FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249466. December 2, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NILO ROSQUITES y DUMAGUING ALIAS "NEIL," MARCIANO ROSQUITES ALIAS "ROBERT/LOLOY," AND CIPRIANO SURABIA ALIAS "CIPRING,"accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249466 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nilo Rosquites y Dumaguing alias "Neil," Marciano Rosquites alias "Robert/Loloy," and Cipriano Surabia alias "Cipring,"Accused-Appellants). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Judgment 1 dated 27 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02643. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated 08 June 2017 of Branch 10, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog, Leyte, in Crim. Case No. 3075 finding Nilo Rosquites (Nilo), Marciano Rosquites (Marciano), and Cipriano Surabia (Cipriano) (collectively, appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Antecedents
Appellants were indicted for murder in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 18th day of June 2011 in the Municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court[,] the herein accused, conspiring, confederating[,] and mutually helping each other[,] with intent to kill, armed with a bladed weapon and with abuse of superior strength, treachery, and evident premeditation, did then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously attack, assault and stab Angelito Cabal, hitting the latter's vital organ which caused his direct death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, appellants entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. 4 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On 18 June 2011, at around 10:00 p.m., Basilio Suan (Basilio) was outside his house looking for his nephew, Angelito Cabal (Angelito). When he swung his flashlight, he saw Nilo stabbing Angelito, while being held down by Marciano and Cipriano. Afterwards, appellants fled. Angelito was able to run a few meters before falling down. Seeing Angelito motionless, Basilio presumed that he was already dead. Basilio then proceeded to the house of Barangay Chairman Iglecerio Roche (Brgy. Chairman Roche) to report the incident. When Brgy. Chairman Roche arrived at the crime scene, he found Angelito already dead. 5
Two (2) nights later, Nilo and Marciano, accompanied by Nilo's mother, went to the house of Brgy. Chairman Roche to surrender. The two (2) appellants were brought first to the Abuyog Police Station and then to the Public Attorney's Office where they signed a waiver of their right to counsel. 6
Prosecution witness Edwin Surabia testified that in the afternoon of 16 June 2011, he heard Nilo tell his father that he was going to kill Angelito, because the latter was courting his girlfriend, Angielyn 7 Asumbrado (Angielyn). 8
Version of the Defense
Cipriano testified that on 18 June 2011, he, Nilo, and Marciano were walking home when they met Angelito on the road. Angelito threatened to kill Nilo, to which the latter responded that they should not fight. Angelito drew a short-bladed weapon, a pisao, and stabbed Nilo, but hit only the top portion of Nilo's right wrist. The two then grappled for possession of the knife before Nilo succeeded in stabbing Angelito on the chest. Both Nilo and Cipriano then departed and left Angelito who eventually died on the road. Cipriano denied holding the hand of Angelito and was adamant that he only watched the fight between Nilo and Angelito. 9
Marciano gave similar statements as that of Cipriano, except that he saw Nilo was hit on the left hand. He did not see Nilo stab Angelito because he ran away while the two (2) were grappling for possession of the pisao. 10
Nilo, for his part, testified that he was alone on the road on the night of the incident when an angry Angelito approached him, saying that he was a devil. Angelito then pulled out a knife and lunged at him. Nilo, however, was able to parry the attack with his left hand. The two (2) then grappled for the knife. At first Nilo said that while he and Angelito were grappling for the knife, he let go of it, wounding Angelito on his left breast. But on cross-examination, he testified that while they were grappling for the knife, and while the knife was still in Angelito's hands, he pushed it into the latter's breast. 11
In addition, Nilo claimed that while Marciano and Cipriano were five (5) meters away from where he and Angelito were wrestling for the knife's possession, they did not do anything but watch. 12
Ruling of the RTC
On 08 June 2017, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 13 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court hereby [renders] judgment finding each accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and appreciating the qualifying aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation they are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty of [Reclusion Perpetua] without benefit of parole. Their preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of [the] Revised Penal Code[,] as amended[,] is credited in their favor[,] provided they [abide] in writing [with] the rules and regulations of convicted prisoners.
