FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248425. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MERVIN QUEZON y MANRIQUE, 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. 248425 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mervin Quezon y Manrique, Accused-Appellant.) — For the Court's resolution is an appeal of the Decision 1 dated 15 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10881. The assailed Decision affirmed the conviction of Mervin Quezon y Manrique (Quezon) for murder as decreed in the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 05 December 2017 rendered in Criminal Case No. 13-46335. HTcADC
Antecedents
On 03 May 2013, an Information was filed accusing Quezon of murdering Rolly Castañeda (Castañeda). The indictment reads:
That on or about the 30th day of April 2013, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one ROLLY [CASTAÑEDA] y QUEZON, thereby inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds on his neck and head, which directly caused his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
During his arraignment, Quezon pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 4
The CA summarized the prosecution's version of the facts as follows:
Emily S. Castañeda, the surviving spouse of victim Rolly Castañeda y Quezon, testified that at around 9:30 in the evening of April 30, 2013, she, together with her deceased husband and children, was at their residence at Sitio Mabolo, Brgy. Mambugan, Antipolo City. At that time, while she was at the top rung of the staircase, she called for her husband, who was downstairs, for him to come up. While her husband was sitting in a crouched position on the first rung of the stairs, appellant, who is her husband's first cousin, came out of nowhere holding two (2) knives and suddenly inflicted multiple stabs wounds on her husband's neck. Seeing a lot of blood squirting from the neck of her husband, she continuously screamed prompting appellant to let go of her husband until he passed out and fell on the ground. At that instant, her brother-in-law Adrian Castañeda, rushed to the crime scene and brought her husband to the Salvie Regina General Hospital where the latter expired. She further testified that her family incurred funeral and burial expenses in the total amount of P84,993.00.
Arminda Toledo (Toledo), a neighbor, testified that at the time of the incident, she went out to buy charcoal at a store. She saw appellant, who was shirtless and grasping two (2) kitchen knives, jump over from a window and suddenly stabbed the victim in the neck while the latter was sitting on the lower step of the stairs. The victim's spouse, Emily S. Castañeda, also witnessed the stabbing incident from the upper portion of the staircase.
PO2 Roy Macuto testified that after he and his fellow police officers received a report regarding the stabbing incident, they immediately proceeded to the crime scene. There was blood near the crime scene but they were not able to recover the weapon used in the stabbing. They then looked for appellant around the neighborhood but to no avail. The next day, while Toledo was narrating the stabbing incident which she witnessed to the police investigator, appellant arrived at the police station to voluntarily surrender. Upon seeing appellant, Toledo instantly pinpointed to him saying, "Iyan sir ang sumaksak kay Rolly." Right there and then, PO1 Eric Donald Tesorio apprehended appellant, informed him of the nature of the charges against him and read to him his constitutional rights.
Police Superintendent Felimon Porciuncula, Jr. of the PNP Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office testified that he conducted a post-mortem examination on the victim's body. According to the first anatomical sketch that he prepared, the victim sustained one (1) stab wound on the posterior portion of the head; two (2) stab wounds on the top portion of the head thru and thru; three (3) stab wounds below the right ear; and five (5) stab wounds on the left ear. On the basis of the second anatomical sketch, the victim sustained two (2) stab wounds on the left lateral neck; two (2) incised wounds on the abdomen, one (1) incised wound on the right thigh, one (1) abrasion on the dorsum of the right hand, and one (1) stab wound on the left arm, thru and thru. He opined that the victim has no defense wounds and that it is possible that more than one bladed weapon was used by the assailant considering the varying sizes of the stab wounds. P/Supt. Porciuncula, Jr. confirmed that the cause of death of the victim as indicated in the Medico-Legal Report No. A13-165-RIZ dated May 3, 2013 was "multiple stab wounds, head and neck." 5
For his defense, Quezon presented himself as his lone witness and invoked self-defense. He testified:
Appellant invoked self-defense. He testified that at around 9:30 p.m. of April 30, 2013, he was sitting on the window of their house when a certain Nunoy invited him for a drinking session but he declined. As Nunoy started drinking, his brother-in-law Adrian Castañeda @ "Buboy'' arrived and grabbed the bottle of alcohol and threw invectives at Nunoy. Appellant told Nunoy to just settle the matter with Buboy. After appellant dropped off Nunoy in the latter's house, appellant was suddenly punched from behind by Buboy, who, at the same time hurled offensive language at him and even threatened to kill him, in front of so many people. Appellant fought back and a fight ensued between them. Afterwards, the victim Rolly Castañeda who is Buboy's brother, suddenly appeared. The victim was armed with a knife and joined Buboy in beating up appellant. During the brawl, appellant was able to wrest the knife from victim whom appellant thereafter admittedly stabbed several times. 6 aScITE
After trial, the RTC found Quezon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. 7 The dispositive portion of the RTC's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, MERVIN QUEZON y MANRIQUE is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Furthermore, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, accused MERVIN QUEZON y MANRIQUE is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Rolly Castañeda y Quezon, the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; (b) P50,000 as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by the family; (c) P84,000.00 as actual damages; and (d) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 8
On appeal, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction, disposing of the same in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated December 5, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 97, Antipolo City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Mervin Quezon y Manrique is hereby further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Rolly Castañeda y Quezon the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P84,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages plus 6% thereon from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 9
The appellate court explained that by invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence shifted to Quezon. However, his only proof that he acted in self-defense was his self-serving testimony without any corroborating evidence. Quezon's version that the victim is the aggressor and that he was merely defending himself is belied by the number and location of the wounds of the victim. The nature and number of wounds sustained by the victim reveal that the attack done by Quezon was no longer an act of self-defense but motivated by clear homicidal intent.
