SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250339. March 9, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. BACIO PADEL y BARSANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250339 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bacio Padel y Barsana, Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated 13 July 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08500. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 20 June 2016 of Branch 88, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-11-168678, finding accused-appellant Bacio Padel y Barsana (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted for Murder in an Information, the accusatory portion of which stated:
That on or about the 4th day of February, 2011, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of JHON-JHON CARAUI y CUALES, by then and there stabbing the latter at his chest with the use of a bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said JHON-JHON CARAUI y CUALES.
That the accused persistently planned the commission of the crime prior to its commission until its execution and that accused deliberately adopted sudden and unexpected attack against his victim to ensure commission of the crime without risk to him from any defense that victim may take, thereby committing the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 5
Version of the Prosecution
At around 12:10 A.M. of 04 February 2011, while Jhon-John Caraui y Cuales (Jhon-Jhon) and his sister Milagros Caraui (Milagros) were walking on an alley towards the house of their sister, Jocelyn Caraui (Jocelyn), accused-appellant suddenly jumped on the back of Jhon-Jhon, wrapped his legs around the latter's waist and his left hand around Jhon-Jhon's neck. Accused-appellant stabbed Jhon-Jhon on the left portion of his upper clavicle. The knife perforated the common carotid and penetrated the upper lobe of Jhon-Jhon's left lung which caused his death. 6
Based on the Medico-legal Report, 7 Jhon-Jhon died of a stabbed wound on his anterior thorax. 8
According to the testimony of Milagros, on 03 February 2011 at 11:30 P.M. or a few minutes before the stabbing incident, she heard someone shouting that Jhon-Jhon was stabbed. She immediately left her house to look for her brother and saw him being chased with a knife by accused-appellant. Fortunately, the people in the area were able to diffuse the tension, and Milagros and Jhon-Jhon immediately went to the Barangay Public Security Officers (BPSO) to report the incident. 9 Thereafter, Jhon-Jhon requested to stay in the house of Jocelyn. It was on their way there that the stabbing took place. 10
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charge. He testified that he and his wife had been residing at Barangay Manresa, Quezon City for almost two months, while their children stay and study in the province. In Metro Manila, accused-appellant stays in the house of their cousin Felix and works as a fish ball vendor along Mayon and Del Monte Streets, Quezon City. 11
He claimed that on 03 February 2011 at around 11:00 P.M., he saw three persons, one of them Jhon-Jhon, at the corner of Biak na Bato and Dagot Streets, drinking a bottle of Red Horse. Having been called upon and thinking that the group would buy fish balls, accused-appellant approached them. He was, instead, offered a drink but he declined. Jhon-Jhon then said, "ibubuhos ko ito sa iyo." 12 Feeling threatened, accused-appellant took the drink. Accused-appellant averred that Jhon-Jhon was carrying a weapon. Thereafter, he pleaded to go home but Jhon-Jhon got mad and threw a bottle at him hitting his back. Jhon-Jhon told him, "ka bago-bago mo lang dito hindi ka marunong makisama!" 13 Accused-appellant thus ran away. 14
Accused-appellant claimed that Jhon-Jhon, who was carrying a 12-inch bladed weapon, followed him and shouted, "Bisaya, tumakbo ka kapag naabutan kita, papatayin kita." He was later cornered by Jhon-Jhon and his group along the narrow alley. Jhon-Jhon allegedly tried to stab him with the knife but he parried the same using a piece of wood he chanced to pick up. Accused-appellant was able to hit Jhon-Jhon's hand, causing the knife to fall to the ground. He grappled for its possession and saw blood was already oozing from Jhon-Jhon's chest. It was at this point that he was struck on the head from behind and lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the detention cell. He asked his fellow inmates why he was detained, but they merely told him that the police brought him in. 15
According to accused-appellant, he knew Jhon-Jhon only because he saw him four times when he came home at night. 16 He likewise maintained that he sustained an injury during the alleged struggle, although he cannot present any medical record or witness to corroborate his claim. 17
Ruling of the RTC
In its 20 June 2016 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused Bacio Padel y Barsana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Accused Bacio Padel y Barsana is further adjudged to pay the heirs of Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales the following amounts:
(a) Php75,000.00 representing the civil indemnity ex delicto;
(b) Php75,000.00 by way of moral damages for the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the heirs arising from the death of Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales; and,
(c) Php71,650.39 representing the actual damages incurred by the heirs of Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales; plus cost of suit.
