People v. Roque y Gutierrez

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 191399. October 4, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODERICK ROQUE y GUTIERREZ and ALLAN ROQUE y GUTIERREZ, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: cSEDTC

"G.R. No. 191399 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODERICK ROQUE y GUTIERREZ and ALLAN ROQUE y GUTIERREZ, Accused-Appellants.) — Accused-appellants Roderick Roque and Allan Roque were charged with murder along with Gerardo Gayo in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 129, in Caloocan City under the information docketed as Criminal Case No. C-65212, reading as follows:

That on or about the 12th day of April, 2002, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot with a firearm one CONDRADO ANTONIO y FARINAS, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries which injuries caused his death upon arrival at the MCU Hospital, this city.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

Assisted by their assigned attorney from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), Roderick and Allan pled not guilty at their respective arraignments on May 8, 2002 and April 24, 2003. With Gayo having remained at large, trial proceeded only against the accused-appellants. The Court of Appeals (CA) summarized the factual antecedents, to wit:

x x x The prosecution presented as witnesses Marilen Mangahas Antonio, the wife of the victim; Erlinda Mautin y Antonio, the victim's sister; Condrado Paltao, one of the victims of the shooting incident; and Dr. Jose Arnel M. Marquez, the Medico Legal Officer assigned to the case. Accused-appellants testified on their behalf.

Marilen testified that on April 12, 2002, at around 9 o'clock in the evening, she, along with her husband, her sister-in-law Erlinda, a certain Jojo dela Cruz, and Condrado Paltao, were in front of her mother-in-law's house located at 536 Julian Felipe St., Caloocan City. While there, three armed men arrived, which she later identified as Roderick and Allan, both surnamed Roque, and Gerardo Gayo. The latter shot her husband while the other two were "nakaalalay" so that no bystanders would meddle. After her husband was shot, the three armed men ran away. She rushed her husband to the hospital, and then she went to the U.E. Caloocan police headquarters to report the incident. When she returned to the hospital, she learned that her husband had already died.

On cross-examination, Marilen said that she saw Gayo firing successively at her husband, but did not see herein accused-appellants shoot her husband.

Erlinda testified that on April 12, 2002, at around 9 o'clock in the evening, she was at her mother's house situated at 536 Julian Felipe St., Caloocan City, conversing with her sister-in-law Marilen, her brother Condrado Antonio, her husband, Condrado Paltao, and a certain Jojo Rivera. While there, she saw Gerardo Gayo and the Roque brothers "lumusob" at their house. Gayo shot her brother, Condrado Antonio, while the other two (2) were standing and pointing their guns at people. After the shooting, the three left together.

On cross-examination, Erlinda stated that herein accused-appellants were holding guns, and that they were pointing their guns at the people who wanted to help. She further testified that before the three left, Gayo fired his gun upwards and said, "Ang sino mang lalapit ay mamamatay din."

Condrado Paltao alleged that he knew herein accused-appellants because they were his neighbors and their parents were his friends. At around 9 o'clock in the evening, he and Condrado Antonio were shot by Gerardo Gayo, while herein accused-appellants were holding guns, and "nakaalalay sila at pinapanood ang gagawin nung kasama nila." He was shot on the spinal column, while Condrado Antonio was hit seven (7) times, and "umaangat angat pa ang katawan ni Condrado habang binabaril ni Gayo." After the shooting, the three left.

During cross-examination, Condrado Palato [sic] stated that it was Allan Roque who pointed to their location. On redirect, he testified that aside from pointing to their location, accused-appellants were holding guns. Gerardo Gayo was holding a .45 cal. gun which he used to shoot him and Condrado Antonio. Accused-appellants were each holding 9mm guns, but they did not shoot anybody.

Dr. Marquez testified that he was the one who conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Condrado Antonio, and that he prepared the Medico Legal Report No. M-195-02. The cause of death of the victim, Condrado Antonio was due to the loss of blood secondary to the gunshot wounds. The victim sustained four (4) gunshot wounds on the trunk and two (2) gunshot wounds on the extremities. Gunshot wound nos. 1, 4 and 6 contributed to the death of the victim, and also the gunshot wound located at the right arm which penetrated the trunk and lacerated the right lung. SDAaTC

For the defense, accused-appellant Roderick Roque testified that on April 12, 2002 at around 9 o'clock in the evening, he was at his house located at 532 Julian Felipe St., Caloocan City, watching television with his younger siblings and his parents. After watching television, he went out and stayed on the street for one (1) hour, and then he returned home and went to sleep. He was arrested on April 12, 2002 and was detained at the Sangandaan Station. He testified further that Condrado Antonio was his cousin and that they had no misunderstanding.

Allan Roque testified that Roderick Roque was his brother and that Condrado Antonio was his relative, whose residence was only ten (10) minutes away from his house. On April 13, 2002, he heard a "putok" in his place, but he did not mind it. He alleged that he had no quarrel with the victim. 2

On September 4, 2006, the RTC, holding that treachery had been attendant in the killing and that the accused-appellants had conspired with Gayo, found and declared Roderick and Allan guilty of murder, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay to the heirs of the late Condrado Antonio y Fariñas the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. 3

On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions through the assailed decision promulgated on November 17, 2009, 4 disposing:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the September 4, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 129, in Criminal Case No. C-65212 is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellants Roderick Roque y Gutierrez and Allan Roque y Gutierrez arc ordered to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the victim the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) by way of moral damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as actual damages.

SO ORDERED.5

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

The accused-appellants submit that:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, WHEN THEIR GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HIGHLY INCREDULOUS TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTIONS' [sic] EYEWITNESSES, AND IN DISREGARDING THE CREDIBLE VERSION OF THE DEFENSE.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WAS MURDER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF AND FINDINGS THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. 6

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit. The guilt of the accused-appellants for murder was competently established beyond reasonable doubt.