They are further condemned to indemnify the heirs of the victim [in solidum] the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as temperate damages which will earn 6% [per annum] from the finality of this decision up to its full satisfaction. 14
The RTC held that conspiracy was proven in the instant case, as were the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Evident premeditation was shown when appellants observed the movements of Angelito from the moment he went inside the house of Angielyn until his departure therefrom. Appellants had no business observing the victim if they did not preconceive the notion to kill him. 15
Aggrieved, appellants appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 27 March 2019, the CA affirmed the judgment of conviction pronounced by the RTC, but modified the monetary awards by increasing the amount of moral damages to Php75,000.00, deleting the award of temperate damages, and, in lieu thereof, awarding exemplary damages in the amount of Php75,000.00. 16
The CA ruled that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that Angelito was killed and that appellants killed him. The CA did not give credence to Nilo's claim of self-defense, as well as Cipriano and Marciano's denials.
Nilo's failure to show that he sustained a wound negated his claim that Angelito was the unlawful aggressor. On the other hand, Cipriano and Marciano's denials cannot prevail over Basilio's positive testimony of what and who he saw on the night in question. However, the CA disagreed with the RTC that there was evident premeditation because it was not shown 17 that there was sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and execution thereof, to allow appellants to reflect upon the consequences of their action. 18
Hence, this appeal.
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 19 and the Public Attorney's Office 20 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs.
Issue
The issue is whether the CA correctly found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
To prove the crime of murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 21 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659; 22 and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 23
There is no question that the first and fourth elements are present in this case. Angelito was killed and the killing is obviously not parricide or infanticide.
The defense of denial cannot be
Time and again, it has been held that denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot outweigh positive testimony. A categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial, which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. 24
Although appellants tried to discredit Basilio, the RTC found the latter's narration of what he saw credible. Basilio, who was standing only fifteen (15) meters or ten (10) arm's length away from the incident, 25 witnessed the crime, and positively identified Nilo as the one who stabbed Angelito in the chest as the latter's elbows were being held by Marciano and Cipriano. 26 Moreover, the matter of Basilio's presence during the incident was even unwittingly buttressed by Cipriano, who acknowledged that he was watching the fight between Nilo and Angelito. 27 Thus, appellants' defense of denial must necessarily fail.
Appellants acted in conspiracy
It is well-established that conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose to bring about the death of the victim. Once this is established, each of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. 28
The evidence clearly shows the conspiracy between the three (3) appellants to commit murder. All three (3) were together at the crime scene. They ganged up on Angelito when they saw him walking home. Nilo stabbed Angelito while Marciano and Cipriano held down his elbows. After they executed their dastardly act, appellants left the crime scene together.
Consequently, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all. 29
Attendant circumstance of
We likewise find the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength present in this case. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. 30 The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. 31
The records disclose that the victim was only 16 years old when he met his untimely death in the hands of three (3) fully grown men. Marciano was 25 years old, while Cipriano was 26 and Nilo, 28. 32 As correctly observed by both the CA and the RTC, there was an obvious disparity between the age, size, and strength of the victim vis-à-vis the appellants that the latter obviously used to their advantage. 33 Even Nilo admitted that he was bigger in build than Angelito, which fact Cipriano corroborated. 34
Appellant Nilo failed to prove
When an accused invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, he assumes the burden to establish his plea through credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he harmed or killed the victim. To prove self-defense, an accused must prove the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to repel. 35
Nilo failed to prove his claim of self-defense. As discussed above, Angelito has a smaller build than Nilo. It is quite unlikely that he would choose to pick a fight with Nilo who was not only bigger, but was then in the company of two (2) other male adults. Moreover, his bare and self-serving statements cannot prevail over Basilio's positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
Appellants can no longer
Appellants contend that the factual details constituting the qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not specifically alleged in the Information. Hence, they cannot be convicted of murder.
It is well-settled that an Information which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein. In effect, the failure to object is a waiver of the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. 36
In the instant case, appellants did not question the insufficiency of the Information filed against them through a motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars. They voluntarily entered their plea during arraignment and proceeded with the trial. At that point in time, they are deemed to have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information, including the supposed lack of particularity in the description of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The fact that appellants raised the issue of insufficiency of the Information in their brief filed before the CA is immaterial. 37
There is no need to add the
Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Both the RTC and the CA correctly sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua. However, apart from the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been established. Under Article 63 38 of the RPC, in cases where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, and "there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 39 there is no need to append the phrase "without benefit of parole" to the penalty imposed on appellants. 40
Temperate damages should be
In its assailed Decision, the CA deleted the award of temperate damages, for lack of factual and legal basis. Instead, the CA awarded exemplary damages. 41 We affirm the award of exemplary damages, but find that there is a need to award temperate damages as well.
