People v. Ricaplaza y Abalde

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205151. September 16, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEMETRIO RICAPLAZA Y ABALDE, (DECEASED), RICO RICAPLAZA Y CANON AND EDDIE RICAPLAZA Y CANON, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 205151 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Demetrio Ricaplaza y Abalde, (deceased), Rico Ricaplaza y Canon and Eddie Ricaplaza y Canon, accused-appellants.

For resolution is the appeal filed by appellants Demetrio, Rico and Eddie, all surnamed Ricaplaza assailing the June 26, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03894 which affirmed in full the February 6, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 4 in Criminal Case No. 13135 finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

On September 9, 2003, an Information 3 was filed charging appellants with the crime of murder. The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows:

That on or about September 4, 2003 at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Sitio D'Hope, Brgy. Libjo, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a bolo (gulukan) and small knife (kutsilyo) both, deadly weapons, conspiring and confederating together, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab suddenly and without warning one Romeo Manalo y Bautista @ "Jape" with said deadly weapons while the latter was completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victim's death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.

The facts as summarized by the RTC are as follows:

It is borne out by both the evidence of the Prosecution and the defense that deceased Romeo was killed inside the fenced premises of the residence of accused Eddie and his wife Alma Ricaplaza where both accused Rico and Demetrio were at the time. Accused Rico Ricaplaza appears to have sustained stab wounds on his right forearm and hand at the time of the incident subject of this case as shown by defense Exhibit "1." Dr. Antonio Vertido, who testified on the autopsy of the cadaver of Romeo, found no abrasions, contusions or other injuries [on] the body and hands of Romeo at the time of the examination. These circumstances support and lend credence to the proposition and testimony of accused Rico and [his] sister-in-law[,] Alma, that on that fateful day of September 4, 2003 the deceased, Romeo[,] arrived in the house of the latter and stabbed Rico. Because of the shouts of Alma for Romeo to stop, Demetrio, father of Rico, was alerted and went out of the house and seeing that his son[,] Rico[,] was bloodied, stabbed Romeo three (3) times (stab wound #1, 3 & 4). However, the ensuing facts and the participation of the three (3) accused in the stabbing incident which caused the death of Romeo, which qualified the crime to murder, [have] been clearly and convincingly testified to by Gilbert Tupas who was an eyewitness to the incident. The testimony of prosecution witness[,] Gilbert Tupas[,] also revealed the identity of the person of accused Rico who inflicted the other stab wound (#2) on the stomach of Romeo. Gilbert's testimony on this aspect, supports the findings of Dr. Antonio Vertido that by reason of the size and depth of stab wound #2, two (2) bladed weapons were used by two (2) assailants in stabbing Romeo. This finding of Dr. Vertido, is further reinforced by the testimony of Gilbert Tupas that he saw Rico also stabbing Romeo. The testimony of Gilbert Tupas as well as the medical findings on the injuries/stab wounds inflicted on Romeo further debunks and completely demolished the declaration of self-defense by Rico, for if it was true that Romeo had initially stabbed him, Rico must have been able to wrestle the knife from Romeo thereby ending the unlawful aggression to his (Rico) person, by Romeo, as he was seen together with his father Demetrio stabbing Romeo while his brother Eddie was holding the right arm of Romeo. Further, the testimony of Alma and Rico that Romeo was drunk at the time is not supported or corroborated by the autopsy report on Romeo's cadaver. CAIHTE

The defense of denial and alibi of Eddie is inherently a weak defense as it is not enough for Eddie to prove that he was inside his room when the killing of Romeo was committed. Eddie must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. 5

Finding the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength to have attended the killing, the trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Rico, Demetrio and Eddie, all surnamed Ricaplaza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct participation, of the crime of MURDER under Article 248 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, with one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The period of the preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be credited in the service of their sentence.

Accused Rico, Demetrio and Eddie, all surnamed Ricaplaza are all ordered to jointly pay the heirs of Romeo Manalo y Bautista the sums of P17,912.00 [as] actual damages; P75,000.00 [as] civil indemnity for the death of Romeo Manalo; P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Let a Commitment Order issue for the transfer of the detention of the accused from the Batangas City Jail to the National Bilibid Prisons at Muntinlupa, [Metro] Manila.