First of all, the accused-appellants insist that the claim by two supposed eyewitnesses to the effect that they had pointed their guns at the other people present at the crime scene while Gayo was shooting the victim was contradicted by Condrado Paltao who attested that their guns were then tucked under their armpits. They argue that the CA erroneously ignored the discrepancy.

We cannot heed the insistence of the accused-appellants. The discrepancy thus pointed out, assuming that it truly existed, was not enough to discredit or cast doubt on the reliability of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. We observe that the RTC and the CA both observed that the eyewitnesses had positively identified the accused-appellants as the co-conspirators of Gayo during the shooting. Such identification was credible. It is relevant to remind that the factual findings of the trial court, as well as its determination of the credibility of testimonies and the witnesses are accorded respect, and, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent any clear showing that either the RTC or the CA had overlooked some fact or material of consequence that, if properly considered, would alter the outcome of the case. 7 Alas, the accused-appellants have not submitted anything to that effect in this present appeal. acEHCD

Moreover, our considerable experience as judges sufficiently reminds us that it takes very little imagination to know how easily could persons like the accused-appellants bent on executing their criminal intent to kill, could easily draw their guns tucked under their arms during the course of the attack and point them to keep others who might be minded to go to the succor of the hapless victim at bay. Thus, although Paltao might have testified only to seeing the guns being tucked under the arms of the accused-appellants, there was no inconsistency at all with the testimony of the other witnesses about the accused-appellants pointing or brandishing their guns to keep other people at bay. The supposed inconsistency was also too trivial to affect the credibility of the eyewitness testimony that directly incriminated Roderick and Allan in the felonious killing of the victim by Gayo.

Secondly, contrary to the urging of the accused-appellants, the lower courts correctly found and concluded that they had conspired with Gayo in the deadly assault against the victim.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to commit it; 8 hence, the agreement concerning the commission of the crime must be shown to precede the decision to commit it. In proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express form, which requires proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime among all the co-conspirators. However, a conspiracy is not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon; hence, the conspiracy is implied. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to have aimed towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object by their acts, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest. 9 Once the conspiracy is established, the act of each conspirator is the act of all. 10

In this case, the three assailants — Roderick, Allan and Gayo — acted together in the execution of the criminal intent to kill the victim who had been unaware of the impending peril to his life. Proof of their prior agreement to kill the victim, and their decision to execute the agreement — consisting of direct as well as circumstantial evidence — was ample and competent. The account of the eyewitnesses attested to their arrival together at the scene of the crime fully armed with guns, and described how Gayo then and there shot the victim several times while Roderick and Allan trained their guns to keep others them from aiding the victim. After shooting the victim, the three of them ran away together. It is beyond dispute that the presence of Roderick and Allan at the scene of the killing was not passive but active, as their overt acts bear out. They were precisely there to execute their joint criminal intent of killing the victim.

Finally, the accused-appellants argue that treachery was not shown to be attendant, positing that the victim had not been the first one to have been shot and had thus become aware of the danger to his life; and that there was no showing that the accused had made preparations to kill the victim, as shown by the rejection by the RTC of the attendance of evident premeditation.

The argument of the accused-appellants is unacceptable.

The essence of treachery lies in the attack that comes without warning, and in the mounting of the attack in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner as not to afford the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim any chance to resist the attack or to escape it, thereby ensuring its accomplishment without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Treachery is appreciated even if the victim was alerted to the danger provided the latter was already defenseless and unable to flee at the time the killing blow was made. 11

There is no dispute that the three assailants had armed themselves before seeking out their victim; that Gayo had opened fire at the victim without any provocation from the latter; and that the assailants had ensured the unhampered execution of their evil intent through the accused-appellants' menacingly brandishing their guns to keep potential help for the victim at bay. Far from being casual or unplanned, such manner of execution of the attack was consciously and deliberately adopted and was well coordinated, thereby showing the indubitable attendance of treachery. 12

On the other hand, the non-appreciation by the lower courts of the circumstance of evident premeditation did not eliminate the existence of treachery. The elements of evident premeditation as an attendant circumstance 13 — namely, (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his decision; (3) the lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts — were too different and distinct from those of treachery. SDHTEC

We revise the civil damages awarded to the heirs of the victim in order to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 14 For murder where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages each in the amount of P75,000.00. The amount of actual damages awarded by the CA is maintained. All damages hereby awarded shall earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until full satisfaction. 15

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 17, 2009 by the Court of Appeals in all respects subject to the MODIFICATION that accused RODERICK ROQUE y GUTIERREZ and ALLAN ROQUE y GUTIERREZ shall pay to the heirs of the late CONDRADO ANTONIO y FARINAS the following sums, to wit: (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, plus interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction on all the monetary awards.

Costs to be paid by the accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 3.

2.Id. at 3-7.

3. CA rollo, p. 20.

4.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion.

5.Id. at 16-17.

6. CA rollo, pp. 56 and 71.

7.People v. Taguilid, G.R. No. 181544, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 341, 350.

8. Article 8, Revised Penal Code.

9.Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016, 797 SCRA 241, 311-312.

10.Fransdilla v. People, G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015, 756 SCRA 164, 186.

11.People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 159, 169-170.

12.People v. Villarico, Sr., G.R. No. 158362, April 4, 2011, 647 SCRA 43, 63.

13.People v. Sebastian, G.R. No. 131734, March 7, 2002, 378 SCRA 557, 561.

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

15.People v. Gallano, G.R. No. 184762, February 25, 2015, 752 SCRA 1, 16.