Through the testimony of its witness, the prosecution was also able to show that the attack on the victim was sudden that he was not able to put up any defense. The CA also held that the trial correctly gave full credence to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Anent the alleged inconsistencies in these witnesses' testimonies, the CA found them to be frivolous, trivial, irrelevant and have nothing to do with the essential elements of the crime charged. As such, these inconsistencies are insufficient to support a conviction. 10
The CA also held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed in accordance with Article 248 in relation to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), even after considering the justifying circumstance of voluntary surrender. 11 As regards, the damages awarded to the heirs of the victim, the CA sustained the award of actual damages in the amount of P84,000.00 for having been substantiated by receipts. 12 However, the CA increased the awards of moral and exemplary damages from P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, to P75,000.00 13 in conformity with the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 14
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The Court is confronted with the task of determining whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Quezon's guilt for murder.
Ruling of the Court
We sustain Quezon's conviction.
Under Article 248 of the RPC, 15 as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659, 16 murder is committed when the following elements concur: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed said person; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 17
Here, Castañeda's death was established by his certificate of death that the prosecution presented as evidence. 18 Quezon's relationship with the victim was established by the testimony of the victim's wife, Emily Castañeda (Emily), that Quezon was the victim's first cousin. 19 Hence, parricide was correctly ruled out.
We also agree that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated. 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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 20 Here, Toledo, a witness for the prosecution, testified that she saw Quezon, while holding two kitchen knives, jump over from a window and suddenly stabbed the victim in the neck while the latter was sitting on the lower step of the stairs. 21 Thus, the CA was correct when it ruled:
x x x Here, the records show that appellant came out of nowhere, armed with two (2) kitchen knives suddenly stabbed the victim several times on the neck and head while the latter was seated in a crouched position on the lower rung of the stairs. Such attack, even if it was frontal, gave the unsuspecting victim no chance at all to resist or escape. There was no risk posed to appellant. The victim was not even holding any weapon which could have helped in his defense. The strategy employed and the means used to accomplish the act ensured that the killing of the victim would be without risk to appellant. 22
The fact that the attack is frontal is inconsequential. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or herself or to retaliate. 23
Quezon's authorship of the crime is made trivial by his invocation of self-defense. It is settled that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove it by credible, clear and convincing evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. Self-defense cannot be appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. 24 Moreover, self-defense requires three elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 25 HEITAD
There is no proof that the victim was the unlawful aggressor. Unlike Quezon's uncorroborated claim that the victim attacked him, the prosecution presented two witnesses, Toledo and Emily, whose testimonies established that it was Quezon who attacked the victim. 26 The foregoing considered, Quezon's plea of self-defense must fail even without the Court looking into the other elements. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense; and if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other requisites will have no basis. 27
Anent the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly as regards the location of the stab wounds, the Court agrees with the CA that these relate to frivolous, trivial, irrelevant matters that have nothing to do with the essential elements of murder. As such, these could not warrant a reversal of a conviction. 28
Finally, the Court affirms the penalty imposed upon Quezon and the pecuniary benefits awarded by the CA for being in accord with the RPC and recent jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10881, finding accused-appellant Mervin Quezon y Manrique GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. The order for accused-appellant to pay the monetary awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P84,000.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment, in favor of the heirs of the victim Rolly Castañeda y Quezon, is likewise AFFIRMED.
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. 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2. CA rollo, pp. 62-78; penned by Judge Marie Claire Victoria Mabutassordan.
3.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id. at 5-6.
6.Id. at 6-7.
7.Id. at 7.
8. CA rollo, pp. 77-78.
9.Rollo, p. 18.
10.Id. at 10-17.
11.Id. at 17.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 18.
14. G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016.
15. Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
16. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes, approved on 13 December 1993.
17.People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 245306, 02 December 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].
18.See CA rollo, p. 8.
19.Rollo, p. 5.
20.People v. Masilang, G.R. No. 246466, 26 January 2021 [Per C.J. Peralta].
21.Rollo, p. 5.
22.Id. at 17.
23.People v. Ivero, G.R. No. 236301, 03 November 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].
24.People v. Rebato, G.R. No. 242883, 03 September 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].
25.People v. Archivido, G.R. No. 233085, 21 September 2020 [Per J. Gaerlan].
26.Rollo, p. 5.
27.Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, 17 February 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].
28.People v. Lita, G.R. No. 227755, 14 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].