G.R. No. 139970 June 6, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO, accused-appellant.
Before us is the appeal from the decision1 dated July 7, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 5270, convicting accused-appellant JIMMY DELA CRUZ y QUIMPO of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
The Information against him alleged:
The undersigned Third Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Aklan hereby accuses JIMMY DELA CRUZ y QUIMPO of Barangay Mobo, Kalibo, Aklan of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of September, 1998 in the evening, in Barangay Tigayon, Municipality of Kalibo, Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a knife, with treachery and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one ARNULFO INOCENCIO, inflicting upon the latter physical injuries, to wit:
- (+) Stabbed Wound, (L) MCL, Level of 6th Intercostal Space, 3 cm in length.
- (+) Stabbed Wound, Anterior Pericardium, 3 cm
- (+) Stabbed Wound/Perforation of Right Ventricle, 3 cm
- (+) Blood, 50 cc Pericardial Space
as per Post-Mortem Examination Finding and Certificate of Death, respectively, issued by Segundo L. Anayan, Jr., M.D., Medical Officer III of the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B", and made as an integral part hereof, and which injuries sustained by the victim have caused his instant death.
That by reason of the unlawful acts of the accused, the heirs of the victim have suffered actual and compensatory damages in the amount of
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
On December 1, 1998 appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged.3 During the plea-bargaining stage, appellant proposed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of homicide, claiming to have acted in self-defense. However, the family of the victim rejected such offer. After his arraignment, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely: Dr. Segundo Anayan, Jr., Jovelyn Felizario, Glen Cipriano, and SPO4 Dioscoro Tolentino.
DR. SEGUNDO ANAYAN, JR., Medical Officer III of Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital testified that he conducted an autopsy on the body of the victim, Arnulfo Inocencio. He found that the victim suffered a single stab wound located two ribs below the left nipple, which was fatal. He opined that the wound could have been inflicted by the assailant while facing the victim.4 His post-mortem examination revealed:
- (+) Stabbed Wound, (L) MCL, Level of 6th Intercostal Space, 3 cm in length.
- (+) Stabbed Wound, Anterior Pericardium, 3 cm
- (+) Stabbed Wound/Perforation of Right Ventricle, 3 cm
- (+) Blood, 50 cc Pericardia Space
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hypovolemic Shock due to Perforation of Right Ventricle due to Stab Wound.5
JOVELYN I. FELIZARIO, first cousin of the victim Arnulfo Inocencio,6 testified that in the evening of September 1, 1998, several visitors were in her house at Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan since it was the birthday of her brother, Jonel. At around 11:00 that evening, Arnulfo Inocencio, appellant Jimmy dela Cruz, and brothers Glenn, Gilbert and Greg Cipriano were having a drinking session. Arnulfo played a guitar while appellant sang along. Afterwards, appellant requested Arnulfo to give the guitar to Gilbert. Arnulfo obliged and rose to hand the guitar to Gilbert. When Arnulfo returned to his seat, appellant suddenly drew his knife from his waist and stabbed Arnulfo. According to the witness, appellant then pointed at Arnulfo and said, "There, he is already dead." The witness added she was just two meters away from the victim and the appellant when the stabbing incident happened.
On cross-examination, Jovelyn Felizario said that she knew no reason for the attack, since no altercation between the two took place.7
GLEN M. CIPRIANO, another eyewitness to the stabbing, corroborated the testimony of Jovelyn Felizario. He testified that on September 1, 1998 at around 11:00 P.M., he was with the birthday celebrant Jonel Felizario, his two brothers Gilbert and Greg, appellant, and Arnulfo. They had a drinking spree at the house of Antonio Felizario at Brgy. Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan. He was seated in one corner talking to Jovelyn Felizario. In front of them were appellant and Arnulfo who were standing beside each other. According to the witness, appellant suddenly stabbed Arnulfo with a knife hitting the latter on the left side of his breast. The witness said he was just two meters away. After stabbing Arnulfo, appellant said, "There he is dead." The stabbing was not preceded by any quarrel or altercation between Arnulfo and appellant, according to the witness. In fact, they were even singing and playing the guitar before the incident. Further, he testified that the victim was unarmed when he was assaulted by appellant.8
SPO4 DIOSCORO G. TOLENTINO, JR., desk officer of Kalibo PNP station, testified that past midnight, at around 12:45 A.M. of September 2, 1998, barangay captain Gil Isberto of Barangay Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan, with appellant in tow, went to their station. Barangay captain Isberto informed him that appellant surrendered to him (Isberto) after the stabbing incident. Thereafter, SPO4 Tolentino made the appropriate entry in the police blotter and detained appellant. On the following day, SPO4 Tolentino conducted an investigation and after securing the necessary papers, filed the case with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.9
For the defense, witness Dr. Antonieta J. Templado and barangay captain Gil Isberto, and appellant himself testified.
