THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213271. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROLAND SISMAR, alias "TATA", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213271 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLAND SISMAR, alias "TATA," Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on April 24, 2014, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on June 10, 2009 in Criminal Case No. CBU-61450 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City pronouncing accused Roland Sismar, aliasTata, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. 2
Antecedents
The accused was charged under the following information, to wit:
That on or about the 1st day of June 2001, at about 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a handgun, with treachery and evident premeditation, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did then and there and suddenly and unexpectedly attack, assault and shoot one Lodito T. Opinggo three (3) times hitting the latter's head, thereby inflicting upon said Lodito Opinggo the following inquiries (sic) causing:
Uncal Hermation 2 degrees to increased intracranial 2 degrees to intracranial hemorhage 2 degrees to open skull Fx ® frontal 2 degrees to GSW 0.5 cm contusion collar ® frontal (slug-in-situ (L) occipital area. HTcADC
As a consequence of which said Lodito Opinggo died a few hours later.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
The factual antecedents are summarized by the CA in its assailed decision, as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
TRINIDAD OPINGGO testified that Lodito Opinggo, the deceased was her husband and that they had one child. Sometime on June 1, 2001, Teodorico Alcover informed Trinidad that her husband was mistakenly shot to death while they were in a cockfight. Trinidad declared that her husband was unemployed at the time of his death. She testified that she spent P12,000.00 and another P20,000.00 was spent by her sister-in-law for his wake and burial. She inadvertently misplaced the receipts and could longer produce them in court. CAIHTE
TEODORICO ALCOVER, a retired employee and resident of Ponce Compound, General Maxilom Avenue, Carreta, Cebu City attested that he has been a resident of such barangay for forty years already and personally knew accused-appellant Roland Sismar nicknamed "Tata". The deceased Lodito Opinggo was his neighbour. Around 5:45 PM on June 1, 2001, Teodorico Alcover was with Lodito watching a cockfight inside the Ludo and Luym Chinese Cemetery. Suddenly and without provocation, accused-appellant Roland Sismar arrived and shot him. Teodorico Alcover was not hit because someone else embraced him and the second shot hit Lodito Opinggo. They scrambled and ran and met some policemen on their way out of the cemetery. Together with the victim's wife, they proceeded to the hospital where they saw Lodito Opinggo in critical condition. Thereafter, he died. 4
The version and evidence of the accused are also summed up in the CA's assailed decision, viz.:
Version of Accused-appellant
Accused-appellant, a butcher and resident of Ponce 1, General Maxilom Extension, Cebu City testified that on the date and time in question, he was merely at the house of his aunt Alejandra Panares in Basak, Cebu City where he was also residing at that time. He used to reside in Ponce Compound, Carreta, Cebu City with his twin brother named Ronald but they did not get along well. He was subsequently forced to transfer to his aunt's house in Basak sometime in 2000. According to accused-appellant, his twin brother had died recently and he submitted a certificate of his death.
Defense witness Flordelina Alipio attested that she knew accused-appellant Roland had lived with his aunt because she used to frequent their place in Carreta. She testified that Roland had a twin brother named Ronald who was more notorious and troublesome than accused-appellant. She could not identify one from the other. She claimed that she saw accused-appellant's twin brother in Barangay Carreta at the date and time of the incident when she was visiting such place. He was on his way to the interior portion bringing with him a firearm. Flordelina shouted at him but he just continued walking. When he came out afterwards, he was still bringing with him the firearm. Again, she called out his name but she was ignored. Thereafter, policemen came. 5
As stated, the RTC convicted the accused of murder, and imposed the penalty of reclusionperpetua as well as the payment of civil liabilities to the heirs of the victim. The RTC opined that the Prosecution established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the positive identification of him as the assailant by eyewitness Teodorico Alcover; that the killing was treacherous due to the accused's abrupt attack against both the victim and Teodorico; and that the accused's alibi was discredited because he did not establish the physical impossibility for him to traverse the distance from Basak to Cebu City within minutes.
