Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 181467 August 6, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AMBROSIO GOLEAS y LIMUEL a.k.a. "CLEO" and ALVIN LACABA y LIMUEL, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01880, dated 17 July 2007,1 affirming in toto the Decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, in Criminal Case No. Q-02-1130762 finding accused-appellants Ambrosio Goleas y Limuel (Goleas) a.k.a. "Cleo" and Alvin Lacaba y Limuel (Lacaba) guilty of murder and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On 5 November 2002, an Information3 was filed with the RTC charging appellants with murder. The Information reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of November 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of JERRY LOBOS y FAMANIAS, by then and there stabbing him several times with a bladed weapon, hitting him on the chest and other parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said JERRY LOBOS Y FAMANIAS.
When arraigned on 4 December 2002, appellants, assisted by their counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge.4 Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Jelly Javier (Javier), Police Officer 1 Jose Taopo (PO1 Taopo) and Jessica Lobos (Jessica). Their testimonies, taken together, bear the following narrative:
On 2 November 2002, at about 8:30 a.m., Javier went to a sari-sari store located in front of the Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Barangay Pagasa, Quezon City, and chatted with some friends. At around 11:30 a.m., he saw Jerry Lobos (Lobos) driving a pedicab and heading towards the said store. Lobos dropped off his passenger near the store and continued driving. Thereupon, appellants approached Lobos and blocked the latter’s path. Appellant Lacaba held both arms of Lobos while appellant Goleas repeatedly stabbed Lobos on different parts of the body. Thereafter, appellants fled.5
Javier and some pedicab drivers brought Lobos to the Philippine Children’s Medical Center (PCMC). PO1 Taopo arrived at the PCMC and asked Lobos to identify his assailants. Lobos uttered "Leo."6 Subsequently, Jessica, Lobos’s live-in partner, came to the PCMC. Lobos told her that appellants attacked and stabbed him.7
Later that day, Lobos was transferred to the East Avenue Medical Center where he died at about 4:00 p.m. due to stab wounds.8
The prosecution also proffered documentary evidence to buttress the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1) joint-affidavit of PO1 Taopo and other police officers (Exhibit A);9 (2) sworn statement of Jessica (Exhibit B);10 (3) sworn statement of Javier (Exhibit C);11 and (4) death certificate of Lobos (Exhibit D).12
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellants to refute the foregoing accusations. Appellants denied any involvement in the incident and interposed the defense of alibi.
Goleas testified that from 8:00 a.m. up to 4:00 p.m. of 2 November 2002, he was at Roxas Street, Barangay Pagasa, Quezon City, selling folding beds. He sold three folding beds before 4:00 p.m. At past 4:00 p.m., four police officers arrested him at Roxas Street and brought him to a nearby precinct. The police officers wanted him to admit killing Lobos but he refused because he did not have anything to do with the incident. Despite being detained and beaten by the police officers, he declined to make a confession regarding the incident.13
Lacaba declared that he slept in his house on the whole morning of 2 November 2002. He woke up at about 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Later, two police officers barged in his house and arrested him for killing Lobos. During the investigation, he denied any involvement in the incident but the police officers did not believe him. Thereafter, he was detained.14
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision on 12 September 2005 convicting appellants of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They were also ordered to pay the heirs of Lobos P21,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused AMBROCIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL, a.k.a. CLEO and ALVIN LACABA Y LIMUEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Both accused are further ordered to pay the heirs of the late JERRY LOBOS the total amount of Twenty One Thousand (Php21,000.00) Pesos as actual damages, Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and Twenty Five Thousand (Php25,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages.
Both accused shall be credited in the service of the full time during which they had undergone preventive imprisonment. Let a mitimus order be issued for service of sentence.15
Appellants appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. On 17 July 2007, the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC Decision, thus:
Hence, the lower court correctly found that treachery attended the killing of Lobos which makes accused-appellants Goleas and Lacaba guilty of murder.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 12, 2005 of the RTC, Branch 81, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-02-113076 is hereby AFFIRMED.16
Before us, appellants assigned the following errors:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF KILLING JERRY LOBOS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THEM FOR MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE CONSIDERING THAT NEITHER THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY NOR PREMEDITATION WAS DULY ESTABLISHED.17
Anent the first assigned error, appellants put in issue the credibility of Javier’s testimony. They maintain that the testimony of Javier regarding the fact that he saw them hold and stab Lobos is incredible. Javier testified that he was fifteen to twenty meters away from the scene when the incident occurred. At such distance, and considering that there were people around, it was impossible for Javier to have identified the attackers of Lobos.18
Appellants also assert that Lobos pointed to a certain "Leo" as the one who stabbed him.19
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.20
After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing guidelines to this case, we find no cogent reason to overturn the RTC’s ruling finding Javier’s testimony credible. As an eyewitness to the incident, Javier positively identified appellant Lacaba as the one who held both arms of Lobos; and appellant Goleas as the one who repeatedly stabbed Lobos. His direct account of how appellants helped one another in killing Lobos is candid and convincing, thus:
Q Mr. Witness, can you please tell us where you were on November 2, 2002 at 8:30 in the morning?
