FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253613. November 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.REY VISTRO y BIBON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 23, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 253613 — People of the Philippines v. Rey Vistro y Bibon
The appeal must fail.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), viz.:
Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
xxx xxx xxx
To sustain a verdict of conviction, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 1
We focus on the second and third elements.
Loreca Joy Caoile (Loreca) and
Positive identification pertains to proof of identity. For identification to overcome the presumption of innocence, it must be impervious to skepticism on account of its distinctiveness. Such distinctiveness is achieved through evidence which encompass unique physical features or characteristics like the face, voice, or any other physical facts which set the individual apart from the rest of humanity. 2
Here, prosecution witness Loreca recounted the events on the fateful day of October 10, 2013 and positively identified appellant Rey 3 Vistro y Bibon as the one who killed her grandmother, Perla Sabares (Perla), viz.:
PROS. ORLINO:
What caused the death of your grandmother?
A: He was shot, sir.
Q: Why do you say that he was shot?
A: Because I saw a gun being fired at her for (sic) three times.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How far were you from your grandmother when you saw her being shot?
A: It's just near.
Q: From your place on the witness stand, could you please point anywhere here in the Court representing the distance between you and your grandmother at the time she was being shot?
A: From here up to that chair, sir. There's a house leading our house.
PROS. ORLINO:
About seven (7) meters away. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned of Rey Vistro, who is this Rey Vistro?
A: He is the one, sir. (Witness pointed to a man in [a] yellow shirt).
PROS. ORLINO:
May we ask the name of the man pointed to by the witness?
COURT INTERPRETER:
When asked his name, he said his name is Rey Vistro. 4
Meanwhile, Loida corroborated Loreca's positive identification of appellant as the author of the crime:
Q: Where were you then last October 10, 2013 at 6:00 o'clock in the morning?
A: I was behind the house washing clothes when I heard three gunshots at the same time with the ringing of the church bell.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You claimed that you were washing clothes then, how about your mother where is she?
A: My mother was at the grotto sweeping, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How far was your mother from you, your place where you are washing clothes [at] that time?
A: Very near, sir.
Q: Will you point to a certain distance if (sic) where is your mother taking into consideration the place to (sic) where you are now seated is (sic) the place where you are washing clothes then?
A: From here to that place where a woman seated behind my brother which is around eight (8) meters, sir.
Q: When you claimed that you heard gunshots and this coincide[d] with the ringing of the church bell, what did you do?
A: I immediately stood up and I saw Reynaldo Vistro tucked his gun on his right waist.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what else did you notice [sic] after Reynaldo Vistro tucked his gun on his right waist?
A: He was on board a skeleton motorcycle while tucking his gun on his right waist. 5
xxx xxx xxx
Loreca clearly saw the assailant suddenly shoot someone. When she learned the victim was her grandmother, she wasted no time and returned her gaze to the assailant to familiarize herself with his features. Loida did the same. Upon hearing the gunshots, she stood up only to learn the victim was her beloved mother. She immediately turned her view to the assailant who was then tucking the gun on his waist. The assailant immediately fled the scene onboard a scooter. In the afternoon, both Loreca and Loida went to the police station and identified the appellant from the rogue gallery of the Mangatarem Police Station as the person who killed Perla.
The lower courts uniformly gave full weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses' clear and categorical identification pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Indeed, any person, especially a daughter or granddaughter, would not point to an innocent person as her mother's or grandmother's assailant but would want the real killer to be prosecuted for justice to be truly served. 6
Appellant, nonetheless, casts doubt on the prosecution witnesses' credibility as they learned of the assailant's supposed identity through the rogue gallery of the Mangatarem Police Station.
We do not agree.
When the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court thereon (e.g., its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof) are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. More so, when such findings are affirmed by the appellate court, as here. Absent any clear showing that the courts below overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, this rule on the assessment of a witness' credibility should not be disturbed. 7
At any rate, the totality of circumstances 8 here allowed Loreca and Loida to positively identify appellant using the rogue gallery of the Mangatarem Police Station.
