FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201154. June 26, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MARLON TOLOSA Y OBLIGACION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 26, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201154 (People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Tolosa y Obligacion). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03966 which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated May 26, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 272, finding Marlon Tolosa (Tolosa) guilty of the crime of murder.
Tolosa was charged in an Information 3 which stated, as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of February 2000, in the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one ROLLY CRUZ y GANTANG, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On arraignment, Tolosa pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He waived his right to pre-trial. Hence, the court terminated the pre-trial conference and proceeded to trial. acEHSI
During the hearing, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Arnel Asejo (Asejo) and Police Senior Inspector Jaime Rodrigo Leal (P/Sr. Insp. Leal), who is the Medico Legal Officer of the Women's Crime and Child Protection Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Asejo mainly testified that on February 12, 2000, at around 1:40 a.m., he was at the resettlement area in Balubad, Nangka, Marikina City to watch a dance program. More than fifty (50) people were present. During the event, Asejo stood at about three arms length away from Rolly Cruz (Cruz), who was also there to watch the program. A friend of Asejo named Arnold Fernandez was there in between them. While watching the dance, Asejo said that he noticed Tolosa who stood behind Cruz, stab the latter's right side of the neck once with a knife. The incident caused the people to scurry away. Cruz, although injured, ran towards the upper portion of Balubad while Tolosa ran towards the house located at the lower portion of the area. The following morning, Asejo learned that Cruz died.
P/Sr. Insp. Leal, as prosecution witness, testified that he received a request for the autopsy of the cadaver of Cruz and a Certificate of Identification and Consent for Autopsy signed by Cruz's brother, Alfredo G. Albana. He personally conducted an autopsy examination on the body of the victim at the morgue of the crime laboratory which gave the following result that caused the victim's death, viz.:
"EVIDENCE OF INJURY:
Neck:
1) Stab wound, right posterior neck region, measuring 1.5 by 0.7 cm, 6.5 cm from the anterior midline, 14 cm deep, 153 cm from the heel, directed anteriorward, downward and medialward, transecting the right common carotid artery." 5 IDAESH
Thus, according to him, the location of the stab wound and the direction, anteriorward, downward and medialward, it is mostly likely that the perpetrator was positioned behind the victim.
The prosecution was supposed to present the mother of the victim as its third witness but she apparently desisted considering that she agreed to a settlement regarding the payment of expenses. After the formal offer of documentary exhibits, the prosecution rested its case.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Tolosa's lone testimony in evidence. Tolosa denied having killed Cruz. According to him, on February 11, 2000, between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., he was watching a dance party at Block 24, Balubad Street, Nangka, Marikina City which was eight blocks away from his house. He went home at around 12:00 midnight as he felt sleepy. On his way home, he met Angelito Ballecera and chatted with him for about an hour. Thereafter, he went straight home and arrived there at around 1:00 a.m. of the following day. Upon reaching home, he slept and was awakened at around 3:00 a.m. by Kuya Danny, a friend, who invited him for a drink. However, he turned down the invitation and went back to sleep. He woke up at around 6:00 a.m. and carried out his usual routine. 6
There being no other evidence, the defense counsel formally offered Tolosa's testimony and rested its case. The case was submitted for decision in view of the parties' failure to submit memoranda within the period given by the court.
On May 26, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision 7 convicting Tolosa of the crime of murder. The trial court found nothing that would tend to discredit the clear and convincing testimony of Asejo for reasons that he personally witnessed the crime and that he was not ill-motivated to testify falsely against the accused. As such, the testimony of Asejo positively identifying Tolosa as the one who stabbed Cruz deserves great weight and credit and is fully supported by the medico-legal findings on the cadaver of Cruz that the fatal wound he sustained therefrom was the cause of his death. The RTC, thus, decreed the case in this manner: IAETSC
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, accused MARLON TOLOSA y OBLIGACION is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery. And there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, said accused is hereby sentenced reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay the heirs of Rolly Cruz y Gantang, the sums of:
a.] [P]22,500.00 representing actual damages; and
b.] [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
The period during which the herein accused was in detention during the pendency of this case shall be credited to him in full provided that he agree to abide by and comply with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Marikina.
