THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230330. June 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALEX SULTAN y DIMALNA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 28, 2021, which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 230330 (People of the Philippines v. Alex Sultan y Dimalna). — This is an appeal 1 of the August 12, 2016 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07685 which affirmed the July 1, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 165, in Criminal Case No. 2012-14135-MK finding accused-appellant Alex Sultan y Dimalna (Sultan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Factual Antecedents:
Sultan was charged with the crime of Murder in an Information 4 dated June 26, 2012 which alleges:
On or about the 5th day of April 2012, in the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with an unidentified male person whose true name, identity and present whereabouts is still unknown and they mutually helping and aiding with one another, while armed with an improvised gun locally known as "sumpak," with intent to kill and with suddenness of the attack thus depriving his victim the opportunity to defend himself, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [shoot] one JOSEPH CASTILLO y CONTRERAS on his trunk thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wounds, which caused his death soon thereafter, the said killing having been attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation which [change] the nature of the felony qualifying such killing to the more serious capital crime of MURDER.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Sultan pleaded "not guilty" during his arraignment. 6 Trial thereafter ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On April 5, 2012 at around 9:45 in the evening, Vladimir L. Gatchalian (Vladimir), a tanod at Brgy. Parang, Marikina City, and his colleague Eduardo Clemente (Eduardo) were on their way to Brgy. Tumana to fetch a party in a marital dispute case when they chanced upon Sultan and a companion walking from an alley on his left. Two (2) other men, one of whom was the victim Joseph Castillo (Joseph), were likewise walking in an alley on his right. Sultan and his companion approached Joseph and suddenly shot him with a sumpak. Joseph fell on the ground, lifeless. Sultan then looked at Vladimir and casually walked away towards the direction of the right alley with his companion. 7
Vladimir, who was four (4) arm's length away from the shooting incident, was shocked and immobilized by what he witnessed. He and Eduardo then went back to their barangay. A few moments later, four (4) police officers came and invited them to the police station to give their statement on the incident. 8
The next day, Vladimir went back to the police station to sign his Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated how Sultan shot Joseph. The police officers also showed him several photographs for him to identify the shooter. Among the photographs, he saw and pointed at Alex's mug shot, which was taken on April 10, 2012 after being arrested for Robbery. 9
Per the Medico-Legal Report 10 prepared by P/Supt. Bonnie V. Chua, the medico-legal examiner, Joseph suffered from three (3) gunshot wounds, two (2) in his trunk which caused his death and one (1) in his extremities. He also had abrasions in his head, neck, right hand and knee. 11
Version of the Defense:
Sultan denied killing Joseph. He claimed that on the night of the incident, he was at his in-laws' house in Sta. Maria, Bulacan to pick up his wife and son. Sultan admitted staying in Marikina for a month but claimed that he could not recall when he went to the city. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial
The trial court found that treachery attended the killing and thus convicted Sultan of the crime of Murder. It lent credence to the testimony of Vladimir who positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant of Joseph. The trial court ruled that the positive identification has more weight than the mere defenses of denial and alibi proffered by Alex. 13
The fallo of the RTC Decision 14 reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence presented by the prosecution to be sufficient to sustain conviction, the Court finds accused Alex Sultan y Dimalna GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility for parole.
He is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased victim actual damages in the amount of Php100,000.00 and civil indemnity of Php75,000.00 with subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency.
His period of detention shall be fully credited to his sentence if he, in writing, fully abides by the disciplinary rules of the institutions.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 15
Sultan appealed to the CA, asserting that his identity as the assailant of Joseph was not proven with certainty. The light coming from the electric post illuminated the perpetrator's back and not his face. Further, Vladimir saw only the back of the purported suspect the moment Joseph was shot. He only pointed at accused-appellant among the photographs showed to him at the police station after the incident transpired. 16
Sultan likewise argued that there was lack of proof that treachery was employed so as to qualify the killing of Joseph to Murder. 17
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its August 12, 2016 Decision, 18 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated July 1, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 165 in Criminal Case No. 2012-14135-MK is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 19
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Did Alex treacherously kill Joseph?
Our Ruling
The Court finds the appeal bereft of merit.
An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case open for review. It is the duty of the reviewing court to determine any errors, assigned or not, in the appealed judgment, and correct the same, if any. 20 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 21
Sultan insists on his innocence since his identity as Joseph's assailant has not been proved with certainty. He maintains his claim that he was in Bulacan on the date and time of the incident. Assuming that he did kill Joseph, he avers that treachery was not duly proven to be present to qualify the killing to Murder. 22
We disagree.
Prefatorily, the Court stresses that factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect. 23 We therefore do not disturb its findings on appeal except if there are factual circumstances that were overlooked or misinterpreted which would materially affect the disposition of the case. 24
The Court has judiciously reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
The elements of Murder were
Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659, defines Murder in this wise:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
The following elements must be duly established to prove Murder: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 25
We entertain no doubt that Sultan killed Joseph. Vladimir's narration was clear, straightforward, and categorical that Sultan shot Joseph. He was only four (4) arm's length away when he saw accused-appellant approach and shoot Joseph without any warning using a weapon which he covered with a black handkerchief. From where he was standing, Vladimir identified that this weapon used was a sumpak, describing it with particularity during his direct examination. 26
Sultan's claim that it was impossible for Vladimir to identify the killer as he was facing against the light coming from the lamp post is not persuasive. To recall, Vladimir testified that accused-appellant looked at him after he had shot Joseph and before he scampered away from the crime scene. 27 Thus, Vladimir can positively identify him as the assailant. This brief but essential encounter likewise enabled him to point at Sultan's mug shot with certainty amidst the photographs of several arrested individuals shown to him by the law enforcers.
