO and ARNULFO MONTAÑO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by Abuse of Superior Strength, this Court hereby [sentences] the said accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

2. To suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law, accused Felipe Montaño and Arnulfo Montaño are, likewise, ordered TO PAY, solidarily, the heirs of the victim, Bienvinido C. Peleño, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; and, P50,000.00 as moral damages; all with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) [per annum] from the date of the decision until fully paid.

No pronouncement as to Costs.

Furnish copy of this Decision the NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Taft, Ermita, Manila.

SO ORDERED.15

The RTC held that Cristina and Perpetua's positive identification of Felipe and Arnulfo as the perpetrators of the crime prevails over Felipe's bare denial and Arnulfo's alibi. The RTC likewise did not give credence to Floro's claim that he acted alone in stabbing the victim because the postmortem examination showed that the victim sustained a total of ten (10) wounds — one (1) incised wound, two (2) hacked wounds, and seven (7) stab wounds — proving that Bienvenido was attacked by several assailants. 16

Aggrieved, appellants appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision 17 dated 28 March 2019, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, with the following modifications: (1) the amount of moral damages was increased to Php75,000.00; (2) the amounts of Php50,000.00 and Php75,000.00 were awarded as temperate and exemplary damages, respectively; and (3) the phrase "without the benefit of parole" was added. 18

The CA ruled that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that Bienvenido was killed and that it was appellants and Floro who killed him. The CA likewise did not give credence to appellants' defenses of bare denial and alibi, as it was not impossible for them to be at or near the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. 19

Hence, this appeal.

For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) 20 and the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) 21 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs.

Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds the appeal without merit.

To prove the crime of murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements: 1) a person was killed; 2) the accused killed him; 3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659; 23 and 4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 24

Undoubtedly, the first and fourth elements are present in this case. Bienvenido was killed and the killing is obviously not parricide or infanticide.

The defenses of denial and alibi

Appellants argue that the testimony of Cristina was incredible since she did not give a detailed description of the stabbing incident. On the other hand, they maintain that Perpetua's testimony is bereft of credibility, as she did not see Bienvenido being stabbed by Floro and the appellants. 25 Hence, their testimonies should not have been given credence.

The Court is not swayed by these contentions. Although Cristina did not describe the positions of Floro and the appellants in relation to the victim or their participation in the crime, it is undeniable that she witnessed the whole incident. She was situated a mere ten (10) meters 26 away from where her husband was being stabbed and hacked simultaneously by Floro and the appellants with their bladed weapons. In the same manner, Perpetua might not have seen the actual attack on Bienvenido, but she corroborated Cristina's testimony that Floro and the appellants were carrying bladed weapons and that when they fled, they left behind the lifeless body of the victim.

Moreover, the results of the post-mortem examination show that the victim had sustained multiple stab, hack, and incised wounds that could not have been inflicted by a lone assailant, validating Cristina's narration of the incident.

Both Cristina and Perpetua were familiar with Floro and the appellants because they were neighbors. As the CA observed, these two (2) prosecution witnesses could not have been mistaken in their identification of the perpetrators. Visibility was good in that scene of the crime because it was a moonlit night and there was light coming from the piggery. 27 Additionally, the fact that Cristina is the widow of the deceased makes her testimony even more credible. It is unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit since that would allow the guilty to go scot-free. 28

Thus, appellants' defense, which centers on challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be sustained. The CA affirmed the RTC's assessment of these witnesses, and as such, these findings are now given great respect and conclusiveness. It is settled that trial courts are in the best position to decide issues of credibility of witnesses, having themselves heard and seen the witnesses and observed firsthand their demeanor and deportment and the manner of testifying under exacting examination, making their assessment of a witness' credibility far superior to that of appellate tribunals. 29

Given the positive identification of appellants, their defenses of denial and alibi must fail for being self-serving and unreliable. For the defense of alibi to prosper, not only must the accused prove that he was at some other place at the time of the perpetration of the crime but that it was also physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed. 30

In the case at bar, the place of commission of the killing, i.e., San Victor, and the site of the house where Arnulfo alleged he was on the evening of the stabbing incident, i.e., Sta. Cruz, are both situated in the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. The distance between the two (2) barangays is merely ten (10) kilometers. 31 Even if there is no public transportation available at night, as Arnulfo alleged, it does not mean that he would not have any other means to go to San Victor. In fact, defense witness Maaño testified that it only takes 30 minutes to get to San Victor from Sta. Cruz. 32 Maaño even belied Arnulfo's claim that there is no transportation between the two (2) barangays at night. 33

Felipe, on the other hand, was allegedly in his house at the time of the commission of the crime. The distance between his house and the victim's was but twenty (20) meters. 34 This means that he could have easily gone to the victim's place and stabbed him alongside his father and brother.