SO ORDERED. 8
On appellate review, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court as to the credibility of Asejo's testimony positively identifying Tolosa as the one who stabbed Cruz during the dance party. The CA likewise aptly discussed that "[t]he fact that Cruz was not in front of Asejo but was on [Cruz's] left side instead, did not make it improbable for [Asejo] to witness the stabbing incident." 9 Asejo's testimony is bolstered by the autopsy conducted on Cruz's body which showed that "he died due to a stab wound on the neck particularly on the right posterior neck region." 10 This, according to the CA, undeniably jibes with Asejo's testimony that he saw Tolosa stab Cruz on the right side of the neck. As to the awarded damages, the CA, however, added moral and exemplary damages in view of prevailing jurisprudence providing for the same. Thus, in its Decision 11 dated September 7, 2011, the CA disposed the case in this manner: IcTCHD
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 26 May 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in Crim. Case No. 00-3460-MK, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that moral and exemplary damages are likewise AWARDED to the heirs of Rolly Cruz y Gantang in the amounts of P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.
SO ORDERED. 12
Hence, the instant appeal anchored on the sole issue of whether or not Tolosa is guilty of murder.
This Court resolves to sustain the conviction.
The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court. 13
In the present case, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The testimony of Asejo is worthy of belief as it were clear and straightforward as to positively identify Tolosa as the person who stabbed Cruz. Significantly, Tolosa never imputed any ill motive on the part of Asejo to falsely testify against him. As shown in the records, Tolosa is a neighbor who drives a tricycle within the neighborhood. Asejo never had any prior communication with Tolosa except during the time when Asejo was a passenger in the latter's vehicle. Other than that, no subsequent incidents took place that would stir Asejo against Tolosa. ISDCHA
This Court agrees with the RTC and CA in appreciating treachery to qualify the killing into murder. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus, insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. 14 Here, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the presence of treachery during the commission of the crime. As can be gleaned from the records, Asejo testified on the suddenness of the attack employed by Tolosa using a bladed weapon while he stood behind Cruz whose attention was totally focused on the dance program. Evidently, Cruz had no means to put up any defense when Tolosa stabbed him at the rear right portion of his neck. Such aggression on the part of Tolosa insured the commission of the crime without risk.
As a rule, qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 15 The Information, in the instant case, stated that "the above-named accused, while armed with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one ROLLY CRUZ y GANTANG[.]" 16 Such accusatory portion satisfies the requirement of the Rules that qualifying circumstances be pleaded in the Information. It is well-settled that matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the description of the offense, need not be averred. 17 Even assuming that the allegation in the Information is deficient, the same can still sustain a conviction not only due to the accused's failure to raise such issue but also because such deficiency was remedied by competent evidence presented therein. 18 It should be noted that Tolosa never raised the issue that he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him during the pendency of the case in the RTC. Worse, he allowed the prosecution to adduce evidence constituting the elements of treachery in the commission of the crime. Thus, Tolosa is deemed to have waived any objections against the sufficiency of the Information. acAESC
As to the award of damages, this Court sustains the award granted by the CA as the amounts are correct and in accordance with law except as to the amount of civil indemnity awarded that should be modified from the amount of P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. 19
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Decision dated September 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03966 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity shall be in the amount of P75,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-15.
2.Rendered by Judge Felix P. Reyes; CA rollo, pp. 30-39.
3.Id. at 28-29.
4.Id. at 28.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Id.
7.CA rollo, pp. 30-39.
8.Id. at 39.
9.Rollo, p. 6.
10.Id. at 11.
11.Id. at 2-15.
12.Id. at 14.
13.People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 695, 701-702, citing Zarraga v. People, 519 Phil. 614, 620 (2006).
14.People v. Esquibel, G.R. No. 192465, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 679, 686.
15.People v. Lab-Eo, 424 Phil. 482, 497 (2002).
16.CA rollo, p. 28.
17.Balitaan v. CFI of Batangas, Branch II, et al., 201 Phil. 311, 323 (1982).
18.People v. Candaza, 524 Phil. 589, 599 (2006).
19.People of the Philippines v. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 193.