A I was at the store together with my friends sir.
Q And, where was that store located, Mr. Witness?
A It was in front of the Ombudsman Building sir.
Q And, where is that Ombudsman Building located?
A It was at Agham Road sir.
Q Of what barangay?
A Barangay Pagasa sir.
Q During that time and place Mr. Witness, can you please tell us what was that unusual incident that happened?
A I saw Jerry coming, boarding with his pedicab.
Q And, do you know the surname of Jerry?
A Jerry Lobos sir.
Q You said that Jerry was boarded at his pedicab, whereat?
A He was heading towards us sir.
Q And, while Jerry heading towards you what happened, if any?
A When he was in front of us his passenger alighted and waved his [Lobos] hand to us.
Q And, what happened next after his passenger alighted from his pedicab?
A He was not yet far from us when Jerry was blocked by Alvin and Ambrosio.
Q And what happened after he was blocked by Alvin and Ambrosio?
A When [sic] Alvin blocked him and he was held by the hands.
Q Who held the arms of Jerry?
A It was Alvin who held the hands of Jerry sir.
Q And, how did he held the arms of Jerry?
A He held his two arms sir.
Q What is the position of Alvin to Jerry?
A He was in front of Jerry sir.
Q When Alvin was holding the hands of Jerry, what happened?
A He suddenly stabbed Jerry Lu [Lobos] sir.
Q Who stabbed Jerry Lobos?
A Ambrosio Goleas sir.
Q What happened to Jerry after he was stabbed?
A He struggled sir.
Q And, how many times did Ambrosio stab Jerry?
A Many times sir.
Q And, do you know what kind of instrument or weapon used to stab Jerry?
A I did not see sir but I saw him stabbed Jerry.
Q And, how do you know that you said, that it was Ambrosio who stabbed Jerry?
A Yes sir.
Q And, it was Alvin who held both arms of Jerry?
A Yes sir.
Q If you will see these people again would you be able to identify them?
A Yes sir.
Q Are they present here inside the courtroom?
A Yes sir.
Q If they are present inside the courtroom will you please step down from the witness stand and tap the shoulder of these persons?
COURT INTERPRETER:
At this juncture, the witness is tapping the shoulder of a male person, wearing a yellow T-Shirt and when asked his name he answered Ambrosio Goleas.
The witness also tapped the shoulder of the second man wearing a yellow T-shirt and when asked his name he answered Alvin Lajaba [Lacaba].
FISCAL ANCHETA: (To continue)
Q What happened after Jerry was stabbed by Ambrosio?
A They both ran away sir.21
It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.22
The foregoing testimonies are consistent with the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Javier, PO1 Taopo and Jessica to be truthful and unequivocal and, as such, prevailed over the denials and alibis of appellants. Both courts also found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
It is not incredible for Javier to have identified appellants at a distance of 15-20 meters. Such distance was not that far as to blur Javier’s vision of appellants during the incident. In several cases we have decided,23 the distance of the eyewitness from the crime scene was 15-20 meters away and even more, nevertheless, the eyewitness’ identification of the malefactors was found to be credible, accurate and unmistaken.
Further, as aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, Javier was familiar with the faces24 of appellants having known them since childhood,25 and Javier had a good vision of appellants during the incident since it occurred at about 11:30 a.m.26
True, Lobos mentioned a certain "Leo" to PO1 Taopo as his assailant. The records, however, show that the "Leo" being referred to by Lobos was appellant Goleas.27 Javier testified that appellant Goleas was also known by his nickname "Cleo."28 It should be noted that Lobos sustained multiple stab wounds and was catching his breath when he uttered the nickname of appellant Goleas to PO1 Taopo. Thus, understandably, he could not have spoken clearly in such difficult situation.
