People v. Pastoril y Polego

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206413. November 20, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARLON PASTORIL Y POLEGO A.K.A. WILMAR BAYANA Y NACAR, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206413 (People of the Philippines v. Marlon Pastoril y Polego a.k.a. Wilmar Bayana y Nacar)

This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Twelfth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04042, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated July 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 14, in Criminal Case No. 07-252051, which found Marlon Pastoril y Polego a.k.a. Wilmar Bayana y Nacar (accused-appellant) guilty of the crime of murder, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua each for the death of the victims, and to pay damages to their heirs.

Procedural and Factual Antecedents

In an amended Information, 3 accused-appellant together with 7 other John Does who are still at large were charged of multiple murder with frustrated murder and attempted murder. The accusatory portion of which reads as follows: ETHIDa

That sometime on the 15th, day of November 2005 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, at the National Highway, at the abandoned check point, Purok Kalubihan, Tiguma, Pagadian City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above named accused Marlon Pastoril y Polego together with SEVEN (7) other John Does who are still at large and whose true names, identities and whereabouts are yet to be fully determined, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent to kill, assault, attack and ambush the Isuzu Highlander vehicle ridden by Sultan Abdul Marcaban and his back-up escort vehicle patrol 117, by then and there firing and spraying bullets at them with the use of high powered firearm such as M14 and M16 automatic rifles, the said accused with intention of killing the persons riding therein employees (sic) ways and means which tend to directly insure its execution without risk on their part and without giving the victims the chance to defend themselves, as a result of which the following died of gunshot wounds:

1. Sultan Abdul Marcaban

2. Basmar Marcaban

3. Melo Bulawin

4. CPL Elvin Mendez

5. CPL Regie Pedraverde

6. SGT. Silvestre T. Tapocol

and the wounding of Tsgt Christopher G. Bais who suffered gunshot injuries which would ordinarily result to his death, thus performing all acts of execution which would have produced murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it in view of the timely medical assistance rendered to him; and likewise causing injuries to Safaron L. Donde who sustained non-fatal gunshot wounds.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and treachery and the ordinary aggravating circumstance of (sic) committed by a band, and the use of an unlicensed firearm.

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. Trial ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

On November 15, 2005, at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon, Sultan Abdul Marcaban (Marcaban) and his seven security escorts boarded an Isuzu Highlander and a multicab at the Pagadian City Legislative Office. Before they reached the police checkpoint, eight armed men on board the L-300 van, fired at their Isuzu Highlander and multicab. Security escorts of Marcaban, namely Safaron Donde (Donde) and Christopher G. Bais (Bais) were able to jump from the multicab and fired back at their assailants. When Bais and Donde ran out of bullets, they hid behind some plants. While Donde was hiding, he saw their assailants, one of which is herein accused-appellant. Donde witnessed the whole shooting incident. Bais, on the other hand, managed to shoot accused-appellant at the lower portion of his back. Accused-appellant, together with his companions fled and escaped. 4

On November 16, 2005, the Chief of Police of Pagadian City requested Donde to accompany them to Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City for the purpose of identifying an injured man confined therein. Donde recognized that the injured man was one of their assailants, which is the accused-appellants. 5

On November 17, 2005, Ronnie Enderes, a news reporter of ABS-CBN-Iligan City testified that he interviewed accused-appellant. Accused-appellant admitted that he was with the group that ambushed Marcaban, and that he was confined because he was hit during the incident. The interview was recorded and aired on the local news. 6

On November 21, 2005, Wilfredo Castillo III (Castillo), Special Investigator of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) went to the Mercy Community Hospital to get accused-appellant's statement. Castillo informed accused-appellant of his constitutional rights in Cebuano dialect, the language spoken by accused-appellant. Castillo even asked accused-appellant if he wanted to avail the services of a counsel of his choice, but accused-appellant replied in the negative. Castillo provided accused-appellant a lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) of Pagadian City, Atty. Edgar Bongalos (Atty. Bongalos). After sometime, accused-appellant with the assistance of Atty. Bongalos confessed that he was one of those who ambushed Marcaban and his security escorts. Accused-appellant's sister was also present during the confession and likewise recorded in the video. 7

Evidence for the Defense

On November 15, 2005, at around 9 o'clock in the morning, accused-appellant was in Pagadian City waiting for a bus as he planned to visit his sister. At the bus, he inquired from a certain man the direction of his sister's address written on a piece of paper. Suddenly, he heard gunshots but did not know where the gunshots came from. The next thing he knew, he was brought to the Mercy Community Hospital. After his operation, the police officers told him that since he sustained a gunshot wound, it is possible that he was part of the group responsible in the ambush. Thereafter, the police officers made him sign a piece of paper with the contents written in English. Accused-appellant could not understand the same since he only reached grade IV. The police officers assured him that no problem will arise later on. 8

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC in a Decision dated July 6, 2009, found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the deaths of Sultan, Elvin Mendez and Regie Pedraverde. For frustrated murder of Bais the accused-appellant was acquitted for failure to prove the same. The RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua each for the death of the victims, and to pay damages to their heirs. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision provides: cSEDTC

