THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197365. February 15, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. BERNARDO VERGARA alias BIMBO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2017, which ready as follows;
"G.R. No. 197365 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDO VERGARA alias BIMBO, Accused-Appellant.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused with murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, in Calabanga, Camarines, Sur under the following information dated November 11, 2003, to wit:
That on or about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of July 2, 2003, at Brgy. Sogod, Municipality of Calabanga, Province of Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, with the use of an iron pipe, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike twice one Edgar De Asis, thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal injuries which were the direct cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Edgar De Asis.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
At arraignment, the accused pled not guilty to the information.
The assailed decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) summed up the evidence of the State against the accused, 3viz.:
On July 2, 2003 at about 7:30 pm, Solomon Aguila went to the house of the victim Edgar de Asis and his wife Myrna de Asis to deliver the money that Edgar wanted to borrow. Later, Edgar excused himself and told Aguila that he will go to the store. Edgar left Myrna and Aguila while the two were conversing. CAIHTE
While conversing, Myrna and Aguila heard someone shout outside, so the latter asked permission to leave the house. Outside the house, Aguila saw appellant Bernardo Vergara strike Edgar de Asis with a pipe. The latter fell down and Vergara immediately left and ran.
Meanwhile, Bernardo Pascual was walking on his way home at about the same time when he also witnessed Bernardo Vergara hit Edgar de Asis with a hard object. He also heard Vergara's brother-in-law shout at appellant to stop and the latter ran away towards the corn plantation. Thereafter, people approached the body of Edgar de Asis and Pascual, his son and another person carried the victim's body to a motorbike.
During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses Solomon Aguila, Jr., Bernardo Pascual and Dr. Rey J. Millena. Solomon Aguila, Jr. testified that aside from being a blacksmith, he is engaged in lending. On July 2, 2003, he went to the victim's house to give the money the latter wanted to borrow. The victim excused himself to go to the store while Aguila and the victim's wife were conversing. Thereafter, they heard someone shout and Aguila went outside. There he saw appellant Bernardo Vergara strike Edgar de Asis on the head with a pipe and immediately ran away. DETACa
Bernardo Pascual stated in open court that he witnessed appellant Vergara strike the victim at the back of his head with a hard object; that de Asis fell down on his back to the ground; that he heard appellant's brother-in-law shout at the latter to stop what he was doing; and that he saw appellant run away towards the corn plantation. Thereafter, he told the people who approached the victim's body that they should bring the victim to a doctor.
Dr. Rey J. Millena testified that he issued the Necropsy Report on the body of the victim. He stated that there was contusion-hematoma at the occipital area, left side just below the external occipital protruberance found at the back of the head of the victim, fracturing and dislocating the second and third cervical vertebra severely injuring the spinal cord. He declared that the cause of death was cervical spinal cord injury secondary to blunt force because inside the cervical vertebra is the spinal cord; and that a blunt instrument like a metal pipe could have been used to cause such type of injury like the one sustained by the victim.
The CA also rendered the version of the Defense, as follows: 4
In his defense, appellant presented his sister to attest to the fact that he was not around when the killing occurred. Angelita Valencia testified that she was still a resident of Brgy. Sogod when the incident happened. She told the court that she was inside her house with her children when she heard a thud near the kitchen. She opened her windows and saw a man lying on his back on the ground so she shouted for help. She also stated that her brother was not in Sogod during that time because the latter was already residing at Calauag, Naga City. Neither was her husband, Sonny Valencia, around as he was in Malitbog so he could not have shouted at appellant during the incident.
Dorothy Vergara, wife of appellant, also took the witness stand and declared that she and her husband were in Capilihan, Calauag, Naga City on July 2, 2003. They were staying at Naga Harvest Baptist Church because both of them were members of the church and workers therein at the same time. She was a helper while her husband was a laborer in the construction building inside the compound of said church. She testified that her husband proceeded to their quarters at 5 p.m. after his work at the construction. After changing his clothes, he helped her clean the workplace and they finished cleaning the area at 6 p.m. Afterwards, they were ordered by their pastor to look after the construction materials. She stated that they searched for said materials until 10:00 o'clock in the evening. Thereafter, they went to sleep. aDSIHc
Erlinda Nazaret also testified in court to prove that appellant was in Capilihan, Naga City on July 2, 2003. She stated that she arrived at the place (Church of Born Again Christians at Calauag, Naga City) of appellant at 6:30 p.m. to bring the shoes the couple asked to be repaired. Afterwards they had conversation and Bible reading that lasted until 9 o'clock in the evening when she asked permission to leave.
