THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199443. January 22, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGELITO TAGALOG Y JUMAMIL AND AGAPITO TAMSI Y HIDALGO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 22, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199443 (People of the Philippines v. Angelito Tagalog y Jumamil and Agapito Tamsi y Hidalgo). — Rogelio Paculba and his friends Jose Sarabia, Romano Coto, and Mark Rapirap began playing cards at Paculba's house in Dampas District, Tagbilaran City on December 4, 2004. The game progressed into the morning of December 5. At around 3:00 a.m., they decided to take a break and buy tuba at the squatters' area. As they approached the store, accused-appellant Angelito Tagalog blocked their way and suddenly bludgeoned Paculba's head with a pair of combat boots. Tagalog continued the attack until Paculba fell to the ground.
While this was taking place, Sarabia saw the other accused-appellant Agapito Tamsi hiding behind bamboo trees come out and charge towards them with a balisong and bolo. Alerted, Sarabia, Coto, and Rapirap ran away but not before they saw Tamsi turn on Paculba and stab him. The police and Paculba's family brought him to the hospital but he later died due to the stab wound on his back. DHIETc
The Public Prosecutor charged accused Tagalog and Tamsi, both residing at the squatters' area, with Paculba's murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City in Criminal Case 12546.
Accused Tagalog testified that he drank up to the morning in question with his nephew Jason and accused Tamsi at the latter's house. On the way home afterwards, Tagalog had a quarrel with Jason. To avoid further trouble with his nephew, Tagalog decided to go to the terminal to spend the rest of the night there. On the way there, however, he encountered four men, including Paculba, who seemed intent on picking a fight with him. To defend himself, Tagalog struck Paculba with the combat boots that he was carrying, then ran towards the terminal where he stayed until 5:00 a.m. When Tagalog went home later, the police arrested him. THaAEC
Tamsi, on the other hand, alleged that after their drinking session, Jason returned and asked him to come out as four men were outside the house looking for him. Tamsi's wife asked her husband, however, not to venture out. After a few hours, Tamsi went to his brother's house to ask for fish. On the way, Tamsi met Jason who confessed to having stabbed Paculba. Tamsi decided to stay with his brother for a couple of days. When he went home, the police arrested him. Tamsi's wife corroborated her husband's story.
The RTC found accused Tagalog and Tamsi guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to jointly and severally pay Paculba's heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P4,605.00 as actual damages, and to pay the costs.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC 00677, the court affirmed on April 14, 2011 the RTC Decision with modifications in that it increased the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity to P75,000.00 each. 1 The case is on appeal to this Court. TIcAaH
The accused claims that there could not have been treachery considering the limited number of wounds that Paculba suffered. But, as the CA stated, it was not the number of the wounds inflicted that established the treachery; what was decisive was the manner the assailants executed the attack. Since Paculba gave no provocation, it was hardly possible for him to anticipate the need to defend himself or to retaliate. 2 Clearly, Tagalog and Tamsi specially sought means to insure its execution without risk to themselves.
As regards conspiracy, the acts of both accused; their presence in the vicinity; their chosen mode of attack, of first striking the victim down before stabbing him; and then fleeing together from the scene, all showed a concerted effort and unity of purpose. Further, as the trial court said, accused-appellants' bare denial pales in contrast to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies supported by the evidence on record.
The Court finds that neither the trial court nor the CA overlooked or misunderstood any substance or fact which would have materially affected the outcome of the case.
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS in toto the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC 00677 dated April 14, 2011 that found accused-appellants Angelito Tagalog y Jumamil and Agapito Tamsi y Hidalgo GUILTY as charged, sentenced them accordingly, and ordered them to pay the heirs of Rogelio Paculba the stated damages.
SO ORDERED." aHESCT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles.
2. People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010, 636 SCRA 533, 542, citing People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 800.