FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205375. May 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAFFY PAJANUSTAN y DAGUISO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205375 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RAFFY PAJANUSTAN y DAGUISO, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal from the May 29, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04772, which affirmed with modification the September 16, 2010 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal, convicting accused-appellant Raffy Pajanustan y Daguiso (appellant) of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 8654 and attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 8655.
The Facts
Two criminal Informations were filed before the RTC, charging appellant with murder and frustrated murder, which reads as follows:
Criminal Case No. 8654
That on or about the 1st day of December 2004 in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the [use] of bladed weapon, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and by means of qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, aggravated by the circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack one Jernanico D. Pajanustan, thereby inflicting upon the latter several stab wounds on the chest, which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 8655
That on or about the 1st day of December 2004 in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and by means of qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation and aggravated by the circumstances of nighttime and dwelling and with the use of bladed weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with said bladed weapon one Paulina Pajanustan y Alisna, hitting her on the different parts of her body, thereby inflicting several stab wounds, which ordinarily would have caused her death, thus, performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder as a consequence but which nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is by timely medical assistance rendered unto Paulina Pajanustan y Alisna, which prevented her death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. After which, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witness Paulina Pajanustan (Paulina), who testified on December 1, 2004, she and her husband were at home together with appellant, who was her brother-in-law. Appellant was about to have a drinking spree with her husband. While cooking, Paulina was beside her husband who was preparing ''pulutan." When she turned her back, she saw appellant stabbed her husband in the chest. Her husband sustained two stab wounds causing him to fall and die. Paulina closed the door when appellant left the house. Soon after, appellant tried pushing the front door but could not open it, so he passed through the kitchen door by kicking it. Appellant then hacked Paulina who sustained wounds at her back, nape and fingers, and injured her thigh as well. At that moment, appellant's son arrived and pacified his father. Paulina stated that the reason appellant stabbed her husband was because the latter did not agree with the appellant's plan to rob a bank. She claimed that because of her injuries, she was hospitalized for about seven days. She further declared that she spent an estimated amount of P50,000.00 for the burial of her husband. 5
For his part, appellant stated that his real name is Santos Boyson Daguiso. He explained that when his parents separated, he was adopted by his uncle and was baptized using the surname Boyson. Pajanustan is the surname of his biological father. He testified that on December 1, 2004, at around 6:30 p.m., he was resting at home after arriving from work as a construction worker. He was at the second floor of their house when he heard Belly, his common-law wife, shouting for help. He went downstairs and saw Belly crying with her panties pulled down to her knees. Belly uttered, "Raffy, bakit ganun ang kapatid mo? Ang bastos." She was referring to the victim Germonico Pajanustan (Germonico). Appellant went to see his mother, who told him to report the incident to the barangay. On the way to the Barangay Hall to file a complaint against Germonico, he passed by Germonico's house. All of a sudden, Germonico jumped over him and attempted to hack him with a bolo. Thereafter, Paulina arrived and positioned herself between them. While appellant was evading the thrusts of Germonico, Paulina was hit in the process. He grappled for possession of the bolo with Germonico. As he pushed Germonico to free himself, the latter was hit with the sharp edge of the bolo. Appellant denied having a drinking spree with Germonico because he knew of his brother's bad temper when he gets drunk. Appellant also claimed that Germonico was a drug addict who killed their uncle. He further stated that he was hit on the left side of his chest and was brought to the Amang Rodriguez Hospital. 6
The RTC Ruling
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and attempted murder. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 8654, this Court finds accused RAFFY PAJANUSTAN y DAGUISO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime of Murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery and generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties under the law and is ordered to pay the heirs of Jernanico (Germonico) D. Pajanustan the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages and Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as nominal damages.
2) In Criminal Case No. 8655, this Court finds accused RAFFY PAJANUSTAN y DAGUISO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime of Attempted Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Eight (8) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10) years and Four (4) months prision mayor as maximum with all the accessory penalties under the law and is ordered to pay the victim hereof, Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as temperate damages, Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and likewise Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 7
The RTC was convinced with moral certainty that the prosecution sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found appellant's version highly improbable, being contrary to the ordinary course of things or human behavior. It pointed out that appellant's testimony was uncorroborated in material points, as compared to the categorical, positive, spontaneous and straightforward testimony of Paulina, the prosecution's principal witness. In Criminal Case No. 8654, the RTC held that the nature, number, and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove appellant's claim of self-defense. According to the RTC, the wounds inflicted by appellant on the victim as shown in the Autopsy Report indicated a determined effort on his part to kill and not merely defend himself.
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 8655 for frustrated murder, according to the Medico Legal Certificate (Exhibit B), the injuries sustained by the victim consisted of "Multiple hacking wound [sic] head, chest right, hand left." The location of the wounds as indicative of appellant's intent to kill her. However, the testimony of the Medico Legal Officer was dispensed with in view of the stipulation of the parties with respect to Exhibit B. The RTC concluded that there was no evidence presented to show that the wounds could have been fatal if not medically attended to, hence, the character of the wounds is doubtful. 8 Therefore, appellant was convicted for attempted murder, even though he was charged in the Information with frustrated murder. 9
On appeal, appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA Ruling
The CA promulgated a Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 8654 and 8655 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
1. In Criminal [C]ase No. 8654, appellant having found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Jernanico (Germonico) D. Pajanustan the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In Criminal [C]ase No. 8655, appellant having found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of ATTEMPTED MURDER is hereby adjudged to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Appellant is ordered to pay Paulina Pajanustan temperate damages of P6,000.00, moral damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of P10,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 10
In so ruling, the CA found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, which accorded great weight to trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witness. The trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of the witness, having heard and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The CA found nothing to indicate that the prosecution's principal witness was actuated by improper motive, thus, her testimony is entitled to full-faith and credit. 11
The CA however modified the award of damages consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. In Criminal Case No. 8655, the CA explained that under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for attempted murder is prision mayor. Taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. Thus, appellant's sentence imposed by the RTC was modified to imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. 12
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 13
The Issue
The main issue raised for the Court's resolution rests on whether or not the prosecution proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal must fail.