The evidence on record reveals that it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Thus, their defenses of denial and alibi remain unsubstantiated.

Felipe's departure from the crime scene further raises suspicion of his guilt. We agree with the CA that for Felipe to take his family and flee from their home to spend the night in a house on the rice field militates against his innocence. Such conduct is "contrary to human nature. Basic is the rule that flight from the scene of the crime and failure to immediately surrender militate against a contention of innocence 'since an innocent person will not hesitate to take prompt and necessary action to exonerate himself of the crime imputed to him.'" 35

Appellants acted in conspiracy

Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose to bring about the death of the victim. Once this is established, each of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. 36

The prosecution evidence clearly shows the conspiracy between Floro and the appellants to commit murder. All three (3) were together at the crime scene. They ganged up on Bienvenido when they saw him heading home. They simultaneously hacked and stabbed Bienvenido until he was dead. Afterwards, Floro and the appellants left the crime scene together.

With conspiracy established, all the co-conspirators are liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all. 37

Attendant circumstance of

We find the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength present in this case. "Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime." 38 Beyond doubt, there was inequality of forces between the unarmed and defenseless Bienvenido and his armed aggressors. 39

There is no need to add the

Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Both the RTC and the CA correctly sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua. However, apart from the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been established. Under Article 63 40 of the RPC, one of the rules in cases where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two (2) indivisible penalties is that "[w]hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." In line with A.M. No. 15-08-02SC, 41 the phrase "without eligibility for parole" need not be borne in the decision to qualify this penalty as imposed on appellants. 42

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 28 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02505 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Appellants FELIPE MONTAÑO @ "OMPONG" and ARNULFO MONTAÑO @ "ONDO," are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are also ORDERED to solidarily pay the heirs of Bienvinido C. Peleño the following amounts: Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until such amounts are 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.Rollo, pp. 5-22; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

2.CA Rollo, pp. 40-52; penned by Presiding Judge Alphinor C. Serrano.

3.Rollo, p. 6.

4.Id.

5. Bienvinido, in some parts of the record.

6. Manases, in some parts of the record.

7.Rollo, pp. 6-7 and 14-15; TSN dated 04 July 2000 (witness: Cristina Peleño), pp. 4-6; TSN dated 04 July 2000 (witness: Perpetua Manasis), pp. 13-16.

8.Records, p. 23 and dorsal portion.

9. TSN dated 18 January 2005 (witness: Floro Montaño), pp. 5, 7-12.

10. TSN dated 21 June 2004 (witness: Felipe Montaño), pp. 7-10.

11.Rollo, p. 10.

12. TSN dated 16 August 2006 (witness: Vivencio Maaño), p. 3.

13.Rollo, p. 11.

14. CA rollo, pp. 40-52.

15.Id. at 51-52.

16.Id. at 47-49.

17.Rollo, pp. 5-22.

18.Id. at 21.

19.Id. at 16-17.

20.Id. at 32-36.

21.Id. at 40-43.

22. 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. x x x

23. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.

24.People vs. Lababo, G.R. No. 234651, 06 June 2018 [Per Justice Velasco, Jr.].

25. CA rollo, p. 35.

26. TSN dated 04 July 2000 (witness: Cristina Peleño), p. 9.

27.Rollo, p. 15.

28.People v. Mantes, G.R. No. 138914, 14 November 2001, 420 Phil. 751-762 (2001) [Per Justice Melo].

29.People v. Enojo, G.R. No. 240231, 27 November 2019.

30.People v. Acabo, G.R. No. 229823, 27 February 2019 [Per Justice Del Castillo].

31. TSN dated 16 August 2006 (witness: Vivencio Maaño), p. 5.

32.Id. at 6.

33.Id. at 7.

34. TSN dated 21 June 2004 (witness: Felipe Montaño), p. 7.

35.Rollo, p. 17. Citation omitted.

36.People v. Batulan, G.R. No. 216936, 29 July 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].

37.People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019 [Per Justice Caguioa].

38.People v. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658, 17 February 2020 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].

39.People v. Hermo, G.R. No. 135026, 15 February 2002, 427 Phil. 382-389 (2002) [Per Justice Vitug].

40. Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties.

41. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.

42.People v. Silvederio, G.R. No. 239777, 08 July 2020 [Per Justice Inting]; People v. Espina, G.R. No. 219614, 10 July 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].