SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253661. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOVENCIO ROLLAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253661 (People of the Philippines v. Jovencio Rollan). — On appeal is the December 11, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10320 which affirmed the September 10, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81 of Romblon, Romblon in Criminal Case No. 3420 finding accused-appellant Jovencio Rollan (Rollan) guilty of the crime of Murder as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Rollan was indicted for Murder in an Information 3 dated July 2, 2014 which reads:
That on or about the 20th day of March 2014, at around 09:30 o'clock in the evening, at Sitio Too, Barangay Lumbang Weste, Municipality of Cajidiocan, Province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sho[o]t with a fire arm and hack [s]everal times with a sharp bladed weapon one EFREN R. REAÑO, inflicting upon the latter critical wounds in different parts of his body which caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Rollan pleaded not guilty to the offense charged during his arraignment. 5 Trial on the merits then ensued.
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On March 20, 2014, around 8 o'clock in the evening, Efren Reaño (Reaño), 6 Ignacio Repizo (Repizo) 7 and Wilson Rovira (Rovira) were having a drinking spree at the terrace of Dolores Racho's house in Brgy. Lumbang Weste, Cajidiocan, Romblon. At around 9:30 in the evening, they heard a firing of a gunshot which hit Reaño in the neck. Rollan, who was armed with a gun, suddenly appeared, went to the terrace, and repeatedly hacked Reaño. He then casually walked away from the crime scene leaving the victim severely wounded. Reaño died instantaneously from the wounds inflicted.
Repizo was stunned and was unable to run because of what he just witnessed. Rovira, on the other hand, ran to their house fearing for his life.
The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Claire P. Forteza showed that Reaño sustained a gunshot wound in his anterior neck which caused his death. He likewise suffered multiple hack wounds in the upper portion of his back.
Rollan denied killing Reaño. He averred that on the night of the incident, he was fishing with his wife at Mandaon, Masbate where he stayed from March 1, 2014 to July 2014. Rollan admitted that he knew Reaño but he never talked to or had a fight with him. He also claimed that he was not harboring any ill feeling against the victim. SDHTEC
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its September 10, 2017 Decision, 8 the RTC convicted Rollan of the crime of Murder, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused JOVENCIO R. ROLLAN is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the Heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as actual damages.
SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of Repizo and Rovira who witnessed the killing of Reaño and positively identified Rollan as the perpetrator of the crime. Such positive identification cannot outweigh the defense of alibi proffered by Rollan.
The trial court further found the presence of treachery to have qualified the crime to Murder. Reaño had no inkling of the impending attack against him by Rollan. The attack was so sudden that the victim was unable to defend himself.
Anent the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the trial court opined that it cannot be appreciated because the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the same.
Aggrieved, Rollan appealed before the CA insisting on his innocence. 10 He averred that his identity as Reaño's assailant was not duly established. Repizo and Rovira did not actually see him shoot at Reaño because the gunshot came from behind and it was dark. Their testimonies were also incredulous due to intoxication which could have impaired their sight. Lastly, Rollan claimed that it was impossible for Rovira to witness the hacking of Reaño as he immediately fled after hearing the gunshot.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its December 11, 2019 Decision, 11 affirmed the guilt of Rollan but modified the awards in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch 81 in Criminal Case No. 3420, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) The award for death indemnity is hereby increased from Php50,000.00 to Php75,000.00;
(2) The award for moral damages is also increased from Php50,000.00 to Php75,000.00;
(3) The award of actual damages is deleted for lack of basis; and
(4) All monetary awards shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 12
The CA echoed the findings of the RTC that the elements of Murder were duly proven by the prosecution. Rollan treacherously killed Reaño who was unable to defend himself from the sudden attack. The appellate court also did not give weight to Rollan's claim that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were incredulous as they were under the influence of alcohol during the killing incident. It opined that Repizo and Rovira, although intoxicated, categorically and candidly narrated what happened on the night of the incident and how Rollan killed Reaño in their presence.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Whether Rollan was guilty of the crime of Murder.
Our Ruling
The appeal is dismissed.
At the outset, it is a settled rule that the factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 13 Moreover, We give great weight and respect to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. 14 This is because the trial court judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses as he or she has the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and attitude while under an arduous examination. 15 As such, the Court is bound by the trial court's assessment absent any showing that its findings of facts were tainted with arbitrariness or that it overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of significance and value, or its calibration of credibility was flawed. 16
We have carefully examined the records of the case and found no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC which was affirmed by the CA.
Article 248 of the RPC defines and penalizes Murder, thus:
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 perpetua 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.
The elements of Murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide . 17 AScHCD
All these elements have been duly established by the prosecution in this case.
Contrary to Rollan's claim, Rovira and Repizo positively identified him as the person who shot and subsequently hacked Reaño to his death.
Repizo categorically narrated that he, Rovira and Reaño were drinking when they heard a gunshot fired which hit the latter. Immediately thereafter, Rollan went to the terrace and hacked Reaño several times. Afterwards, Reaño fell on the ground while Rollan casually walked away as if nothing happened. Thus:
Q You mentioned that Jovencio Rollan shot Efren Reano?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Can you tell us what were you doing as well as Efren Reano right before Jovencio Rollan shot Efren Reano?
A We were drinking tuba.
Q Can you tell us from where Jovencio Rollan came from before he shot Efren Reano?
A I don't know where he came from, but right after Efren Reano was shot he arrived and suddenly appeared in front of the terrace.
Q You mentioned that Efren Reano was shot?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Can you tell us, what was the position of Efren Reano in relation to you?
A He was seated on a chair and facing me.
Q How about Jovencio Rollan, what was the position of Jovencio Rollan when he suddenly appear[ed] and shot Efren Reano?
A When there was a gunshot he suddenly appeared in front of the terrace.