Bernardo Vergara testified in court that he came to know the victim only when he was accused of killing the latter. He declared that he was never at Brgy. Sogod, Calabanga, Camarines Sur at the time the crime was committed. That Brgy. Sogod, Calabanga, Camarines Sur is twenty-five (25) minutes by jeepney to Capilihan, Calauag, Naga City. He stated that he and his wife had been residing in Naga City from the time they got married on August 10, 2001. The couple were staying inside the compound of Baptist Church of Born Again Christians and the accused was cooking at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of July 2, 2003. Afterwards, he prepared the food for their visitor Erlinda Nazaret. After dinner, they conducted some sharing of the words from the Bible until 9:00 o'clock in the evening when Erlinda Nazaret asked permission to leave. Appellant told the court that he even accompanied their friend to the gate after which, they went to sleep. 5
On April 30, 2008, after trial, the RTC rendered its judgment dated April 21, 2008, 6 disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused BERNARDO VERGARA alias "Bimbo" beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby convicted of the offense of Murder as charged. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of EDGAR DE ASIS the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P66,000.00 as actual damages and to pay the costs.
Considering that accused BERNARDO VERGARA alias "Bimbo" has undergone preventive imprisonment, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for by law. He is also meted the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification as provided for under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED. 7
The accused appealed, assigning the following errors to the RTC, namely:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE SAME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. 8
On March 8, 2010, the CA promulgated the assailed decision affirming the conviction of the accused for murder subject to the modification of the civil indemnity to P50,000.00, 9 decreeing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 21, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63 appealed from, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder is AFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATION.
As modified, the civil indemnity is reduced to P50,000.00 pesos and the other damages awarded by the court a quo are maintained.
SO ORDERED. 10 cSEDTC
Hence, this appeal.
On October 15, 2012, the accused and the Office of the Solicitor General separately manifested that they were waiving the filing of supplemental briefs; 11 hence, they thereby signified their reiteration of the arguments and submissions made in the CA.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The CA correctly appreciated the evidence of the parties, and judiciously determined the criminal responsibility of the accused for the killing of Edgar De Asis. Two eyewitnesses, namely: Bernardo Pascual and Solomon Aguila, Jr., explicitly and forthrightly attested to the accused delivering the fatal blow with the hard object on the victim.
The CA justifiably rejected the denial and alibi of the accused (of being then with his wife in Capilihan, Calauag, Naga City). Denial and alibi did not overcome the positive testimonies of the eyewitnesses whose ill motives to falsely incriminate him were not even shown. At any rate, the RTC and the CA agreed that the alibi was unworthy of consideration because the accused himself admitted that it would only take 25 minutes to travel from Capilihan, Calauag, Naga City to the scene of the crime Brgy. Sogod, Calabanga, Camarines Sur. His estimate was even decreased by the assertion of his own witness (Angelita Valencia) who admitted on cross-examination that the travel time by jeepney from Calauag to Sogod was only 15 minutes. Hence, he did not convincingly establish the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.
What remains to be determined is whether the killing was murder or homicide. The CA concluded that it was murder, observing as follows: SDAaTC
The other contention of accused-appellant that the lower court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery lacks merit.
We agree with the lower court when it found that "the prosecution was able to prove the existence of qualifying circumstance of treachery in order to qualify this case to murder." From the evidence so presented, it appears that the accused had struck suddenly and unexpectedly depriving the unsuspecting victim Edgar de Asis who was unarmed, of any real chance to defend himself, and thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk on the part of the accused.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risks to the aggressor and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. From the evidence gleaned by the trial court, the facts are enough to show that treachery was employed by accused-appellant. The attack was sudden, as testified to by witness Bernardo Pascual and unexpected considering it happened while the victim was going to a store without warning. No provocation was proved on the part of the victim. Thus, this victim had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.
As treachery attended the killing of Edgar de Asis, the crime was correctly found to be murder under paragraph l of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 12
Finding nothing to contradict the foregoing observations, we hereby adopt and reiterate them herein.
Nonetheless, we adjust the civil liability in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. In People v. Jugueta, 13 the Court fixed at P75,000.00 for each the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages awarded in rape where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, and required interest of 6% perannum to be charged on such awards reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment. In addition, we affirm the grant by the RTC of P66,000.00 as actual damages in the absence of any error being imputed to the RTC on its award, plus interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment. acEHCD
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 17, 2010 subject to the MODIFICATION that the accused shall pay to the victim AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P75,000.00, and actual damages of P66,000.00, plus 6% per annum on such amounts from the finality of the decision until full payment.
The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
(Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 13, 2017)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson (retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid (retired) and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro
3.Id. at 3-5.
4. CA Rollo, pp. 98-111; penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson (retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid (retired) and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro.
5.Id. at 5-7.
6. CA rollo, pp. 16-26; penned by RTC Judge Freddie D. Balonzo.
7.Id. at 26.
8.Id. at 7-8.
9.Supra note 2.
10.Rollo, p. 14.
11.Id. at 46.
12.Supra note 1, at 12-13.
13. G.R No. 202124, April 5, 2016.