Out-of-court identification is
Under the totality of circumstances test, the following factors must be considered for out-of-court identification of suspects to be rendered admissible: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the perpetrator of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at the time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty shown by the witness of his/her identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 28
Photographic identification is proper when: (1) a series of photographs is shown and not merely that of the suspect; and (2) a witness is shown a group of pictures, its arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. 29
Here, Vladimir's close proximity at the time of the incident and, more importantly, the fact that Sultan looked at him after shooting Joseph gave him ample opportunity to recognize the latter. His memory and recollection of accused-appellant's face remained vivid when he was at the police station and made to identify accused-appellant among the several photographs of arrested individuals.
The photographic identification is likewise proper. The law enforcers showed Vladimir a series of photographs, not only of Sultan's. He was able to pinpoint accused-appellant among those showed to him, with no proof that the photographs were displayed in a manner that would suggest Sultan as the perpetrator of the crime.
Sultan's defenses of denial and
The Court finds accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi to be self-serving. They are nothing but bare assertions which cannot outweigh the positive identification made by Vladimir.
Moreover, Sultan's alibi that he was in Bulacan at the time of the incident remains uncorroborated. In People v. Pentecostes, 30 We ruled that "for alibi to prevail, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else." 31 Here, the appellate court correctly observed that Bulacan is just a few hours away from Marikina. Hence, it was physically possible for Sultan to be at the place of the incident.
Treachery, as a qualifying
For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be present: (1) the means, method, or manner of execution were employed to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or herself to retaliate; and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution. 32
In other words, there is treachery if the offender, in committing crimes against persons, employed means, methods or forms which tend to directly and especially to ensure their execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make. 33 The treacherous attack must be deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 34 Thus, mere suddenness, by itself, does not automatically amount to treachery. 35
Here, Vladimir attested that Joseph who was unarmed was merely walking with his companion unaware that death would befall upon him. Sultan shot Joseph multiple times without any warning. The attack was sudden and unexpected leaving no opportunity for Joseph to defend himself. Clearly, Sultan employed such means to ensure that he would successfully accomplish his criminal intent leaving no opportunity for Joseph to repel his attack.
Indubitably, the Court finds that the appellate court did not err in finding Sultan guilty of the crime of Murder.
Penalty and the award of damages.
Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no other aggravating circumstances in the instant case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly sentenced Alex to reclusion perpetua. However, pursuant to A.M. 15-08-02-SC, 36 the phrase "without eligibility for parole" is deleted for being unnecessary. 37
Anent the awards of damages, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is correct in view of the penalty imposed. 38 However, the Court finds it proper to grant the awards of moral and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. 39
The Court also modifies and deletes the award of actual damages. Judy Castillo, Joseph's wife, narrated that she spent P200,000.00 for her husband's funeral and burial expenses. 40 The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, awarded P100,000.00 as actual damages. However, only the amount of P67,950.00 was supported by receipts. 41 Thus, the Court awards the heirs of Joseph P67,950.00 as actual damages.
Lastly, the total of all the monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 42
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 12, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07685 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant Alex Sultan y Dimalna is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The phrase "without eligibility of parole" is DELETED.
Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount P75,000.00 each, and actual damages in the amount of P67,950.00. All the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED." (Gesmundo C.J., designated as additional Member per raffle dated December 17, 2019 viceInting J., who recused due to the prior action of his sister, J. Socorro B. Inting, prior action in the Court of Appeals.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 113-114.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by now Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a Retired Member of this Court) and Socorro B. Inting.
3. CA rollo, pp. 59-68; penned by Presiding Judge Acerey C. Pacheco.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 16.
7. TSN, June 24, 2013, pp. 4-8.
8.Id. at 8-10.
9.Id. at 12-13.
10. Records, p. 100.
11. TSN, July 28, 2014, pp. 9-14.
12. TSN, April 14, 2015, pp. 3-6.
13. Records, pp. 119-124.
14.Rollo, pp. 2-12.
15. CA rollo, p. 68.
16.Id. at 47-53.
17.Id. at 53-55.
18.Rollo, pp. 2-12.
19.Id. at 106.
20.Ramos v. People, 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).
21.Id., citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 607 (2016).
22. CA rollo, pp. 53-35.
23.People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 292 (2015).
24.Id. at 263.
25.Ramos v. People, supra note 20 at 783.
26. TSN, June 24, 2013, p. 7.
27.Id. at 8.
28.People v. Pineda, 473 Phil. 517, 539-540 (2004).
29.Id. at 540.
30. 820 Phil. 823 (2017).
31.Id. at 843.
32.Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25, 44-45 (2014).
33.People v. Tomas, Sr., 658 Phil. 653, 675 (2011).
34.Id.
35.Id.
36. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
37.People v. Espina, G.R. No. 219614, July 10, 2019.
38.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
39.Id.
40. TSN, January 21, 2013, p. 5.
41. Records, pp. 94-97.
42.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020.