FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206056. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RUEL NIEVES y FRAGOSO, 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. 206056 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. RUEL NIEVES y FRAGOSO, accused-appellant). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant Ruel Nieves y Fragoso (Nieves), seeking the reversal of the July 26, 2012 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05089, affirming with modification the May 20, 2011 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, finding Nieves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The Case
This case stemmed from an Amended Information filed before the RTC charging Nieves with the crime of murder, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about February 28, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assault and use personal violence upon one IRENEO TABUNOS Y TAGAPULOT, by then and there hitting the latter's head with a hammer, thereby inflicting upon the said IRENEO TABUNOS Y TAGAPULOT wounds which are necessary fatal and mortal and which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Contrary to law. 4
On June 6, 2006, Nieves, assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. 5 Pre-trial conference was then conducted whereby only the identity of the accused and the jurisdiction of the court were admitted. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The Antecedents
Prosecution's Version of Facts
At around 10:00 o'clock in the evening of February 28, 2006, Nieves and Ireneo Tabunos (Tabunos), both construction workers employed by the Arguelles Company, were having an altercation inside the barracks. They were fighting about the ceiling fan. Nieves wanted the ceiling fan to stay focused on him while Tabunos wanted it rotating. Nieves challenged Tabunos for a fistfight, but they were pacified. They then went to bed to sleep. As Marlon O. Gallano (Gallano) was about to sleep, he saw Nieves got a hammer and hit Tabunos on the head. After seeing the incident, Gallano ran to Reygie Elarde, a security guard, to ask for help. Tabunos was then brought to Ospital ng Maynila where he subsequently died because of head injuries. 7
Defense's Version of Facts
On February 28, 2006, at around 10:30 in the evening, Nieves was alone standing outside the Paco Catholic Church in Paco Manila. Meanwhile, his co-workers, Gallano, Jesus Pangunil (Pangunil) and Tabunos were having a drinking spree inside their barracks. Nieves was earlier invited to join them but he refused and just went outside the church. At around 10:40 in the evening, Nieves saw Gallano and Pangunil going outside the barracks and when they returned, they were already accompanied by a police officer. Gallano and Pangunil then pointed to Nieves as the one who killed Tabunos. Nieves was then arrested and brought to the police station. 8 SDAaTC
Nieves denied killing Tabunos. He claimed that he did not own a hammer, which was used to kill Tabunos. On the other hand, Nieves claimed that Gallano merely implicated him in the crime because the latter had a grudge against him after Nieves failed to lend Gallano P2,000.00. 9
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision finding Nieves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the eye-witness, Gallano, who testified that it was Nieves who struck Tabunos on the head when the latter was already in bed and about to sleep. The trial court likewise ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. It ratiocinated that Tabunos was unarmed and was about to sleep when he was hit by Nieves, negating the possibility to fight back, escape and evade the attack. 10
The trial court likewise gave no credence to Nieves's defense of denial. It explained that he was merely outside the Paco Catholic Church which was only a few meters away from the barracks; thus, it was not impossible for the accused to reach the scene of the crime with facility and haste. 11 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused RUEL NIEVES y FRAGOSO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused is also hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Ireneo Tabunos y Tagapulot the amount of fifty thousand pesos (Php50,000.00) representing the award of civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED. 12
Aggrieved, Nieves appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 13 promulgated on July 26, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC as to the award of damages to Tabuno's family. The CA disregarded the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitness for it did not affect the credibility of the witness. The CA likewise affirmed that the attack on Tabunos was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. It ruled that the deliberate and sudden attack was clearly executed in a manner as to render Tabunos, who was then about to sleep, unarmed and unsuspecting, defenseless and unable to retaliate. 14 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 20 May 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 40, Manila in Crim. Case No. 06-242401, finding accused-appellant Ruel Nieves y Fragoso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim Ireneo Tabunos y Tagapulot is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of civil indemnity of Php50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is hereby increased to Php75,000.00 and accused-appellant is further ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim, the amounts of Php50,000.00 as moral damages, Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php25,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be imposed on the damages, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 15
Undaunted, Nieves filed a Notice of Appeal 16 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Issue
Whether the guilt of Nieves for murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
Nieves continuously attacks the credibility of the eyewitness, Gallano, contending that his testimony is marred with glaring inconsistencies. He further averred that he could not have had committed the crime because it was unlikely for a person to take the life of another in a well-lit room and in the presence of others who could bear witness to a possible crime. 17
This Court is not persuaded.