The accused shall be credited with the full period of his preventive imprisonment, subject to the conditions imposed under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED. 18
The RTC held that the prosecution had successfully proven that accused-appellant committed the crime of Murder, considering the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation. 19 It found consistent and categorical the testimony of Milagros who, despite tedious cross-examination, was not shaken but unwaveringly declared the same facts — positively identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. 20
It ruled that the prosecution successfully established treachery since the attack was sudden and systematic, depriving the victim the opportunity to retaliate or defend himself. 21 Likewise, evidence revealed that the accused-appellant was determined to commit the crime since sufficient time has elapsed from the moment of the initial chase, to the report of the incident with the Barangay, until accused-appellant successfully stabbed the victim along the alley. 22 Moreover, the RTC found accused-appellant's defense of denial and self-defense flimsy and unsubstantiated. 23
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 24
Ruling of the CA
In its 13 July 2017 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 20, 2016 of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 88, in Criminal Case No. Q-11-168678 for Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that:
(1) Accused-appellant Bacio Padel y Barsana is ordered to pay the heirs of Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales the amount of P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;
(2) The amount of actual damages to be paid by accused-appellant Biacio Padel y Barsana is reduced from P71,650.39 to P66,650.39;
(3) Accused-appellant Bacio Padel y Barsana is ordered to pay the heirs of Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales interest on all damages at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until full satisfaction thereof; and
(4) Accused-appellant Bacio Padel y Barsana is not eligible for parole.
All other aspects of the fallo of the assailed Decision, stand.
SO ORDERED. 25
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA underscored that the killing was qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation. 26 As to accused-appellant's defense of denial and self-defense, the CA found the same to be lacking in truth and candor. 27 It noted that no other witness corroborated accused-appellant's version of the facts. 28
The CA emphasized that the accused-appellant is not eligible for parole. 29 Given that the case is attended by treachery, it further awarded exemplary damages. The CA likewise reduced the actual damages due to Jhon-Jhon's family as only P66,650.39 were substantiated by receipts. 30
Hence, this appeal. 31
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the RTC and CA are correct in holding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is bereft of merit.
It is a settled rule that findings of fact of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect and even finality by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. 32 Without any showing that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings must be upheld. 33
Likewise, it has been long settled that when the issues raised concern the credibility of a witness, the trial court's findings of fact, its calibration of testimonies, and its assessment of the testimonies' probative weight, including its conclusions based on said findings, are generally given conclusive effect. It is acknowledged that the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. 34 Further, inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses, nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. 35
To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (a) that a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 36
In this case, Milagros positively identified accused-appellant as Jhon-Jhon's assailant. Milagros is familiar with accused-appellant since the latter also lived in the same barangay and she would sometimes chance upon accused-appellant before the incident. 37 At the time accused-appellant was attacking Jhon-Jhon, Milagros witnessed the entire assault and the place of the attack was, notably, well-lit by lamp posts. 38
Further, the other prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant as Jhon-Jhon's assailant to the initial chase, corroborating the case against accused-appellant as regards the latter's intent to kill Jhon-Jhon. 39 Accordingly, the testimonies by the prosecution witnesses lead to the conclusion that accused-appellant is the perpetrator of the crime.
This notwithstanding, accused-appellant attempts to ascribe inconsistencies to the candid and straightforward testimony of Milagros, in particular, as to the source of lighting that afforded her good visibility to witness the murder of her brother.
We are not persuaded.
Milagros was consistent when she testified that she was able to recognize accused-appellant, because she was able to see his face as the place where the incident happened was lighted. As aptly observed by the RTC, despite tedious cross-examination, Milagros remained steadfast, resolutely declaring the same facts. 40 It is settled that where there is no evidence and there is nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witness was not so actuated, and his or her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 41
Milagros' identification of accused-appellant, likewise, draws strength from the rule that family members who have witnessed the killing of their loved one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants. 42 Indeed, this Court has established that it would be unnatural for relatives of the victim, who seek justice, to impute the crime to an innocent person, and thereby allow the real culprit to escape prosecution. 43 It is simply unnatural for one interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit. 44
As to accused-appellant's defense of denial and self-defense, the lower courts correctly found the same to be flimsy and uncorroborated. The Court has consistently held that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over a denial. 45 Denial, being a negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses. 46
On the other hand, for self-defense to be appreciated, the following evidence must be proven by clear and convincing evidence: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 47 An accused who invokes self-defense has the burden to prove all the foregoing elements, the most important of which is unlawful aggression. 48 Thus, accused-appellant miserably failed to discharge. As aptly underscored by the CA, despite accused-appellant's stance that he was the victim of Jhon-Jhon's unlawful aggression, no testimonial evidence or documentary evidence was presented to corroborate accused-appellant's assertions. 49 Instead, records show that it was Jhon-Jhon, along with his sisters, who reported to the BPSO accused-appellant's act of chasing the former while armed with a knife. 50
Accused-appellant is charged with the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. We agree with the lower courts that treachery and evident premeditation were indeed attendant to the crime. aDSIHc
At this juncture, We find it wise to reiterate the guidelines laid down in People v. Solar51 as regards the right of an accused to question the sufficiency of the factual circumstances or particular acts that constitute the criminal conduct, or that qualify or aggravate the liability for the crime alleged in an Information. To clarify, an accused who believes that an Information insufficiently avers a qualifying or aggravating circumstance may file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars prior to arraignment in order to successfully object to the said Information. Otherwise, the right to question the defective statement is deemed waived, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him or her if proven during trial. 52
In this case, accused-appellant did not raise any objection as to the insufficiency of the averments of the ultimate facts in the Information. Thus, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were properly appreciated against accused-appellant especially since the same were satisfactorily proven during trial.