SO ORDERED. 6

In their Brief filed before the CA, appellants claimed that no credence should be accorded to the testimony of prosecution witness Gilbert Tupaz (Tupaz). 7 They argued that he gave conflicting and inconsistent testimonies on how Rico sustained injuries on his arm. At first, he disclaimed knowledge as to how Rico's arm was injured; he also stated that he did not witness the onset of the fight. Eventually, however, Tupaz testified that Rico's arm was injured while he and the victim were grappling for possession of the knife. Appellants also asserted that Tupaz's testimony that Demetrio voluntarily surrendered possession of the knife to the police officer was contrary to the police officer's assertion that he confiscated the knife from Demetrio when the latter was bodily frisked. Finally, they contended that Tupaz's narration that he saw Eddie holding the victim's hands while Demetrio and Rico took turns in stabbing the victim, was belied by the physical evidence. They also found improbable Tupaz's version that when he told the protagonists to stop, they just left without protest. According to appellants, these inconsistencies and improbabilities simply show that Tupaz was not at the crime scene and did not in fact witness how the crime was committed.

Appellants also assailed the trial court in not giving credence to the testimony of Eddie that he did not join in the fight, that he just stayed inside the house, and that he was totally unaware of what was happening outside. Moreover, they asserted that Demetrio merely acted in self-defense. They claimed that the victim continued to advance towards Demetrio despite the latter's attempts to parry the blows. Demetrio was constrained to attack the victim only when the former had no more space to retreat and when he saw his son, Rico, already bloodied. Appellants complained that the trial court did not discuss how they supposedly abused their superior strength.

Finally, appellants averred that their arrest was illegal. There was no warrant; neither did the police officer who arrested them have any personal knowledge that a crime was committed or is being committed in his presence.

In its assailed Decision, the CA found the inconsistencies in Tupaz's testimony to be negligible and did not affect its veracity and truthfulness. What is important is that he positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. It did not lend credence to Eddie's alibi as it was not shown that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. On the contrary, it was shown that he was in the vicinity. The CA also found implausible Rico's and Demetrio's assertion of self-defense. It noted that appellants' "claim of self-defense, coupled with the fact that they did not sustain any injuries from their supposed attacker, Romeo, [was self-serving]. . . . [T]here was no clear, credible, and convincing evidence that Romeo was the one who instigated the fight and that [appellants] were merely fending off an attack." 8 Finally, the CA concurred in the finding of the RTC that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. It held that the victim, "while being restrained by Eddie, was simultaneously stabbed by Rico and Demetrio. Plainly, not only did the perpetrators outnumber their victim, more importantly, they took advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime. Under these circumstances, it is undeniable that there was gross inequality of forces between the victim and the [appellants]." 9

Finally, it held that appellants could no longer assail the legality of their arrest considering that they were properly arraigned, had actively participated in the trial and that the trial court had already rendered judgment.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4 dated February 6, 2009 is AFFIRMED.

Costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED. 10

Hence, this appeal.

In a letter 11 dated July 13, 2012, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) informed the CA that appellant Demetrio died at the NBP Hospital on July 26, 2010. Attached to the letter is a certified true copy of Demetrio's death certificate. 12 DETACa

In a Resolution 13 dated March 4, 2013, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People, deemed it unnecessary to file a supplemental brief considering that it already exhaustively discussed the issues in the brief it filed before the CA. 14 Meanwhile, the defense filed a Manifestation with Motion 15 praying that the instant appeal be deemed closed and terminated insofar as Demetrio is concerned in view of his demise pending appeal.

Appellants also filed a Supplemental Brief. 16 They insist that the inconsistencies in the testimony of Tupaz are material and should not have been ignored by the CA. They also assail the finding of the appellate court that there was abuse of superior strength.

The appeal lacks merit.