Premises considered, the Court is morally convinced that the Prosecution by its evidence established the guilt of the accused Marlon Pastoril y Polego a.k.a. Wilmar Bayana Nacar beyond reasonable, doubt for the crime of murder charged against him and he is imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua each for the death of the Sultan, Elvin Mendez and Regie Pedraverde. He is likewise ordered to pay:

1. The heirs of Sultan Abdul Marcaban

a. Php209,116 for actual damages;

b. Php50,000 as civil indemnity;

c. Php150,000 as moral damages;

d. Php25,000 as exemplary damages;

2. The heirs of Elvin A. Mendez

a. Php25,000 for actual damages;

b. Php50,000 as civil indemnity;

c. Php150,000 as moral damages;

d. Php25,000 as exemplary damages;

3. The heirs of Regie Pedraverde

a. Php25,000 for actual damages;

b. Php50,000 as civil indemnity;

c. Php150,000 as moral damages;

d. Php25,000 as exemplary damages;

The period of the accused's preventive imprisonment shall be credited in full in his favor.

SO ORDERED. 9

Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)

The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction in its Decision dated September 17, 2012. The fallo of the CA decision provides:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment dated 6 July 2009 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 14, in Criminal Case No. 07-252051 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.10

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Accused-appellant assails the validity of his extrajudicial confession. He claims that he did not understand the document which the police officers made him sign. Further, the police officers failed to provide him with a lawyer to assist him. Accused-appellant argues that the lower court and the appellate court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

This Court's Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

There is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's factual finding that the accused-appellant is guilty of murder. The issues raised are factual in nature. The trial court's evaluation shall be binding on this Court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 11 None of the exceptions are present in this case.

Even if We consider the factual issues raised, the RTC and the CA correctly ruled that the requisites for admissibility of extrajudicial confession are present in this case.

Extrajudicial confessions to be acceptable, must conform to constitutional requirements. Section 12, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution mandate that:

SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 12

As we held in the case of People v. Herminiano Satorre @ Emiano Satorre, 13

The rationale for the admissibility of a confession is that if it is made freely and voluntarily, a confession constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.

Accordingly, the basic test for the validity of a confession is — was it voluntarily and freely made. The term voluntary means that the accused speaks of his free will and accord, without inducement of any kind, and with a full and complete knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession, and when the speaking is so free from influences affecting the will of the accused, at the time the confession was made, that it renders it admissible in evidence against him. Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in evidence hinges on its voluntariness. 14

As correctly pointed out by the CA, accused-appellant was informed of his constitutional rights in Cebuano, the dialect known to him in the presence of Atty. Bongalos and his sister. Atty. Bongalos conferred with accused-appellant to ascertain the voluntariness of his confession and made sure that no force or duress was employed by the police officers in admitting the crime charged. Atty. Bongalos also explained the consequences of his admission and the same will be used against him in court. Also, the prosecution presented in court a video recording which showed accused-appellant's discussion with Atty. Bongalos minutes before his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution further presented the video recording of accused-appellant wherein he admitted that he was with the group that ambushed Marcaban, interviewed by Ronnie Enderes, a news reporter of ABS-CBN-Iligan City.

It is settled in this jurisdiction in People v. Jesus Burce,15 that

On the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth. Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed. 16

Furthermore, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies. As aptly cited in the case of People v. Chris Corpuz y Basbas,17

Well entrenched is the rule that the defense of denial can easily be overcome by a positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. It is self-serving deserving no weight in law. Alibi, on the other hand, is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated. For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locuscriminis at the time of its commission. 18

Thus, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the appellate court on the conviction of accused-appellant of the crime of murder for the deaths of the victims, Sultan, Elvin Mendez and Regie Pedraverde as they were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record. AaCTcI

The CA properly imposed the penalty of reclusionperpetua in conformity with Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the felony of murder. As to the damages awarded to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence, We deem it proper to modify the award of damages as follows: PhP75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000 as moral damages, and PhP75,000 as exemplary damages. 19

Finally, all damages-awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. 20

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04042, finding accused-appellant, Marlon Pastoril y Polego a.k.a. Wilmar Bayana y Nacar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victims, the amount of PhP75,000 as civil indemnity; PhP75,000 as moral damages; PhP75,000 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

All other dispositions not otherwise modified STANDS.

(Jardeleza, J., no part due to his action as Solicitor General; Velasco, Jr., J., designated additional Member as per Raffle dated October 24, 2017).

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., Rollo, pp. 2-20.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, CA Rollo, pp. 103-132.

3.Id. at 23-24.

4.Rollo, p. 158.

5.Id. at 159.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 160.

8.Id. at 44.

9.Id. at 51-52.

10.Rollo, pp. 19-20.

11.People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92, 98-99 (2010).

12.People v. Guting y Tomas, G.R. No. 205412, September 9, 2015, 770 SCRA 334, 340-341.

13. 456 Phil. 98 (2003).

14.Id. at 107.

15. 730 Phil. 576 (2014).

16.Id. at 586.

17. 714 Phil. 337 (2013).

18.Id. at 345-346.

19.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.

20.People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742, 747 (2014); citing People v. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 556 (2013).