Q What was the position of Jovencio Rollan to Efren Reano when he suddenly appeared after you heard the gunshot?
A When there was gunshot, he suddenly appeared [in] the terrace and entered the balcony or terrace.
Q Where did Efren Reano hit with the gunshot?
A Here in the neck.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Where for the first time did you see Jovencio Rollan?
A Outside of the terrace.
Q Jovencio Rollan was in your front?
A Here on the side.
Q How about his position to Efren Reano when he suddenly appeared?
A In front after we heard the gunshot he suddenly appeared in the terrace.
xxx xxx xxx
Q You mentioned that Efren Reano was hit on his neck?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q What happened after he was hit on his neck?
A Suddenly Jovencio arrived then hacked successively Efren Reano.
Q After Efren Reano was shot what happened to him?
A He was still seated.
Q Did you see the gun on Jovencio?
A Yes, ma'am but I don't know what caliber it is.
Q From where did you see the gun in Jovencio's possession?
A When he entered the balcony he put the gun on his neck because that gun has a sling.
Q So when you saw Jovencio Rollan, the gun was no longer on his hand?
A He was still holding it and I saw him putting the sling on his neck and then he pulled his bolo.
Q How far were you from Efren Reano when he was hacked by Jovencio Rollan?
A Just near ma'am it is just more than an arm's length in distance from him.
Q How far was he from you when he suddenly appeared?
A Just close ma'am probably one arm's length.
Q You mentioned that Efren Reano was successively hacked by Jovencio Rollan?
A Yes, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did Efren Reano had the chance to run?
A No, ma'am.
Q How many times did Jovencio Rollan hack Efren Reano?
A I was not able to count it anymore because [it] was done so fast.
Q How about you what did you do upon shouting pare dayagan?
A I was not able to move because I was shocked. 18
Rovira corroborated the testimony of Repizo on all crucial points. Although he managed to escape, he was still able to witness how Rollan hacked Reaño. Notably, their testimonies were consistent with the findings of Dr. Forteza, an expert witness, who conducted an examination on Reaño's body attesting that the victim indeed sustained a gunshot wound in the neck and multiple hacked wounds at the back of his body.
Although Repizo and Rovira did not actually see Rollan shooting Reaño, their testimonies were credible enough to establish the events that happened immediately before and after the gunshot was heard. The prosecution witnesses and the victim were drinking when they heard a single gunshot hitting the latter in his neck. Immediately thereafter, they positively identified Rollan, who was still holding a gun, approached Reaño and repeatedly hacked him. Rollan then fled after the shooting and hacking incidents. Thus, the totality of the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to produce a moral certainty that it was indeed Rollan who killed Reaño. 19
Rollan's contention that Repizo and Rovira were both intoxicated which could have impaired their sight during the killing incident is specious. There was no supporting evidence presented which would have yielded to a conclusion that Repizo and Rovira were unable to clearly recall what happened on that unfaithful night as they were under the influence of alcohol. On the contrary, as found by the trial court, their testimonies were very spontaneous, straightforward and categorical which only leads to a conclusion that they vividly remember who and how Reaño was killed. Hence, Repizo and Rovira remained credible witnesses.
In his vain attempt for acquittal, Rollan interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. In People v. Peteluna, 20 the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and are looked upon with disfavor, to wit:
It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 21 [Citations Omitted.]
In this case, Rollan failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim that he was in Masbate on the night of the incident and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. His bare denial is likewise unfounded hence self-serving and deserves scant consideration. 22 Clearly, Rollan's positive identification as the assailant of Reaño made by the prosecution witnesses stands.
On treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the Court finds that the presence thereof was duly proven in the case at bench. Treachery, also known as alevosia, is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in its execution, tending directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 23 The following elements of treachery must be established by clear and convincing evidence to qualify the killing to Murder: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 24
Treachery is attendant in the killing of Reaño. To reiterate, Reaño was drinking with the witnesses when he was shot. He therefore had no inkling of the impending grave danger to his life. After being shot in the neck, Rollan suddenly approached him and, this time, repeatedly hacked him ensuring his death. Clearly, the attack was sudden, unexpected, and without warning leaving Reaño with no opportunity to defend himself from his aggressor. 25 AcICHD
Verily, the Court sustains the conviction of Rollan for the crime of Murder. The appellate court correctly affirmed the findings of the trial court. However, the awards of damages must be modified.
It is a settled rule that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. 26
Here, the Court finds the awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages to be proper. Nonetheless, in conformity with the rule and prevailing jurisprudence, the Court further awards Reaño's heirs exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, in lieu of actual damages. 27
The Court also sustains the imposition of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all damages awarded from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 28
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The December 11, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10320 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Jovencio Rollan is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of Efren R. Reaño the amounts of: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay interest on all the monetary awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until its full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-13; Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Ramon A. Cruz.
2. CA rollo, pp. 44-47.
3. Records, pp. 1-2.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 24.
6. Also spelled as Reano in the Transcripts of Stenographic Notes.
7. Spelled as Repiza in the assailed CA Decision.
8.Supra note 2.
9.Id. at 46.
10. Records, p. 103.
11.Supra note 1.
12.Id. at 12.
13.People v. Angelio, 683 Phil. 99, 104 (2012).
14.Id.
15.People v. Prado, 792 Phil. 827, 834 (2016).
16.Id.
17.People v. Dongail, G.R. No. 217972, February 17, 2020.
18.TSN, May 12, 2015, pp. 5-8.
19.People v. Balisoro, 366 Phil. 505 (1999).
20.702 Phil. 128 (2013).
21.Id. at 141-142.
22.Id. at 142.
23.People v. Boque, G.R. No. 241260, July 8, 2020.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 685 (2017), citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
27.Id. at 686.
28.Id.