Indeed, as correctly held by the CA, the inconsistencies in the testimony of Tupaz referred to minor details. It did not in any manner detract from the fact that Tupaz positively identified the appellants as the authors of the crime. He categorically testified that he saw Eddie holding the victim thereby restraining his movements while Demetrio and Rico simultaneously delivered the fatal blows. As to whether Demetrio voluntarily surrendered his weapon or whether the same was confiscated by the police officer, the same will not alter the material fact that appellants stabbed the victim. Likewise, any alleged inconsistency as to how Rico's arm was injured would not change the outcome of this case. The fact remains that the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellants were the ones who stabbed and killed the victim. Moreover, it must be stressed that by claiming self-defense, the burden rests upon appellants to show that the killing was justified. As correctly observed by the RTC and the CA, appellants miserably failed to prove that the victim was the unlawful aggressor. Their self-serving testimonies are not only unsubstantiated and bereft of any corroboration, but also belied by the physical evidence. They also failed to prove the reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent the alleged attack coming from the victim. In fact, physical evidence showed that the victim suffered mortal wounds — thus:

Testifying on the anatomical sketch, Dr. Vertido testified that all the four (4) stab wounds sustained by Romeo were fatal. Stab wound (1) which damaged the aorta of the heart is located at the right anterior chest of the victim; stab wound (2), which damaged the intestines, is located at the right abdominal wall of the stomach of Romeo; stab wound (3), which also perforated the intestines and liver, is located at the left abdominal wall of Romeo's stomach; and stab wound (4), which perforated the right lobe of the lungs, is located at the back of Romeo. Dr. Vertido further testified that all the stab wounds were caused by a sharp single bladed weapon. Dr. Vertido, however, qualified that by reason of the nature, size and depth of wound No. (2) which greatly differs from wounds no. (1) (3) and (4), another sharp bladed instrument was used that caused stab wound no. (2) and he thus opined that there were two (2) assailants using two (2) bladed instruments that caused these stab wounds. Furthermore, no other injuries, abrasion and/or contusions, were found by Dr. Vertido, on the body and hands of [the victim]. 17 HEITAD

Both the trial court and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellants. The award of actual damages in the amount of P17,912.00 is also proper as this is the amount supported by receipts. 18 Also, both courts correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00. However, the awards of moral damages and exemplary damages must each be increased from P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, all damages awarded shall earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

As regards appellant Demetrio, his criminal liability was totally extinguished by virtue of his death before final judgment.

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides:

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;

xxx xxx xxx

In People v. Broca, 19 citing People v. Bayotas, 20 the implications of appellant's demise prior to final judgment was explained, thus:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, 'the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.'

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:

a) Law

b) Contracts

c) Quasi-contracts

d) . . .

e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, . . . an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. (Citations omitted.)

Given the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case.

Given the foregoing, Crim. Case No. 13135 should be dismissed insofar as Demetrio is concerned.

WHEREFORE, the assailed June 26, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03894 is AFFIRMED insofar as appellants Rico Ricaplaza y Canon and Eddie Ricaplaza y Canon are concerned with MODIFICATIONS that the awards of moral damages and exemplary damages are each increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. Criminal Case No. 13135 is DISMISSED insofar as appellant Demetrio Ricaplaza y Abalde is concerned on account of his death. (Perez, J., designated additional member in view of the leave of absence of Brion, J., per Special Order No. 2191 dated September 16, 2015; Mendoza, J., recused himself from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Villarama, Jr., J., designated additional member per Raffle dated September 9, 2015.) ATICcS

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 79-91; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Samuel H. Gaerlan.

2. Records, pp. 200-207; penned by Judge Albert A. Kalalo.

3. Id. at 1.

4. Id.

5. Id. at 204-205.

6. Id. at 206.

7. Also spelled as Tupas in some parts of the records.

8. CA rollo, p. 88.

9. Id. at 89-90.

10. Id. at 90.

11. Id. at 96.

12. Id. at 97.

13. Rollo, pp. 20-21.

14. Id. at 22-24.

15. Id. at 24-25.

16. Id. at 35-40.

17. Records, p. 203.

18. Id.

19. G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 369, 374-376.

20. G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255-256.