To be convicted of the crime of murder, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 18
Based on the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, of the prosecution, this Court finds all these elements extant in this case. acEHCD
At the outset, settled are the following facts: Tabunos died after being struck by a hammer on the head; and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. Now, based on the records of the case, the prosecution was able to establish that it was Nieves who killed Tabunos. Gallano, the eyewitness, was able to positively identify Nieves as the culprit, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Sometime on February 28, 2006, where will [sic] you?
A: I was inside, sir.
Q: When you said you were inside, where is that?
A: That is inside our barracks sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: While you were there, what happened if any?
A: We were sleeping, and then there was an altercation between the two (2) because of the ceiling fan.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who were the one [sic] who had an altercation?
A: Ireneo Tabunos and Ruel Nieves sir.
Q: What was their altercation all about?
A: Regarding the ceiling fan sir.
Q: What about the ceiling fan?
A: The other one (1) wanted that the ceiling [sic] be focused to [sic] him and then [sic] the other one answered, 'Bakit mo itututok, dapat paikot.' Why it [sic] will be focused, it must be revolving.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So what happened when the two (2) were altercating?
A: There was an invitation that they were [sic] boxed [sic] outside.
Q: Who invited to whom [sic] that they were [sic] boxed [sic] outside?
A: Raul Nieves who invited to have a fist boxed [sic] outside.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After that what happened?
A: Ireneo Tabunos said no longer outside but let us do it here.
Q: What happened after that?
A: There was no longer an altercation.
Q: After that when there is [sic] no more altercation, what happened?
A: We were about to sleep and we did not know that Ruel Nieves got a hammer.
Q: Did you come to know what did Ruel Nieves do with that hammer that he got?
A: We thought he is [sic] going to pound something.
COURT:
No. The question is, did you know what did he do on [sic] that hammer.
WITNESS:
Ruel Nieves went to the place of Ireneo Tabunos then he hit it[sic]with[sic]hammer.
Q: Did you see it yourself?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Why is it that you have a good view when Ruel Nieves struck Ireneo Tabunos with a hammer?
A: I was lying at the time with my eyes directly focused to [sic] Ruel Nieves. A little to my right quite above my eye level when I was lying down.
xxx xxx xxx 19
Gallano clearly testified that he personally and actually saw Nieves get a hammer and strike Tabunos with it after the two had a petty altercation. Though, admittedly, there were some inconsistencies in his testimony. These, however, were insignificant and only refer to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime charged. Accordingly, these alleged inconsistencies cannot be considered a ground to reverse Nieves' conviction for the crime charged.
Finally, evidence demonstrates that there is prima facie fact showing the presence of the element of treachery.
Article 14 (16) of the RPC defines treachery in this manner:
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 risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Otherwise stated, there is treachery when one directly employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against his or her victim, to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Simply, the essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 20
Further, there are two requirements in order that treachery may be appreciated: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and, (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of one's attack against the victim. 21 These two requisites are present in this case. SDHTEC
To recall, Gallano testified that the attack against Tabunos was sudden and unexpected. As above-cited, Gallano testified that Tabunos was already in bed and was about to sleep when Nieves struck him on the head with a hammer. 22 The attack, therefore, was so sudden and unexpected negating the possibility for Tabunos to fight back and defend himself. Tabunos could not have had fought back, escaped or evaded the attack. It may be deduced further that Nieves deliberately resorted to such a method of attack to ensure the unhampered execution of his plan to kill Tabunos.
