THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208019. April 7, 2014.]
NICASIO TABIANA y GALIDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208019 (Nicasio Tabiana y Galido vs. People of the Philippines). — An information for homicide 1 was filed against petitioner Nicasio Tabiana 2 and four others for the death of one Nelson A. Ga-ang. The co-accused are Ariel Alagos, Marlon Nepomoseno, Ben Galido, and Onie Galido. 3 The information reads:
That on or about October 13, 2000 in the evening at Purok 3B, Barangay Managok, Malaybalay City, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill with the use of a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally assault, attack and stab NELSON A. GA-ANG, inflicting injuries on his person which cause his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim in such amount that they may be entitled to under the law.
CONTRARY TO and Violation of Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. 4
Nicasio pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on October 17, 2001. 5 Pre-trial conference followed on December 12, 2001, then trial ensued. 6
Prosecution's version
Michelle Rara, Ian Ferrolino, Abraham Oshier, and Maricel Nogalada went to the house of Mary Joy Ga-ang in Purok 3B Managok, Malaybalay City at around 7:00 p.m. of October 13, 2000. 7 Two hours later, Michelle and Ian saw a group of men composed of the five accused and one Paroy Encabo. 8 The group appeared to be intoxicated. 9
There was an altercation between Ariel and Paroy. Later, Onie boxed Paroy, then the others joined in mauling Paroy. 10 Ian tried to stop the commotion, but the assailants turned on him. Ian threw a stool at them and ran toward the side of the Ga-ang store. 11
The victim, Nelson Ga-ang, stepped out of his house to pacify the group, but they turned on him. 12 He tried to fight back. Just moments later, he ran back to his house shouting he was stabbed. The assailants ran away. 13
Inside his house, Nelson leaned on his mother with two hands placed over his abdomen, his clothes soaked in his own blood. 14 Nelson was brought to the hospital. He died 21 hours after his operation. 15DEcITS
Defense's version
The defense presented co-accused Marlon. Marlon and the other three co-accused all work in Nicasio's land. 16 Marlon lives 50 meters away from Nicasio's house in Managok, Malaybalay City while the other three reside with Nicasio. 17
According to Marlon, at about 4:00 p.m. of October 13, 2000, the five accused weighed and sold their palay to one Mr. Villanueva. 18 They went to Paroy's house after, drank a pocket-sized bottle of Tanduay, then headed home. 19 Ariel and Paroy were ahead of the group by 20 meters. 20
When they were in front of the house of [Nelson] Ga-ang's sister, Mary Joy, Paroy punched Nicasio in the stomach. 21 [Nelson] was there together with Ian and Michelle. Co-accused Ariel then stabbed [Nelson] with a knife, hitting his right side. 22 [Nelson] had no misunderstanding with Ariel. They all ran away after the stabbing. 23
Marlon also testified that about four (4) meter's away from the stabbing incident, there was a tree with electric lighting. 24
On August 22, 2008, the trial court 25 found Nicasio and his co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for homicide:
ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court finds accused Nicasio Tabiana, Marlon [Nepomoseno] and Onie Galido, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide as defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of which is reclusion temporal. In the absence of any mitigating and/or aggravating circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
ACCUSED Nicasio Tabiana, Marlon [Nepomoseno] and Onie Galido are further ordered to pay solidarily the heirs of Nelson [G]a-ang temperate damages of Twenty Five (P25,000.00) Thousand Pesos, moral damages in the sum of Ten (P10,000.00) Thousand Pesos and civil indemnity in the sum of Fifty (P50,000.00) Thousand Pesos. With costs de officio.
The case as against co[-]accused Ariel Alagos and Ben Galido who have remained at large is ordered ARCHIVED. HIAcCD
IT IS SO ORDERED. 26
On February 24, 2012, the Court of Appeals 27 affirmed the trial court's judgment with modification increasing to P50,000.00 the solidary liability for moral damages in favor of the heirs of the victim. 28
The court found that "although there was no proof of prior agreement between [all the accused], it is beyond question that [petitioner] impliedly agreed to the killing of the victim, Nelson Ga-ang[;] [o]therwise, [he] would not have participated in mauling [Paroy] Encabo, in trying to attack [Ian] Ferrolino, and in attacking the victim[,] [and] he would not have ran [sic] away with his co-accused after the stabbing incident." 29 The court also did not give weight to the defense of lack of motive. It explained that "motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful." 30 In this case, eyewitness accounts were given by prosecution witnesses, Michelle and Ian.
The Court of Appeals also denied reconsideration in its resolution dated May 24, 2013, prompting Nicasio to file a petition 31 before this court.
Before us is the sole issue of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that conspiracy existed between petitioner Nicasio and his co-accused for the crime of homicide.