In People v. Edaño, 42 the Court awarded temperate damages, even if the RTC and the CA did not award actual damages, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved. Meanwhile, in People v. Gunda, 43 the Court explained that the award is adjudicated so that a right that has been violated may be recognized or vindicated, and not for the purpose of indemnification. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of Php50,000.00 is awarded as temperate damages. 44
It is equally settled that when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. 45 Article 2230 of the Civil Code authorizes the grant of exemplary damages if at least one aggravating circumstance, be it generic or qualifying, 46 attended the commission of the crime. Thus, exemplary damages can stand side by side with temperate damages and not as a replacement for temperate damages.
There is no voluntary surrender
For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) the accused has not been actually arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. 47
Evidence shows that Nilo and Marciano presented themselves to Brgy. Chairman Roche, who brought them to the police station where they were later detained. Considering, however, that upon arraignment, they both pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and continue to maintain their innocence, it cannot be said that they surrendered themselves as an acknowledgment of guilt. Without this element, the surrender cannot be deemed spontaneous and, thus, falls short of establishing their supposed voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. 48
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 27 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02643 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants NILO ROSQUITES y DUMAGUING alias "NEIL," MARCIANO ROSQUITES alias "ROBERT/LOLOY," and CIPRIANO SURABIA alias "CIPRING," are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are also ORDERED to pay solidarily the heirs of Angelito Cabal the following amounts: Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until such amounts are fully paid. 49
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. 5-21; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2. CA rollo, pp. 40-58; penned by RTC Acting Presiding Judge Carlos O. Arguelles.
3. Records, p. 01.
4.Rollo, p. 6.
5.Id. at 6-7.
6.Id. at 7.
7. Angeline, in some parts of the record.
8.Rollo, p. 7.
9. TSN dated 18 May 2017 (witness: Cipriano), pp. 6-9, 12.
10. TSN dated 19 May 2017 (witness: Marciano), pp. 7-9.
11. TSN dated 01 June 2017 (witness: Nilo), pp. 4-6, 12.
12.Id. at 7-8.
13. CA rollo, pp. 40-58.
14.Id. at 57-58.
15.Id. at 50.
16.Rollo, p. 20.
17.People v. Abierra, G.R. No. 227504, 13 June 2018 [Per Justice Reyes, Jr.].
18.Rollo, pp. 12, 14-16, and 18.
19.Id. at 32-36.
20.Id. at 41-43.
21. Art. 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. x x x
22. 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.
23.People v. Lababo, G.R. No. 234651, 06 June 2018 [Per Justice Velasco, Jr.].
24.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, 02 March 2020 [Per Justice Hernando].
25. TSN dated 28 February 2012 (witness: Basilio), p. 10.
26.Id. at 11.
27. TSN dated 18 May 2017 (witness: Cipriano), p. 06.
28.People v. Batulans, G.R. No. 216936, 29 July 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].
29.People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019 [Per Justice Caguioa].
30.People v. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658, 17 February 2020 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].
31.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 228886, 08 August 2018 [Per Justice Del Castillo].
32. CA rollo, p. 51.
33.Rollo, p. 19; CA rollo, p. 51.
34. TSN dated 01 June 2017 (witness: Nilo), p. 18; TSN dated 18 May 2017 (witness: Cipriano), pp. 12-13.
35.People v. Doca, G.R. No. 233479, 16 October 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].
36.People v. Rebato, G.R. No. 242883, 03 September 2020 [Per Chief Justice Peralta].
37.Id.
38. Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties.
39. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
40.People v. Silvederio, G.R. No. 239777, 08 July 2020 [Per Justice Inting]; People v. Espina, G.R. No. 219614, 10 July 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].
41.Rollo, p. 20.
42. G.R. No. 206970, 29 July 2015 [Per Justice Perez].
43.People v. Gunda, G.R. No. 195525, 05 February 2014, 726 Phil. 289-297 (2014) [Per Justice Del Castillo].
44.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per then Justice Peralta, now Chief Justice].
45.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, 02 March 2020 [Per Justice Hernando].
46.People v. Milan, G.R. No. 175926, 06 July 2011, 669 Phil. 59-81 (2011) [Per Justice Leonardo-De Castro].
47.People v. Doca, G.R. No. 233479, 16 October 2019 [Per Justice Lazaro-Javier].
48.People v. Lita, G.R. No. 227755, 14 August 2019 [Per Justice Leonen].
49.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013 [Per then Justice Peralta, now Chief Justice].