Notwithstanding, Nieves tries to extricate himself from criminal liability by positing that he did not commit any crime and that he was merely implicated by Gallano since the latter had a grudge against him for his failure to lend Gallano money. Simply, he raises the defense of denial and alibi. Such defense, however, falters.
This Court has consistently held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. 23 Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. 24 Meanwhile, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. 25
Nieves, in this case, made self-serving statements, which he failed to substantiate by sufficient evidence. He merely denied the accusations against him but failed to adduce any evidence in support thereof. Worse, no other witnesses were presented to support his defense of denial and alibi. Accordingly, in the face of a clear and positive declaration of Gallano, Nieves's denial of committing the crime, in the absence of corroborating evidence to support his defense, is fatal to his cause.
Finally, this Court finds Nieves's contention that the circumstances existing at the crime scene — a well-lit room and in the presence of others who could bear witness to a possible crime — were such that a crime could not be committed, untenable.
It is settled that "there is no standard behavior of criminals before, during and after the commission of a crime. Some may be so bold and daring in committing a crime in broad daylight and in full view of other persons. Others may be so cunning such that they commit crime in the darkness of the night to avoid detection and arrest by peace officers." 26 As held in the case of People v. Toledo, Sr.: 27
For a number of reasons, we find no merit in this contention. First, appellant's premise that there were many persons in the school compound is not supported by the evidence on record. Second, crimes are known to have been committed in broad daylight within the vicinity of inhabited houses. Third, although it would be illogical and unreasonable for normal persons in full control of their faculties to commit a crime under such circumstances, the same does not hold true for all, especially those under the grip of criminal impulses. We cannot expect the mind of such persons to work within the parameters of what is normal, logical or reasonable, as the commission of a crime is not normal, logical or reasonable. Hence, the circumstances present in this case do not rule out appellant's commission of the crime. 28 (Emphasis supplied)
Simply, a criminal mind knows no reason and logic. A person under criminal impulse may execute his evil plan regardless of the circumstances around him.
Besides, as records reveal, the crime happened while everyone in the barracks was already in bed, some were even already asleep. 29 It is highly possible, therefore, that Nieves thought everyone was already fast asleep and that no one would notice his deadly plan against Tabunos.
From all the foregoing, this Court holds and so rules that Nieves failed to overturn the prosecution's evidence pointing to his guilt for the crime of murder. Hence, his plea of acquittal must fail.
On the other hand, the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime of murder, as attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the CA.
The Penalty
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As regards the award of damages, however, further modification must be made in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 30 Accordingly, the award of moral and exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00 each. The award of temperate damages is increased to P50,000.00. Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is retained. All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed July 26, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05089, is AFFIRMED with Modification in that accused-appellant Ruel Nieves y Fragoso is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ireneo Tabunos the following amounts: (i) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (iv) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. AScHCD
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. 25-26.
2.Id. at 2-24; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Abraham B. Borreta, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 14-20; penned by Pairing Judge Noli C. Diaz.
4.Id. at 14.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id.
10. CA rollo, p. 17.
11.Id. at 19.
12.Id. at 20.
13.Rollo, pp. 2-24.
14.Id. at 16-17.
15.Id. at 21.
16. CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
17.Id. at 37-42.
18.People v. Alvarez, et al., 752 Phil. 451, 457 (2015).
19.Rollo, pp. 12-14.
20.People v. Las Piñas, et al., 739 Phil. 502, 524 (2014).
21.People v. Abina, et al., 830 Phil. 352, 361 (2018).
22.Rollo, pp. 12-14.
23.People v. Rom, 727 Phil. 587, 606 (2014).
24.People v. Nachor, 652 Phil. 756, 775 (2010).
25.People v. Bongos, 824 Phil. 1004, 1021-1022 (2018).
26.Estioca v. People, 578 Phil. 853, 870 (2008). Citations omitted.
27. 409 Phil. 746 (2001).
28.Id. at 757.
29. CA rollo, p. 42.
30. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).