Apropos the second assigned error, appellants argue that there was no treachery in the killing of Lobos because (1) the killing was done in broad daylight and in the presence of several individuals; (2) Lobos was already forewarned of an impending danger to his life since he saw his assailants approaching; (3) there is no evidence that Lobos was cornered; and (4) there was no proof showing that a specific form of attack was deliberately employed to ensure the killing of Lobos.29
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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make. The essence of treachery is the deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Two essential elements are required in order that treachery can be appreciated: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution. Further, this aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information and duly proven.30
Lobos was casually driving a pedicab when appellants suddenly appeared and blocked his path. To ensure the success of their criminal design, appellant Lacaba held both arms of Lobos while appellant Goleas viciously and repeatedly stabbed Lobos. When Lobos fell on the ground, the appellants ran away.31 It is clear that Lobos was defenseless during the attack as his hands were restrained by appellant Lacaba, facilitating the repeated stabbing of Lobos by appellant Goleas. Verily, the manner in which Lobos was restrained and assaulted was deliberately and consciously adopted by the appellants to ensure his death.
The fact that the killing was done in broad daylight, in the presence of many people and that Lobos saw his assailants approaching, do not negate treachery. We have held that these circumstances do not abrogate treachery as long as the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate or to defend himself.32 As earlier discussed, both arms of Lobos were immediately held by appellant Lacaba to prevent him from retaliating and, at the same time, to facilitate his stabbing by appellant Goleas. In such a helpless situation, it was impossible for Lobos to repel the attack or escape.
We have observed that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were also alleged in the information. It is a rule of evidence that an aggravating circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.33
For evident premeditation to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his resolve; and (3) a sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of the will if he desired to hearken to its warning.34
In the case at bar, no proof was adduced to prove the foregoing elements. Thus, the RTC correctly found that evident premeditation could not be appreciated in the case at bar.
The RTC also properly disregarded the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength because it is absorbed and inherent in treachery.35 As such, it cannot be separately appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.36
We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties imposed by the RTC on appellants.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already considered as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.37 Hence, the RTC acted accordingly in sentencing appellants to reclusion perpetua.
The award of civil indemnity for the death of Lobos in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 were proper since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and allegation other than the death of the victim.38
Likewise, the award of actual damages in the amount of P21,000.00 was in order since this was supported by the records.39 The heirs of Lobos are also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.40
To obviate any question or confusion as regards the penalties imposed, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed on each of the appellants and they are jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned damages awarded by the RTC.
WHEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17 July 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01880 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Enrico A. Lanzanas, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-11.
2 Penned by Judge Ma. Theresa L. Dela Torre-Yadao; records, pp. 147-155.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id. at 18-19.
5 TSN, 17 February 2003, pp. 2-6.
6 TSN, 10 March 2003, pp. 2-5.
7 TSN, 24 March 2003, 1-7.
8 Id.
9 Records, p. 96.
10 Id. at 97-98.
11 Id. at 99-100.
12 Id. at 101.
13 TSN, 8 December 2003, pp. 2-7; 27 September 2004, p. 3.
14 TSN, 26 October 2005, pp. 2-5.
15 Records, p. 155.
16 Rollo, p. 10.
17 CA rollo, p. 44.
18 Id. at 49.
19 Id.
20 People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 513.
21 TSN, 17 February 2003, pp. 2-4.
22 Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 173551, 4 October 2007, 534 SCRA 668, 690.
23 People v. Manalad, 436 Phil. 37, 45 (2002); People v. Peleras, 417 Phil. 536, 548 (2001); People v. De Leon, 411 Phil. 338, 352 (2001); People v. Panes, 343 Phil. 878, 885-886 (1997); People v. Alas, G.R. Nos. 118335-36, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 310, 321.
24 TSN, 24 February 2003, p. 6.
25 TSN, 17 February 2003, p. 5.
26 TSN, 24 February 2003, p. 5.
27 Records, pp. 4 and 96-100.
28 TSN, 17 February 2003, p. 5.
29 CA rollo, pp. 49-51.
30 Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9; Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 667.
31 Mendoza v. People, supra note 22.
32 People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 658; People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 735; People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 156, 174.
33 People v. Discalsota, 430 Phil. 406, 416 (2002).
34 Supra note 24.
35 People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 300 (2000).
36 Id.
37 People v. Guzman, supra note 32.
38 People v. Ducabo, G.R. No. 175594, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 458, 473.
39 Records, p. 155; TSN, 24 March 2003, p. 6; TSN, 13 May 2003, pp. 3-4.
40 People v. Ducabo, supra note 38 at 476-477.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