Appellant JIMMY DELA CRUZ y QUIMPO admitted stabbing the victim but claimed that it was the victim who attacked him and that he merely acted in self-defense. He testified that at around 6:30 P.M. of September 1, 1998, he attended the birthday party of Jonel Felizario after having been invited by Jonel, the victim Arnulfo Inocencio, and one Jimmy Inocencio. The party was held at the residence of Jonel's father, Antonio Felizario, in Brgy. Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan. After eating his dinner, he joined the other visitors who at that time were engaged in singing, playing a guitar, and drinking beer and "tuba" (toddy). Sometime between 10:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M., he asked permission to go home from Arnulfo Inocencio. He did not ask permission from the owner of the house because the latter was already asleep and his son Jonel, the birthday celebrant, was in the kitchen. However, Arnulfo did not allow him to leave and asked him to stay a little longer as there was still much liquor to drink. Appellant insisted and informed Arnulfo that he had to go for he had promised his wife that he would be home by 10:00 P.M. He was about to leave when Arnulfo told him, "If you are going home, just bring this with you." When appellant turned around, he saw Arnulfo thrusting a knife towards him. He parried the thrust and the knife hit his left hand. When Arnulfo attempted to stab him a second time, appellant drew his own knife from his right waist and stabbed the victim. Thereafter, he immediately left the house and proceeded to his father's residence. He surrendered to barangay captain Gil Isberto of Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan who turned over his person to the police. He said he was not able to surrender the knife he used in stabbing Arnulfo because he threw it in the middle of the river.10
Appellant denied harboring any grudge against the victim although he admitted that his younger brother figured in a quarrel with Arnulfo sometime earlier.11
DR. ANTONIETA TEMPLADO, Medical Officer IV of Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, testified that on September 2, 1998, she treated appellant who suffered a one-inch long superficial incised wound at the back of his left hand. She opined, however, that the wound could have been self-inflicted and it could have been caused by a knife.12
GIL ISBERTO, barangay captain of Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan testified that at around 12:00 midnight of September 1, 1998, appellant, appellant's father, brother-in-law, and Isberto's nephew went to his house. They informed him that appellant stabbed a certain Inocencio. Isberto noticed that appellant had a superficial wound about two inches long on his left wrist. He turned over appellant to the police.13
The prosecution presented rebuttal evidence through the testimony of Jonel Felizario.
Felizario testified that appellant's claim that he was in the kitchen when the latter asked permission to leave his birthday celebration is not true. Neither was appellant stabbed by Arnulfo Inocencio with a knife. He said that he was urinating outside of their house at the time of the stabbing incident and the victim was unarmed since no knife has been recovered at the scene of the crime.14
Rejecting appellant's claim of self-defense, the trial court convicted him of the crime or murder and sentenced him, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused JIMMY DELA CRUZ y QUIMPO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Further, the Court hereby orders the said accused to pay the legal heirs of the victim ARNULFO INOCENCIO the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the latter.
Furthermore, the Court hereby orders that the said accused's period of preventive imprisonment, be credited in full in the service of his sentence.
With COSTS against the accused.
Hence, this appeal, in which appellant contends that:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE RAISED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER WAS ABLE TO DULY PROVE THE SAME WITH HIS CORROBORATED TESTIMONY.
THE COURT A QUO LIKEWISE ERRED IN FINDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOT CREDIBLE ON THE BASIS OF SPECULATIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH ARE UNTENABLE GROUNDS.
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT TREACHERY IS ATTENDANT IN THE CASE AT BAR NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SAME.16
The main issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the lower court erred in rejecting appellant's plea of self-defense while giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's evidence.
Appellant admits that he killed the victim, Arnulfo Inocencio. However, he avers he did it in self-defense. He claims that it was Arnulfo who attacked him first and that he had no recourse but to stab Arnulfo. Appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses primarily on the basis of their relationship with the victim as well as the relative weight given by the trial court to their testimonies.1âwphi1.nęt
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contends that the evidence for the defense failed to establish the elements of self-defense as a justifying circumstance. In particular, appellant failed to show unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. According to the OSG, factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses must be respected and given full weight on appeal.17 Further, the OSG asserts that treachery attended the killing of Arnulfo Inocencio. The attack was sudden and unexpected, affording the helpless and unarmed victim no chance to resist or to escape.
After a careful review of the record, we find no cogent reason to overturn the assailed decision of the trial court. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed upon appellant to prove clearly and convincingly the elements thereof: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part.18 Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.19 If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.20 In this case, appellant's testimony miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. He claims that it was the victim who, without provocation on his part, suddenly attacked him. To defend himself, he was constrained to pull out the knife from his waist and stab the victim on the chest.
However, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Jovelyn Felizario and Glen Cipriano controverted appellant's version of the incident. They both testified that the stabbing of the victim by appellant was sudden and unprovoked. Their positive declarations certainly outweigh the self-serving allegation of appellant. Likewise, we note the trial court's observation of the appellant on the witness stand, thus:
The accused seemed unconfident (sic) when he related before the Court his version of the stabbing incident. He seemed anxious on the witness stand and he appeared to be hiding something as he could not deliver his statements smoothly and naturally. Certainly, these circumstances in his personal behavior as keenly observed on the witness stand, ruined his credibility.21
With respect to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of a clear showing that some fact or circumstance of weight or substance had been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied,22 the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses and their testimonies would not be disturbed on appeal. For the determination of credibility is the domain of the trial court, and the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best performed by it.23
Also, appellant attempted to impugn the credibility of the prosecution witnesses on account of their relationship with the victim. However, the mere fact that Jovelyn and Jonel Felizario are relatives of the victim and that Glen is the victim's friend does not prove bias or partiality on their part sufficient to undermine the veracity of their testimonies. It was not shown that they had any ill motive that drove them to make false accusations against appellant. Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility of a witness. Besides, the natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits; otherwise, the guilty would go unpunished.24 Further, Glen is a good friend of both the appellant and the victim. There is no showing of any reason for him to testify falsely in favor of one and against the other.
Appellant assails as purely speculative or conjectural the trial court's findings that his testimony is of doubtful veracity and that the wound in his hand is nothing but a self-inflicted injury. He contends that these findings disclose partiality against him on the part of the trial judge. Unfortunately, appellant's contention are not borne by the records of the case. Moreover, a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions. The findings by the trial judge are not manifestation of bias or partiality, but they are the result of observations by the judge that he properly took into account in the rendition of judgment.25
In our view, the one-inch long wound in appellant's left hand was too superficial to support his claim that it was inflicted while he was parrying the thrust of the victim. The mere fact that he was wounded does not prove indubitably his claim that he acted in self-defense. Nor that the victim and not he was the aggressor. Note that appellant did not present a knife during the trial to bolster his case. The witnesses for the prosecution denied that the victim was armed with a knife and, indeed, none was recovered from the scene of the crime.
Based on the established facts, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Arnulfo Inocencio was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when one employs means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime without risk to oneself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.26 The victim was then unarmed and oblivious to the possibility of a deadly attack as he was even having fun with his friends and appellant. There was no altercation or confrontation that preceded the attack. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack even failed to forewarn or arouse any alarm from the victim's drinking companions. They did not suspect that anything untoward would happen. Indeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim.27 Moreover, although the victim and his assailant were face to face at the time the stabbing was made, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare for his defense, treachery should be taken into account.28
Finally, to appellant's credit, the trial court considered the mitigating circumstance of his voluntary surrender to the barangay captain. Appellant spontaneously and unconditionally placed himself in the hands of the authorities, and saved them the time and effort attendant to a search.29 The testimony of barangay captain Isberto and the police officer on this point were not contradicted by the prosecution. Thus, we find that the trial court correctly imposed the minimum of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua. We also find proper the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity but pursuant to current jurisprudence, another sum of P50,000 as moral damages should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim, without need of further proof other than the fact of the victim's death.30
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 5270, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant JIMMY DELA CRUZ y QUIMPO is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as to pay the heirs of the victim
P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P50,000 as moral damages, together with the costs.1âwphi1.nęt
Bellosillo, Mendoza, De Leon, Jr., and Corona, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo, pp. 14-20.
2 Id. at 4-5.
3 Records, p. 32.
4 TSN, April 12, 1999, pp. 2-7.
5 Records, p. 3, Exh. "A".
6 TSN, April 12, 1999, p. 13.
7 Id. at 8-17.
8 TSN, April 13, 1999, pp. 8-12, 17-19.
9 Id. at 2-5.
10 TSN, May 12, 1999, pp. 2-11.
11 TSN, May 13, 1999, p. 14.
12 Id. at 3-5, 8.
13 TSN, May 25, 1999, pp. 4-5.
14 TSN, June 23, 1999, pp. 3-5.
15 Rollo, p. 20.
16 Id. at 44-45.
17 Id. at 86.
18 People vs. Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, 306 SCRA 680, 688 (1999).
19 People vs. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, 292 SCRA 349, 356 (1998).
20 People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 118311, 303 SCRA 414, 429 (1999).
21 Rollo, p. 18.
22 People vs. Barellano, G.R. No. 121204, 319 SCRA 567, 592 (1999).
23 People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 128286, 310 SCRA 743, 762 (1999).
24 People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 122746, 302 SCRA 380, 398-399 (1999).
25 People vs. Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, 307 SCRA 591, 600 (1999).
26 People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 138261, April 17, 2001, p. 12.
27 People vs. Caboquin, G.R. No. 137613, November 14, 2001, pp. 6-7.
28 People vs. Lagarteja, G.R. No. 127095, 291 SCRA 142, 153 (1998).
29 See People vs. Baniel, G.R. No. 108492, 275 SCRA 472, 487 (1997).
30 People vs. Givera, G.R. No. 132159, 349 SCRA 513, 536 (2001).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation