People v. Tizon y Bagalanon

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248922. May 5, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROYET TIZON y BAGALANON @ POLMON, RONALD VENTURA y CALIGAN @ TIKBOY, JULIUS BUGHAW y LUAD @ YUKI, SEIGFRED DE LA VIÑA y MONTELLA [AL], JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE [AL], ROYET TIZON y BAGALANON, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248922 (People of the Philippines v. Royet Tizon y Bagalanon @ Polmon, Ronald Ventura y Caligan @ Tikboy, Julius Bughaw y Luad @ Yuki, Seigfred de la Viña y Montella [Al], John Doe and Peter Doe [Al], Royet Tizon y Bagalanon). — The Court resolves to NOTE accused-appellant Royet B. Tizon's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated December 18, 2020, stating that he adopts in toto all the allegations and arguments contained in his appellant's brief considering that the arguments he advanced in his brief have sufficiently and ably traversed the issues in the case at bar.

This is an Appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated May 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01866-MIN which affirmed the Decision 3 dated December 27, 2017 of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dipolog City in Criminal Case No. 18791 that found Royet Tizon y Bagalanon @ Polmon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant and his five co-accused were charged with Murder for the killing of Erwin Cademas (Erwin) under the following Information:

That on March 1, 2014, at 12 o'clock midnight, more or less, in front of Donica's 4 Resto Bar, Lopez Jaena Street, Biasong, Dipolog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill a person without justifiable cause or sufficient provocation and by means of taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maul and stab several times one ERWIN CADEMAS y Icaonapo, which resulted to his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the Information. 6 His five co-accused remained at large.

A separate trial ensued. HEITAD

The prosecution established that on March 1, 2014, at around 10:00 p.m., Erwin and Darwin Cademas (Darwin), the former's twin brother, were having a drinking spree with their cousins: Elimar Bagalanon, Myquil Magallanes; and their friends: Mark Vincent Ventilacion (Mark); Noveliza Anne Sarza, Frodelyn Dinopol, Marialuz Escalicas, and Jinky Octana at Donica's Resto Bar. After each of them had more or less two bottles of Red Horse, they decided to go home. 7 Everyone positioned themselves in their respective motorcycles when all of a sudden, a group of six men swooped in and pounced on them. One person, later identified as herein accused-appellant, punched Mark and Darwin, forcing their back-riders to jump off. Darwin accelerated his motorcycle a bit to get away, but stopped to look back at his brother and friends. Meanwhile, Erwin was dragged down from Mark's motorcycle by a person later identified as Julius Bughaw (Julius). Thereupon, accused-appellant, together with Julius and another person name Ronald Ventura (Ronald), ganged-up on Erwin and chased him as he attempted to escape. Accused-appellant then pulled a knife and stabbed Erwin at the back. Ronald also stabbed Erwin in the posterior side of his knee. 8 When Darwin returned to the crime scene, he found out that Erwin had been brought to Zanote Hospital for treatment. However, that morning, he received information that Erwin had died due to the fatal stab wounds. 9

In his defense, accused-appellant averred that at almost midnight of March 1, 2014, he went to Donica's Resto Bar to buy cigarettes. There he saw his friends Ronald, Julius, and Siegfried De La Vina. When they were about to transfer location, he saw Ronald having an altercation with someone. A fight ensued. He did not interfere in the fight because he had no quarrel with the other person. Later on, he saw Ronald pull out something from his pocket and thrust it toward his opponent. After the incident, he went into hiding at a cemetery behind their house. His mother eventually arranged for his surrender. 10

In the Decision 11 dated December 27, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced him as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, upon a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused ROYET TIZON y Bagalanon @ Polmon is hereby convicted of murder, for which he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Erwin Cademas the following amounts (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.

Let alias warrants of arrest be issued to the other accused who to date remain-at-large.

SO ORDERED. 12

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA. In the assailed Decision, 13 the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant.

Hence, the present Appeal. 14

The Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellant.

The Court sees no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. After all, it is well-settled that "the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal considering that [it] is in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial." 15 Here, the trial court's ruling on the issue of credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect in the absence of a clear showing that it had "overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance" that could have altered the outcome of the case. 16

In this case, the lower courts properly held that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of Murder. The prosecution established that Erwin died as a result of the surprise attack of accused-appellant, in conspiracy with five of his companions. They attacked Erwin in a surprise manner, mauled him, and stabbed him, which led to his death. The stab wound was inflicted at the back of Erwin while he was fleeing, thus leaving him unable to defend himself from accused-appellant and his friends who took advantage of their superior number.

The lower courts, too, properly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant, together with his co-accused, excessively and forcefully attacked the unarmed victim. They dragged him down, isolated him from the rest of his friends, and stabbed him as he attempted to escape. They deliberately took advantage of their numerical superiority and strength and even held Erwin to deprive him of any chance to retaliate and parry the blows that came his way. To the Court's mind, all these acts show that accused-appellant and his co-accused purposely used force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the unarmed victim, 17 who eventually died.

As to accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, these deserve scant consideration in view of the positive and credible testimony of the eyewitnesses to the crime. Verily, settled is the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses, which cannot prevail against the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. These defenses are facile to fabricate, difficult to disprove, and are generally rejected. 18

Based on these considerations, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove accused-appellant's guilt for the murder of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, and upholds the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon him. However, to conform to recent jurisprudence, the Court deems it proper to reduce the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages from P100,000.00 to P75,000.00 each, and to impose interest on all monetary awards at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 19

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01866-MIN is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Royet Tizon y Bagalanon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of Erwin Cademas P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the temperate damages of P50,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until paid in full. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-15.

2.Id. at 5-13; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Walter S. Ong and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 49-58; penned by Judge Ric S. Bastasa.

4. Don Nika in some parts of the rollo.

5.Id. at 49.

6.Id.

7.Rollo, p. 5.

8.Id. at 5-6.

9.Id. at 5-7.

10.Id. at 6-7.

11. CA rollo, pp. 49-58.

12.Id. at 58.

13.Id. at 5-13.

14.Id. at 14-15.

15.People v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748, 756 (2002).

16.Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 829, 836 (2002).

17.People v. Campit, 822 Phil. 448 (2017).

18.People v. Mapalo, 543 Phil. 651, 675 (2007).

19.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).