It must be noted at the outset that in criminal cases, the factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will evaluate the factual findings of the court below. 14 Guided by this principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, which were affirmed by the CA.
In an attempt to exonerate himself from the crime charged, appellant claims that he merely acted in self-defense. However, as pointed out by the CA, appellant's testimony does not coincide with the physical evidence on record. The postmortem findings showed the victim's injuries, to wit:
Incised Wounds: 4.0 cm., forearm, left, distal third; back; 1.0 cm., forearm, left, proximal third, anterior, 14.0 cm. forearm, left, middle distal third, left; 6.0 cm. supra-patellar area, right; 3.5 cm., left forefinger.
Hacked Wounds — 11.0 cm. x 8.0 cm., left and right parietal area.
Stab Wounds: all with clean-cut edges; with a sharp with a blunt extremity;
1.) 3.0 cm.; located at the anterior chest wall, left side; 2.5 cm. From the anterior median line; directed backward, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues, only.
2.) 3.0 cm., with tailing measuring 7.0 cm. located at the anterior chest wall; left side, 16.0 cm. From the anterior median line; directed backward; involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues.
3.) 8.0 cm. Located at the left anterior chest wall; 16.0 cm. from the anterior median line; directed backward medially, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues, then penetrating the lower lobe of the left lung with a depth of 13.0 cm.
4.) 5.5 cm.; with contused upper extremity; almost vertically oriented; located at the posterior lumbar area; left side; 5.0 cm. from the posterior median line; directed forward; involving the skin and underlying soft tissues; then into the perinephric tissues; with a depth of 8.0 cm.
5.) 5.0 cm., almost vertically oriented, located at the right hemiabdomen; 1.5 cm. from the anterior median line, directed backward downward medially; involving the skin and underlying soft tissues; then penetrating the liver, with a depth of 13.0 cm. 15
We do not see the credibility of appellant's theory of self-defense. Assuming that the victim was wounded because appellant pushed him to free himself from his violent attack, such incident would not result to multiple wounds which appear to have been inflicted on the different parts of the victim's body. The multiple injuries sustained by victim indicate that appellant's acts were not for the purpose of self-preservation, and thus, belie his claim of self-defense.
Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. 16
Likewise, there is no merit in appellant's contention that treachery was not established by the prosecution. 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. 17 In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. 18
These elements are extant in the facts of this case and as testified to by Paulina, her husband was absolutely unaware of appellant's intention to hurt him. The attack upon the person of the victim was unexpected and sudden that the latter was not able to evade the same. As found by the trial court, the victims were preparing food in the kitchen while appellant was in their house. No altercation had taken place among them, and they did not have the slightest suspicion of appellant's criminal act against them.
Furthermore, the trial court properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse superior strength. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime. 19 The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. 20 The Court has consistently held that the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present when a man, armed with a deadly weapon, attacks an unarmed and defenseless woman. In such case, the assailant clearly took advantage of the superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. 21
Following the jurisprudence laid down by the Court in People v. Jugueta, 22 appellant shall be held liable for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each for the crime of murder. Meanwhile, for attempted murder, the following amounts may be awarded: (1) P25,000.00, as civil indemnity; (2) P25,000.00, as moral damages; and (3) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The aforesaid amounts are proper in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 29, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04772, finding accused-appellant Raffy Pajanustan y Daguiso GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and attempted murder, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 8654, accused-appellant having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby ORDERED TO PAY the heirs of Jernanico (Germonico) D. Pajanustan the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. The award of exemplary damages is INCREASED to P75,000.00;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 8655, accused-appellant having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of ATTEMPTED MURDER is hereby adjudged to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is DIRECTED TO PAY Paulina Pajanustan P25,000.00, as civil indemnity; P25,000.00, as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of this Court) and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 63-80; rendered by Judge Lily Villareal Biton.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4-5; citing TSN dated April 22, 2008 and May 27, 2008.
6.Id. at 6-7; citing TSN dated February 23, 2010.
7.Id. at 8.
8.Id. at 25-26.
9. CA rollo, pp. 105-107.
10.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
11.Id. at 13.
12.Id. at 18.
13.Id. at 20.
14.People v. Palma, et al., 754 Phil. 371, 377 (2015).
15. CA rollo, pp. 72-73.
16.People v. Samson, 768 Phil. 487, 495-496 (2015).
17.People v. Las Piñas, et al., 739 Phil. 502, 524 (2014).
18.Id. at 524-525.
19.Espineli v. People, 735 Phil. 530, 544-545 (2014); People v. Quisayas, 731 Phil. 577, 596 (2014).
20.People v. Calpito, 462 Phil. 172, 179 (2003).
21.People v. Mat-an, G.R. No. 215720, February 21, 2018; citing People v. Appegu, 429 Phil. 467, 482 (2002); People v. Molas, 291-A Phil. 516, 525 (1993).
22.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).