THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233878. February 19, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CESAR SUASO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233878 (People of the Philippines vs. Cesar Suaso). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated January 26, 2018 stating that he is adopting his appellant's brief as his supplemental brief;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation dated January 29, 2018 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief and submitting the case for resolution of the Court; and
(3) the letter dated February 1, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since January 27, 2016.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Fourteenth Division in CA-G.R. CR.-HC. No. 08288, promulgated on May 11, 2017, which affirmed with modification the September 28, 2015 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal Case No. 12530, finding the accused-appellant Cesar Suasoy Cortez (Suaso) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The Facts
Accused-appellant Suaso and Nestor Durana y Tagana (Durana) were charged with the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 8369, in an Information dated January 18, 2011, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That, on or before the 12th day of January 2011, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with one another, with the use of an improvised gun and a caliber .38, both deadly weapons, with intent to kill, by means of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and [shoot] with the said weapons one JONATHAN ZUNIEGA y SONEJA, a fifteen (15) year old minor, thereby causing mortal injuries which directly caused his immediate death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment on March 16, 2011, accused-appellant Suaso and Durana pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. However, by reason of his death before final judgment, the criminal liability of Durana was extinguished. 4
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Gemma Zuniega; PO2 Eldie Inocentes; PCI Maria Anna Lissa Dela Cruz; and PO2 Arcadio Binasoy Jr.
The version of the prosecution, as culled by the CA, is as follows:
On 12 January 2011, sometime between 7:30 to 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Gemma Zuniega (Gemma for brevity) was at home when her son, victim Jonathan Zuniega (Jonathan for brevity), asked permission to go out and buy rice for his father. Gemma did not want her son to go out, but Jonathan insisted that if he would not buy rice, his father, who was working in the mountain, would not have anything to eat the following day. Jonathan then proceeded to leave the house, while Gemma followed him to try to dissuade him one last time.
However, as soon as Jonathan stepped out of the door, he was suddenly shot by accused-appellant Suaso with a sumpak. Jonathan was still able to shout "Ma." Gemma, who was just an arm length away from Jonathan, was about to run towards her son when co-accused Durana again shot Jonathan with a .38 caliber. When the two accused left, Gemma rushed over her son and shouted for help. The two accused, still with their guns, however, returned and even asked Gemma if she saw who fired the shots. Out of fear that she too might get killed, Gemma answered that she did not see anything.
After the two accused left, barangay tanods arrived and boarded Gemma and the dead body of Jonathan in a vehicle and brought them to the town proper of Rodriguez, Rizal. Gemma subsequently gave her statement to the police station and learned from duty investigator PO3 Florante Moreno that the real target of the two accused was her other son, Joseph Zuniega (Joseph for brevity).
As testified to by PO2 Eldie Inocentes, on 13 January 2011, he was at the police station when Gemma arrived and reported the killing of her son. After entering the report in the Blotter, he and Gemma immediately proceeded to the place of incident with PO2 Jonathan Mamolang and PO2 Arcadio Binasoy Jr. There, Gemma pointed to accused Suaso and Durana as the ones who killed her son. The two accused were immediately arrested after being informed of the charge against them and of their constitutional rights under the law. Thereafter, they were accompanied to the hospital for medical check-up then brought to the police station.
Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, former provincial chief and medico-legal officer of Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, conducted a medical examination on the person of Jonathan. However, since he was unavailable during the hearing as he was currently doing his thesis, PCI Maria Anna Lissa Dela Cruz, physician and the current head of the medico-legal office of Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, whose expertise was admitted by the defense subject to the qualification that she was not the one who conducted the autopsy of the victim, interpreted the findings of Dr. Marquez in the medico-legal report he issued. The findings revealed that Jonathan sustained eight (8) gunshot wounds, three of which were fatal that caused his instant death, to wit: two (2) gunshot wounds at the right pectoral region and one (1) gunshot wound at the external or chest region. The vital organs affected by the gunshot wounds were the heart; pericardial sac, also a part of the heart; right lung; and all of the lobes of the right lung. 5
Version of the Defense
The defense presented the testimony of accused-appellant Suaso himself:
On 12 January 2011, at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening, accused-appellant Suaso was at home resting with his family when his wife heard some people shouting. He told his wife to just ignore it because Gemma and one of her sons might just be arguing. After a while, one of Gemma's daughters arrived at his house asking for help as her sibling was shot. Suaso went first to co-accused Durana and Ruben Zonio to ask them to accompany him in going to the place of incident. Upon arriving thereat, they saw the lifeless body of Jonathan. The two accused borrowed the vehicle of a certain Winnie Tumboy to bring Jonathan to the hospital but then barangay tanods arrived so the two accused let them handle the situation instead. Jonathan, however, was already dead upon arrival at the hospital.