First. Loreca and Loida were only seven (7) and eight (8) meters away respectively from Perla which gave them ample opportunity to view and ascertain the identity of the assailant. Loreca saw a man draw a gun and shoot someone thrice. When she realized that the victim was her own grandmother, she returned her gaze to the assailant to memorize his face. As for Loida, she stood up and gazed at the assailant as soon as she heard the gunshots. She saw the assailant as he was tucking a gun on his waist. They even gazed at each other for a moment as their eyes met while appellant was fixing his cap before speeding away onboard a scooter.
Second. The incident happened around 6 o'clock in the morning. This gave them a clear view of the incident, illuminated as it was by the rising sun.
Third. They reported the incident to the police in the very afternoon of the shooting incident. Thus, their memory of the assailant's appearance was still fresh when they went over the rogue gallery of the Mangatarem Police Station.
Fourth. There was no other intervening or startling event which may have distorted their memory of the incident, including the assailant's appearance.
Finally. There was no showing that the police officers influenced them into identifying appellant as the suspect in Perla's death as they were going over the rogue gallery. Loreca positively saw appellant shoot her grandmother and was able to recognize him on the same day after browsing through all the pictures in the rogue gallery at the Mangatarem Police Station:
PROS. ORLINO:
You mentioned of (sic) the name of Rey Vistro, what did this Rey Vistro do at that time when you said you saw him?
A: He was firing a gun for (sic) three (3) times.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So[,] that time when Rey Vistro was firing his gun, what did you [feel]?
A: I felt something bad happened, sir.
Q: How do you know this Rey Vistro at that time that you saw him firing his gun?
A: No, sir. I came to know him the time they showed me the rogue gallery.
Q: That rogue gallery[,] where was that shown to you?
A: At the police station, sir.
Q: For the record, that time that you saw this Rey or Reynaldo Vistro firing his firearm towards your grandmother then[,] you did not know yet his name?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you were able to know his name when you went to the police station while you were seeing pictures in the rogue gallery in the police station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That police station, where was that?
A: Mangatarem Police Station.
Q: When did you go to Mangatarem Police station to see the rogue gallery?
A: In the afternoon of the same day.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said you went to the police station[,] aside from seeing the pictures from the gallery of the Mangatarem police station, what else did you do at the police station?
A: I look[ed] at all the pictures at the gallery and I've seen that he has a resemblance. 9 (Emphases supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Loida, on the other, was able to recognize appellant as he saw him in the act of tucking a gun in his waist and they happened to have gazed at each other while appellant was fixing his cap before speeding away from the locus criminis. She testified:
Q: So you claimed that you [saw] Reynaldo Vistro right after that instance tucking his gun on his waist speeding away from his scooter, if you will see that person whom you are referring to[,] will you be able to identify?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Could you please look inside the courtroom and identify said person?
A: Yes, sir, the one in yellow shirt.
COURT INTERPRETER:
She has pointed to the accused who answered his name is Reynaldo Vistro.
PROS. MARTIN:
And who was the same person arraigned in this case, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. MARTIN:
Before October 10, 2013, do you know already Reynaldo Vistro?
A: No, sir.
Q: How come you know him after October 10, 2013?
A: At the police station in their rogue gallery.
Q: In what police station are you referring to?
A: Mangatarem police station, sir.
Q: How sure are you that the person you pointed to now is the person whom you [saw] last October 10, 2013 at 6 [sic] o'clock in the morning when your grandmother was shot?
A: When he is fixing his cap[,] we happened to look at each other before speeding with his scooter.10 x x x (Emphases supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, Loida and Loreca were able to identify appellant as the assailant after being shown the entire rogue gallery of the Mangatarem Police Station. There was no showing of any suggestiveness on the part of the police officers during the presentation of the rogue gallery.
Similarly, in People v. Hernando, 11 the Court found therein eyewitnesses' out-of-court identification reliable for the following reasons: First, Dirige and David were very near the place where the victim was shot, giving them a good view of the gunman. Second, no competing event took place to draw their attention from the incident. Third, David immediately gave the description of the gunman to the police officers, while Dirige gave the description four (4) days after the shooting incident along with an explanation for the delay. Finally, there was no evidence that the police had supplied or even suggested to Dirige and David that appellant was the suspected gunman.