Petitioner Nicasio argued that "verbal agreement to commit homicide was never proven beyond reasonable doubt[,] [and] [t]he findings of [the lower courts] amounted only to speculation and conjecture." 32 He also reiterated the argument made in his brief that no witness testified that he was the one who stabbed Nelson. 33
Respondent countered that both lower courts found petitioner Nicasio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide as the prosecution established the existence of conspiracy among the accused in killing Nelson. 34 The account of the witnesses for prosecution included at least four circumstances which "demonstrate[d] a concerted action and an implied consent on the part of accused in committing the crime of homicide, namely: (1) that the assailants mauled [Paroy] Encabo in unison; (2) that when [Ian] Ferrolino tried to stop them, assailants turned their attention on him and tried to attack him[,] too; (3) that when Nelson Ga-ang tried to stop and pacify them, they also attacked him, and one of them stabbed him; and (4) all the assailants ran away after the stabbing." 35 On the credibility of the witnesses, respondent raised the well-settled rule that a trial court's evaluation of testimonies is accorded respect. 36
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Conspiracy exists "when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it." 37 Direct proof of conspiracy is rare, thus, long settled is the rule that conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence. 38 The courts may infer from the conduct of the accused if indeed their acts join in a common objective:
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Conspiracy once found, continues until the object of it has been accomplished and unless abandoned or broken up. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. 39
Thus, contrary to petitioner Nicasio's argument, proof of a verbal agreement to commit the crime is not necessary. Both lower courts found that based on the series of events established by the prosecution witnesses, petitioner Nicasio and the other co-accused conspired in killing Nelson. 40 The trial court discussed as follows:
. . . . In this case, evidence is replete that after imbibing an alcoholic drink, the spirit of lawlessness took over that all the accused mauled their own companion, Pa[r]oy Encabo. Dissatisfied, they turned their attention on Ian Ferrelino who tried to stop them. Nelson came out of his house though as to intervene but accused surrounded him instead and ganged up on him. They all then fled away after Nelson was stabbed. By these actuations, there was concurrence of purpose and sentiment among the accused which make them responsible for whatever may be the consequence of their unlawful act. Their flight from the scene of the crime is indicative of their guilt. 41 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals gave full credence to the eyewitness accounts of the prosecution's witnesses. 42 Well settled is the rule that "the trial judge's evaluation of the competence and credibility of a witness will not be disturbed on review, unless it is clear from the records that his judgment is erroneous." 43 This court finds no reason to disturb the lower court's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility. TcSHaD
There being conspiracy, petitioner Nicasio's argument that no witness testified that he was the one who stabbed Nelson also lacks merit. Once conspiracy is established, "the act of one accused becomes the act of all." 44 It does not matter who among the accused stabbed Nelson. They are all criminally liable for his death regardless of the extent of each one's participation. 45
This court, thus, affirms the lower court's conviction of petitioner Nicasio together with his co-accused for the crime of homicide as well as the increase of the award for moral damages to P50,000.00, which is consistent with recent jurisprudence. 46
WHEREFORE, the February 24, 2012 decision and the May 24, 2013 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00618-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. In the petition's verification, the accused signed his name as "Narciso," rollo, p. 13.
3. Ariel Alagos and Ben Galido remain at large.
4. Rollo, p. 17, Court of Appeals decision, citing record, pp. 3-4; rollo, p. 46, Regional Trial Court judgment.
5. Id. at 46.
6. Id. at 47.
7. Id. at 17, Court of Appeals decision; rollo p. 47, Regional Trial Court judgment.
8. Id. at 17.
9. Id. at 17, Court of Appeals decision; rollo p. 48, Regional Trial Court judgment.
10. Id. at 18, Court of Appeals decision; rollo, pp. 47 and 48, Regional Trial Court judgment.
11. Id. at 18, Court of Appeals decision; rollo, p. 48, Regional Trial Court judgment.
12. Id. at 18.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id., Court of Appeals decision; rollo, p. 49, Regional Trial Court judgment.
17. Id. at 18.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id., Court of Appeals decision; rollo, p. 49, Regional Trial Court judgment.
22. Id. at 18.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 19, Court of Appeals decision; rollo, p. 49, Regional Trial Court judgment.
25. The decision was penned by presiding Judge, Evelyn Gamotin Nery, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City.
26. Rollo, p. 51, Regional Trial Court judgment.
27. Twenty-Second Division, Cagayan de Oro City, penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, and concurred in by Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and Pedro B. Corales.
28. Rollo, p. 24, Court of Appeals decision.
29. Id. at 20-21.
30. Id. at 23.
31. Petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
32. Rollo, p. 10, petition.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 62; Comment, p. 5.
35. Id. at 64; Comment, p. 7.
36. Id. at 66; Comment, p. 9.
37. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 8.
38. People v. Amodia, 602 Phil. 889, 912 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39. Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, June 25, 2012, 674 SCRA 420, 465 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
40. Rollo, p. 20, Court of Appeals decision.
41. Id. at 50, Regional Trial Court judgment.
42. Id. at 22 and 23, Court of Appeals decision.
43. People v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 197813, September 25, 2013 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
44. Olalia, Jr. v. People, 584 Phil. 690, 706 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
45. People v. Caballero, 448 Phil. 514, 529 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
46. People v. Cañaveras, G.R. No. 193839, November 27, 2013 [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].