Suaso also testified that he knew Jonathan as the latter was the sibling of his friend, Joseph, with whom he had a misunderstanding about work which concerns the land Suaso was tending and the family of Jonathan was claiming. This misunderstanding, however, was already settled before the barangay seven (7) days prior to the incident. 6
The Ruling of the RTC
On September 28, 2015, the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant Suaso guilty as charged. The RTC gave much weight to the testimony of Gemma who narrated in detail the time, date and place when the victim was shot by the accused. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Cesar Suaso y Cortes GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of Php50,000.00 as death indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
No pronouncement as to cost.
The accused is to be credited for the time spent for his preventive detention in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
Accused Cesar Suaso y Cortes is hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.
SO ORDERED.7
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated May 11, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification (as regards the award of damages) the Decision of the RTC. The CA observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Suaso inflicted gunshot wounds upon the victim which caused his untimely demise.
The CA upheld the testimony of Gemma and ruled that her testimony was clear, candid, straightforward and worthy of credence. Moreover, the CA held that treachery was correctly appreciated by the trial court because it was proven that the victim was unaware of the attack as it was swift and unexpected, and there was no way for the victim to have defended himself. It has also been held that the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of the assault is not shown because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused. 8
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 September 2015 of San Mateo, Rizal Regional Trial Court, Branch 76 in Criminal Case No. 12530 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that accused-appellant Cesar Suaso is ordered to pay the heirs of victim Jonathan Zuniega the following: (a) civil indemnity of Php75,000.00; (b) moral damages of Php75,000.00; (c) exemplary damages of Php75,000.00; (d) temperate damages of Php50,000.00; and (e) interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards for damages from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.9
The Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the CA gravely erred in sustaining accused-appellant Suaso's conviction for murder.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is dismissed.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that accused-appellant Suaso hinges his present appeal on the issue of credibility of the prosecution witnesses, mainly that of Gemma. Accused-appellant Suaso raised the alleged discrepancy between Gemma's testimony and the medico-legal report regarding the number of times Jonathan was shot. As correctly held by the CA, the alleged inconsistency refers only to a minor detail that does not destroy the veracity and credibility of the prosecution eyewitness, who was present at the time of the killing of the victim and who positively identified accused-appellant Suaso as the perpetrator of the crime. 10 It is also well-settled that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight particularly when affirmed by the CA. In People v. Abat, 11 the Court had the occasion to reiterate that:
This Court has time and again explained why the determination of a witness' credibility appropriately pertains to the trial court, to wit:
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, it is well-settled that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, candid, straightforward, and worthy of credence by the trial court, 12 as in the case of Gemma's testimony. The testimony of Gemma proved that accused-appellant Suaso killed the victim as she was present at the scene of the crime.
As to the defenses of denial and alibi, the CA aptly ruled that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. 13 Similarly, denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. 14 In People v. Talaro, 15 the Court expounded, thus:
In light of the positive identification of appellant by the prosecution witnesses and since no ill motive on their part or on that of their families was shown that could have made either of them institute the case against the appellant and falsely implicate him in a serious crime he did not commit, appellant's defense of alibi must necessarily fail. It is settled in this jurisdiction that the defense of alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, accused-appellant Suaso was not able to positively show that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
The CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. 16
In this case, it was evident that the attack of accused-appellant Suaso on the victim was sudden and deliberate as testified by the witness. The attack was unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the unarmed victim as it was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. 17 The act of accused-appellant Suaso in suddenly firing a sumpak or improvised gun against the victim at the very moment he stepped out of the house, leaving him unable to defend himself or evade the attack is a clear indication that he employed means and methods which tended directly and specifically to ensure the successful execution of the offense.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 11, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR.-HC. No. 08288 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-Appellant Cesar Suaso is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole and to pay the heirs of Jonathan Zuniega the following: (a) civil indemnity of Php75,000.00; (b) moral damages of Php75,000.00; (c) exemplary damages of Php75,000.00; (d) temperate damages of Php50,000.00; and (e) interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards for damages from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, rollo, pp. 12-13.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez, CA rollo, pp. 47-56.
3. As cited in the CA Decision, rollo, p. 3; RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 47.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id. at 3-4.
6.Id. at 4-5.
7.Id. at 5.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id. at 21.
10.Id. at 10.
11.People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014.
12.Lumanog v. People, G.R. Nos. 182555, 185123 & 187745, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 42, 120.
13.People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013.
14.Id.
15. G.R. No. 175781, March 20, 2012; citing People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, March 13, 2009.
16.People v. Campos and Danny Boy Acabo, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011.
17.Id.