The dispositive portion of the RTC's judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ROLAND SISMAR Guilty of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and sentences him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all of its accessory penalties. DETACa
He is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased LODITO OPINGGO the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED. 6
On appeal, the CA upheld the conviction but modified the damages, pointing out that contrary to his protestations, the Prosecution established the commission of the crime through the testimony of its witnesses; and that the positive identification of the accused as the culprit removed the possibility that the killer had been his deceased twin-brother, Ronald. The fallo states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated June 10, 2009, of the Regional Trial Court, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 18, Cebu City in Crim. Case No. CBU-61450 is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral, temperate and exemplary damages from June 1, 2001 up to the finality of this decision, and interest at 12% per annum on said damages from the (late of finality of this Decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of the victim.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 7
The accused is now before the Court in quest of acquittal. It is noted that the parties, through their respective counsels (i.e., the Office of the Solicitor General 8 and the Public Attorney's Office), 9 manifested that they were no longer filing supplemental briefs, and prayed that their respective briefs in the CA be considered in resolving this appeal. aDSIHc
To recall, the accused urged the CA to acquit him on the ground that the State did not overthrow the presumption of his innocence. He argued that the Prosecution did not prove the corpusdelicti of the crime considering that no autopsy report had been submitted to the RTC; that the medico-legal officer was not presented to testify on the death of the deceased; that his identification as the shooter by Teodorico was unreliable because it was his twin brother who had shot the victim; and that the trial court did not properly appreciate his alibi.
Ruling of the Court
The Court dismisses the appeal for lack of merit.
First of all, the trial courts' evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and is not to be disturbed on appeal considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide such matter, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Its findings on the credibility of the witnesses and the relevant facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked that, if properly considered, could affect the result of the case in his favor. 10
An examination of the records calls for the Court to uphold the trial court's determination of the credibility of the Prosecution's witnesses. Teodorico's identification of the accused as the person who had shot and killed the late Lodito Opinggo was unshaken until the end. In that regard, the accused did not tender any reason why Teodorico would falsely incriminate him. Considering that the CA as the appellate court affirmed the determination by the RTC of the reliability and credibility of the witnesses of the Prosecution against the accused, the Court, which is not a trier of facts, must similarly accord credence to such witnesses. ATICcS
Moreover, the claim of the accused that the identification was mistaken because the culprit had been his deceased twin brother, Ronald, is not persuasive. The claim was plainly self-serving, as well as too easy and too convenient to be made. Nothing else was offered to support the claim. At any rate, the claim could be suspect considering that the accused's twin brother, being already deceased, could no longer contradict the claim.
Indeed, the records show that the accused's conviction was correct. The Prosecution established all the elements of murder; hence, the corpusdelicti was duly proved. In this regard, corpusdelicti is the body, foundation, or substance of a crime. Corpusdelicti has two elements, namely: (a) that a certain result has been established, for example, that a man has died; and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it. The Prosecution is burdened to prove the corpusdelicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence. 11 Towards that end, the production of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder had been actually committed. ETHIDa
The establishment of the corpusdelicti in prosecutions for murder cannot rely solely on autopsy reports for the simple reason that the fact of death can be shown through other admissible means. Herein, Trinidad, the victim's wife, expressly attested that her late husband had been killed; and that she had incurred expenses for the wake and burial of his remains. Such testimony, being undisputed and unrebutted, sufficed to establish the fact of the death of the husband.
The Prosecution also proved the attendance of treachery, during the killing. As the lower courts pointed out, the accused's deadly assault was mounted with suddenness that it was unexpected by the victim. Such manner of attack left the victim without any chance of defending himself or evading the deadly assault, which constituted the very definition of treachery. Verily, the accused thereby ensured the commission of the crime without risk to himself and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 12
The alibi interposed by the accused was properly rejected. The lack of showing of the physical impossibility for him to traverse the distance between his place of alibi and the situs of the commission of the crime warranted the rejection.
To conform to the pronouncements on civil liability of the accused in People v. Jugueta, 13 the award of exemplary damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00, and all the items of civil liability shall earn legal interest of 6% perannum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on April 24, 2014 INALLRESPECTS with the MODIFICATIONS that the amount of exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00; and that the accused is further ordered to pay interest on the damages at the rate of 6% perannum from the finality of this resolution until full satisfaction. cSEDTC
The accused shall also pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-16; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, concurred in by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco.
2. CA rollo, pp. 29-35; penned by Presiding Judge Gilbert P. Moises.
3.Id. at 30.
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5.Id. at 6.
6. CA rollo, p. 35.
7.Rollo. p. 15.
8.Id. at 29-31.
9.Id. at 34-35.
10.People v. Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 190.
11. People v. Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 350, 355-356.
12. People v. Vallespin, G.R. No. 132030, October 18, 2002, 391 SCRA 213, 223-224.
13. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 381-382.