SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205763. July 25, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO LOPEZ, RAMON ENSENIARES AND JESUS PANTAJO, accused,
JESUS PANTAJO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205763 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v.ROLANDO LOPEZ, RAMON ENSENIARES AND JESUS PANTAJO, accused, JESUS PANTAJO, accused-appellant). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused-appellant Jesus Pantajo (Pantajo) from the March 27, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 00150. The CA decision affirmed with modification the May 5, 2004 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, finding Pantajo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The Case
The information filed against Pantajo together with Rolando Lopez (Lopez) and Ramon Enseniares (Enseniares) states that "on or about the 13th day of September 1998, in the Municipality of Cauayan, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, the above-named accused, armed with assorted firearms, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation, treachery and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Lolito Calsada alias "Bebot" (Lolito), thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon him which caused his death." Pantajo pleaded not guilty to the charge during his arraignment. On the other hand, Lopez and Enseniares remain at large.
During trial, the prosecution presented Nenita Calsada (Nenita), Teresa Tanaya (Teresa) and Briccio Calsada (Briccio) as witnesses.
Nenita and Teresa testified that on September 13, 1998, at around 7:00 A.M., they were at about twenty-arms-length away from the scene of the crime when Pantajo, Lopez, and Enseniares approached them and asked where Lolito was. Thereafter, they saw (1) Lopez shoot Lolito at his shoulder; (2) Enseniares and Pantajo also shoot the victim at his back; and (3) all three of them hastily leave the scene the moment the victim died.
Briccio testified that he encountered the accused, all armed, who asked him where they could find Vicente Pasignahin (Enting) and his son, Lolito. At Briccio's response, the trio told him, "we will do it in a fun way," and Lopez thereafter said, "Maninoy, don't go back because if you do, you will also be killed." cTDaEH
In his defense, Pantajo denied the accusation against him and invoked the defense of alibi. He contends that on September 13, 1998, he was at Barangay Tambad, Cauayan, Negros Occidental, threshing palay with Jose Magullado who was also presented as witness.
In its May 5, 2004 decision, the RTC convicted Pantajo of the crime of murder for the death of Lolito. The trial court ruled that all three accused conspired with one another in killing Lolito and that treachery attended his killing. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as it found no ill motive on their part to falsely testify against Pantajo. It disregarded Pantajo's denial and alibi in the light of the witnesses' positive identification. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Pantajo to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the victim's heirs the amounts of P50,000.00 for moral damages and P50,000.00 for civil indemnity.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision and added the award of P25,000.00 in temperate damages and P25,000.00 in exemplary damages. The CA held that the testimonies of the witnesses were clear and convincing and entitled to full faith and credence as they had no imputed ill motive that would make them testify falsely against Pantajo.
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we DENY the present appeal.
The elements of the crime of murder are the following: (1) that the person was killed; (2) that the accused killed the person; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 3 The prosecution in this case was able to clearly establish that Lolito was killed and that Pantajo was one of his assailants.
We generally do not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, especially when, as in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the CA. No evidence was establish that the witnesses harbored any ill will against Pantajo. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the witnesses were untainted by bias and thus worthy of belief and credence. 4
In the present case, all three prosecution witnesses positively identified Lopez, Enseniares, and Pantajo as the persons who shot Lolito. We see no reason to disbelieve the witnesses' testimonies as they all have claimed to know the accused very well. Under these circumstances, their version of the story deserves greater credibility; aside from their familiarity with both the victim and the accused, the locus criminis gave them good visibility, thus rendering their stories highly credible. 5
We likewise agree with the lower courts that Lolito's killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery is defined as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) the victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
The shooting happened at 7:00 A.M. when Lolito was at the door of their store feeding his child. All the accused, suddenly broke into the store and started shooting at him. Lolito had no opportunity under this situation to defend himself; he was unprepared and unaware of the imminent peril upon his life. Otherwise, he could have retreated immediately when he saw the three approaching the store. Moreover, Lolito incurred at least fifteen (15) gunshot wounds at his right shoulder and back, indicating the suddenness and tenacity of the attack made and showing how a defense had been rendered impossible.
The circumstances leading to the death of Lolito further clearly and convincingly establish that a conspiracy existed. Conspiracy exists if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. 6 It is not necessary to prove a previous agreement to commit a crime if there is proof that the malefactors have acted in concert to achieve their common objective. Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy since it is, by its nature, often planned in utmost secrecy and which can seldom be proved by direct evidence. 7
The conclusion that there was conspiracy can be drawn from the following circumstances: (1) Briccio heard the accused blurt out remarks such as "[w]e will do it with fun" and "[d]o not come back or else you will also be killed"; and (2) the accused immediately left together after realizing that the victim was already dead.
We also find no merit in Pantajo's defense of alibi. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses because it is easy to fabricate and must be supported by the strongest available evidence to enable it to surmount this inherent characteristic. Thus, as a rule, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. 8 Moreover, assuming that Pantajo was somewhere else during the incident, this fact cannot merit him an acquittal because he was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene that same day. cSaATC
Finally, the lower court correctly awarded the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence on murder cases when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only. 9 However, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the awarded civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and the exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. 10 We also impose a 6% interest on all the monetary awards for damages to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 27, 2012, in CA-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 00150 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) the amount of the awarded civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; (b) the exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00; (c) Pantajo is further ordered to pay the victim's heirs interest on the monetary awards at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Associate Justice Abraham B. Borreta; rollo pp. 4-23.
2. Penned by Judge Henry D. Arles; CA rollo pp. 25-32.
3. People v. Sameniano, G.R. No. 183703, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 840, 850.
4. People v. Manulit, G.R. No. 192581, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 426, 437.
5. People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 270, 278.
6. Asetre v. Asetre, G.R. No. 171536, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 471, 486-487.
7. Kingstone Li Y Nunez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127962, April 14, 2004; citing People v. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703, 722 (1968).
8. People v. Palomar, 343 Phil. 628, 630 (1997).
9. People of the Philippines v. Larry Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22, 2011, 655 SCRA 720, 721.
10. People v. Micmic, G.R. No. 206971, March 16, 2015, sc.judiciary.gov.ph.