All told, the courts below did not err in according full weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses' straight and categorical identification of appellant as the one who killed Perla. Against appellant's denial and alibi, the prosecution witnesses' positive identification surely deserves greater weight and credit.
Treachery attended Perla's killing
There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime to ensure its commission without risk to himself or herself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It requires: (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (b) said means of execution be deliberately or consciously adopted. 12
Both elements must be present. It is not sufficient that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and without any warning or provocation. There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself or herself. 13
Here, appellant adopted means of execution which rendered Perla defenseless and without any opportunity to defend herself. In the early morning of October 10, 2013, Perla was innocently sweeping the grotto when, sans any warning at all, appellant shot her three (3) times. Loreca, who was having her early morning walk that day, witnessed the events unfold from when appellant drew his gun until he actually fired it. Loida, too, testified that she was doing the laundry about eight (8) meters away from her mother Perla when she heard three (3) gunshots. When she stood up, she saw appellant tuck a gun on his waist.
Appellant clearly adopted the means of execution to ensure Perla's death without risk to himself. The number and location of the wounds which Perla sustained reveal appellant's determined intent to kill her. Per Dr. Carmelita Ayson's Medical Report dated October 10, 2013, Perla was shot in the head, right shoulder, and upper abdomen. After shooting the victim, appellant immediately fled the scene onboard his scooter.
In People v. Barellano, 14 the Court noted the presence of treachery when therein appellant stealthily approached the unarmed victim from the back and suddenly shot him in the head. The latter did not have any inkling whatsoever of the impending danger that lurked behind him and was rendered totally defenseless when appellant shot him in the head from behind. The attack came without warning or any slightest provocation on the part of the victim. It was also deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
So must it be.
Penalty
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Sans any aggravating circumstance here, appellant must be sentenced to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 63 of the same Code. 15 Per A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the qualification "without eligibility for parole" need not be specified since appellant was not sentenced to reclusion perpetua in lieu of death by virtue of Republic Act No. 9346. 16
The Court, nonetheless, reduces the appellate court's award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 17 In addition, the Court deems it proper to award temperate damages of P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages of P36,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 18
These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 19
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated June 18, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11041, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant Rey Vistro y Bibon is GUILTY of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is further ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Perla Sabares, the following:
(1) P75,000.00 as Civil indemnity;
(2) P75,000.00 as Moral Damages;
(3) P75,000.00 as Exemplary Damages; and
(4) P50,000.00 as Temperate Damages.
The monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. aScITE
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See People v. Corpus y Daguio, G.R. No. 220486, June 26, 2019.
2. See People v. Santos y Del Carmen, G.R. No. 229658, August 28, 2019.
3. Sometimes spelled as Reynaldo in the Record.
4. TSN dated November 7, 2016, pp. 5-6.
5. TSN dated February 15, 2017, pp. 4-5.
6. See People v. Toro y Diano, G.R. No. 245922, January 25, 2021.
7. See Beler y Sualivido v. People, G.R. No. 244191, June 3, 2019.
8. (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. See People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128, 180 (1995).
9. TSN dated November 7, 2016, pp. 7-8.
10. TSN dated February 15, 2017, pp. 7-8.
11. 620 Phil. 759, 768-769 (2009).
12.Supra note 5.
13. See People v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 238171, June 19, 2019.
14. 377 Phil. 598, 621-622 (1999).
15. See People v. Pigar y Ambayanan, G.R. No. 247658, February 17, 2020.
16. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parol" in Indivisible Penalties, A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, August 4, 2015.
17. 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 840 (2016).
18. The settled rule is that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than the sum allowed by the Court as temperate damages, the award of temperate damages is justified in lieu of actual damages which is of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted. The rationale for this rule is that it would be anomalous and unfair for the victims heirs, who tried and succeeded in presenting receipts and other evidence to prove actual damages, to receive an amount which is less than that given as temperate damages to those who are not able to present any evidence at all. See People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 685 (2017).
19.Supra note 14.