SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211610. March 2, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSUE TUBALE y Marfel a.k.a. ROLLY CABRILLOS y TUBALE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 March 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211610 (People of the Philippines v. Josue Tubale y Marfel a.k.a. Rolly Cabrillos y Tubale) — After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant appeal, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for lack of merit. Both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. HTcADC
The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery which was duly established by the prosecution. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." 1 Here, the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant suddenly attacked the victim from behind; the victim had no inkling whatsoever of any impending peril to his person. Appellant followed the victim inside the premises of the bakery and while the latter's back was turned towards him, appellant suddenly stabbed him from behind. And while suffering from the stab wound at his back, appellant launched another attack, this time aimed at the chest of the victim. Evelyn Magno (Evelyn) testified as follows:
PROSECUTOR ANTONIO:
Q: And you mentioned that they were outside of the bakery. When you mentioned that both of them were outside of the bakery, what time was that Miss witness, was it in the morning or in the afternoon?
[EVELYN A:] In the afternoon, sir.
Q. What time was that in the afternoon, probably?
A. I think about 2:30, sir.
Q. What were they doing at that time, the accused Josue Tubale and Gerald Montilla, outside of the bakery at around 2:30 in the afternoon?
A. They were sitting in front of the store, sir.
Q. Then after where did they go, if any?
A. They did not leave the place, sir.
Q. Did they go inside the bakery?
A. Only Gerald, sir.
Q. Gerald Montilla?
A. And then he was followed by Mr. Tubale, sir.
Q. Then, when accused Josue Tubale followed the victim, Gerald Montilla, inside the bakery, what happened next, if any?
A. He approached [K]uya Gerald and then he stabbed him at the back, sir.
Q. How far were you when you saw Josue Tubale [stab] the victim, Gerald Montilla?
A. About a meter, sir.
Q. And did you see how many times did the accused Josue Tubale stab the victim, Gerald Montilla?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. How many times?
A. Two (2) times, sir.
Q. In what portion of the body was the victim stabbed by the accused? First stabbing, where?
A. At the back, sir.
Q. Second stabbing, where?
A. Chest, Sir.
Q. And you said that you saw it, what weapon did the accused use in stabbing?
A. A fan knife, sir.
Q. And after that stabbing twice, what happened to the victim?
A. He fell down. 2
During her cross-examination, Evelyn further narrated that the victim and the appellant tried to settle their misunderstanding immediately prior to the stabbing incident thereby lending credence to the prosecution's theory that the victim was totally unaware of the harm that would be fell his person:
ATTY. MAROHOMBSAR:
Q. And you mentioned a while ago that, upon reaching the victim he suddenly stabbed him?
A. He approached the victim first and then he stabbed him, sir.
Q. Did they have a conversation, Miss witness?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was their conversation, Miss witness?
A. That they [patch] things whatever happened during their drinking session in the morning, sir.
Q. Now, what was the reaction of the victim?
A. He asked for an apology, sir.
Q. What about the accused, what was his reaction?
A. He has a different reaction, sir, because during that time, the accused is drunk. 3
Indeed, it was reasonable for the victim to think that since he offered his apologies to the appellant, the former would not reciprocate his generous and sincere act with aggression, particularly, in stabbing him at the back and chest. This is especially so since they already shook hands after their altercation in the morning. Without doubt, the attack on the victim was treacherous. "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow." 4 The prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements of treachery: (i) "the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (ii) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender." 5 aScITE
However, we agree with the appellant that evident premeditation did not attend the killing. "The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment." 6 Accordingly, in order to establish the existence of evident premeditation, the prosecution is tasked to prove the following during the trial: "(i) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (ii) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination, and (iii) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act, and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will. Evident premeditation cannot be presumed in the absence of evidence showing when and how the accused planned, and prepared for the crime, and that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between his determination and execution." 7 In ruling that evident premeditation attended the killing, both the RTC and the CA noted that the victim and the appellant had an altercation in the morning; then, at around 3:30 in the afternoon, the appellant stabbed the victim. We find the foregoing insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. The prosecution did not establish what time in the morning did the altercation between the appellant and the victim happen. Hence, the first requisite was not proved, i.e., the approximate time the appellant determined to kill the victim. Since the first element was not established, it follows that the third element was similarly not proved, i.e., that sufficient time had lapse between the determination to kill and the execution thereof as to afford the appellant to think through with his plan to kill the victim. Anent the second element, in order to show that appellant clung to his determination to kill the victim, the prosecution argued that this is manifest from the fact that appellant armed himself with a fan knife. However, the prosecution failed to show that from the start, appellant was not armed with a knife and that he only armed himself after he has decided to kill the victim.
In sum, we hold that only the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing. Nonetheless, the same qualified the killing to murder. Both the RTC and the CA therefore properly sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, there is a need to modify the damages awarded. People v. Jugueta8 provides that when the attendant circumstances call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. In addition to these awards, the heirs of the victim is entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages. Finally, all damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid. 9
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal, ADOPT the findings of the Court of Appeals, and to AFFIRM its March 13, 2013 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04986 finding appellant Josue Tubale y Marfel a.k.a. Rolly Cabrillos y Tubale guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua subject to the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Gerald Montilla y Villegas P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. Finally, all damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Reyes, A. Jr. J., no part for having concurred in the assailed Decision; Caguioa, J., designated as additional Member vice Reyes, A. Jr., J. per raffle dated February 3, 2020.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14 (16).
2. TSN, April 2, 2008, pp. 10-12.
3. TSN, April 2, 2008, pp. 23-24.
4.People v. Abierra, G.R. No. 227504, June 13, 2018.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8. 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
9.Id. at 854.