Indeed, it is settled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery or alevosia is present when the offender, in the execution of the crime against a person, employs means, methods or forms, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 53 In the instant case, accused-appellant ensured that the unsuspecting Jhon-Jhon, who was unarmed, would not be able to retaliate and defend himself by immobilizing Jhon-Jhon in the course of stabbing him.
The prosecution likewise established the presence of evident premeditation by proving the confluence of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to such determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his act. 54 Here, it has been proven that prior to the stabbing incident, accused-appellant had earlier chased Jhon-Jhon with a knife but the people who witnessed the scene were able to control the situation enabling Jhon-Jhon to walk away unscathed. 55 In fact, the chasing incident was reported and entered in the blotter of the barangay. 56 Accordingly, it may be inferred from the order of events that accused-appellant clung to his determination to kill Jhon-Jhon despite sufficient lapse of time.
We now come to the propriety of the penalties imposed.
In view of the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation in the case at bar, accused-appellant was correctly convicted of the crime of Murder, as defined under Art. 248 of the RPC, for the killing of Jhon-Jhon. When more than one qualifying circumstance is proven, as in this case, the rule is that the other must be considered as generic aggravating. 57 As properly underlined by the CA, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation will be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in the present case.
Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, the penalty for the crime of Murder qualified by treachery, and with another aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, is death, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2 of the RPC. However, with the proscription on the imposition of the death penalty, 58 the penalty of reclusion perpetua meted on accused-appellant by the RTC and as affirmed by the CA was correctly imposed, without eligibility for paroles. 59
The Court, however, increases the award of damages to P100,000.00 as civil indemnify, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, in order to conform with current jurisprudence. 60
We also uphold the reduced amount of actual damages awarded by the CA. Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. 61
Finally, We sustain the CA's imposition of interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 62
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated 13 July 2017 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08500 finding accused-appellant Bacio Padel y Barsana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. ETHIDa
Accused-appellant is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim, Jhon-Jhon Caraui y Cuales, the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P66,650.39 as actual damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."(Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, on Official Business)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 17. See Notice of Appeal, 07 August 2017.
2.Id. at 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a member of this Court) and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3. CA rollo, pp. 39-53. Rendered by Presiding Judge Rosanna Fe Romero-Maglaya.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7. Medico-Legal Report No. QCA-11-059; Records, p. 125.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9. CA rollo, pp. 40, 44.
10.Id. at 40.
11.Rollo, p. 6.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, p. 53.
19.Id. at 49.
20.Id. at 48.
21.Id. at 49.
22.Id. at 50.
23.Id. at 50-51.
24.Id. at 10.
25.Id. at 15.
26.Id. at 12-14.
27.Id. at 9-10.
28.Id. at 6.
29.Id. at 14.
30.Id. at 14-15.
31.Id. at 17.
32. See People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1067 (2017).
33. See People v. Jao, 810 Phil. 1028, 1037-1038 (2017).
34.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 746 (2012).
35. See Amarillo v. People, 532 Phil. 193, 202 (2006); Rabanal v. People, 518 Phil. 734, 747; Magno v. People, 516 Phil. 72, 81 (2006).
36.People v. Dayrit, G.R. No. 241632, October 2020, citing Johnny Garcia Yap v. People, 843 Phil. 328 (2018) and People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 677 (2017).
37. CA rollo, p. 67.
38.Id. at 41, 68.
39.Id. at 42-45.
40.Id. at 48.
41.Rollo, p. 9, citing People v. Del Prado, 618 Phil. 674 (2009).
42. See People v. Masilang, G.R. No. 246466, 26 January 2021.
43.Id., citing People v. Daraman, 355 Phil. 454, 473 (1998).
44.Id., citing People v. Salvame, 337 Phil. 440 (1997).
45. See People v. Ascarraga, 836 Phil. 735 (2018).
46.Medina, Jr. v. People, 724 Phil. 226, 236 (2014).
47.People v. Inciong, 761 Phil. 561, 566 (2015), citing People v. Gonzales, 687 Phil. 556 (2012).
48.Id. at 566-567.
49.Rollo, pp. 9-10.
50.Id.
51. G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019.
52.Id.
53. Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
54.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 233104, 02 September 2020, citing People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173 (2018).
55.Rollo, p. 13.
56.Id.
57.Bug-atan v. People, 645 Phil. 103 (2010), citing People v. Reynes, 423 Phil. 363, 384 (2001). See People v. Galicia, 719 Phil. 337 (2013), citing People v. Dueno, 179 Phil. 14, 29 (1979).
58. Anti-Death Penalty Law, Republic Act No. 9346, 24 June 2006.
59.People v. Javelosa, G.R. No. 239777, 08 July 2020.
60.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
61. See Lim v. Tan, 801 Phil. 13 (2016).
62.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 227997, 16 October 2019.