SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 187731, September 18, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The undersigned Ombudsman Investigator, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, hereby accuses SPO4 PONCIANO MIRAPLES, SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG, PO3 ROMEO VENTINILLA, PO2 ARMANDO DE VERA, SPO2 ENRIQUE DABU and PO2 VIVENCIO CORPUZ of the crime of MURDER, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanrobles virtua1aw 1ibrarySPO2 Dabu pleaded not guilty when arraigned on July 1, 1999 as did appellant when arraigned on July 29, 1999. SPO4 Miraples, PO2 De Vera and PO2 Corpuz were never apprehended and remain at large while PO3 Ventinilla met his violent death on February 27, 2001.8 Per letter9 of Police Chief Inspector Isidro C. Suyo, Jr. dated March 5, 2001, PO3 Ventinilla “who was tagged as member of the dreaded ‘GAPOS GANG’ was killed during the encounter with the [police] elements x x x at Rodriguez, Rizal.” Accordingly, the case against PO3 Ventinilla was dismissed per Order10 dated January 31, 2005.That on or about November 30, 1996, or for sometime subsequent thereto, in Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused (SPO1 Alawig and PO3 VENTINILLA), both public officers, being then members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Force assigned at the Valenzuela Police Station, armed with various firearms, with evident premeditation, treachery and with deliberate intent to kill, conspiring and confederating with their co-accused (SPO4 MIRAPLES, PO2 DE VERA, SPO2 DABU and PO2 CORPUZ), committing the offense in relation to their Office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot PO3 MIEL DE OCAMPO CAFE, causing multiple gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the latter’s heirs.Contrary to law.7
On November 30, 1996, at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, accused-appellant Alawig, accused PO3 Ventinilla and PO2 De Vera were dispatched by their Precinct Commander SPO4 Miraples to ARTY Subdivision to respond to a report involving illegal drugs. However, they were not able to proceed to the assigned operation because SPO4 Miraples directed them to go to Gumamela Street to investigate on a reported trouble in the area. When they arrived at the area, the reported trouble was already over, thus, they proceeded to the house of the victim which was also within the vicinity and also to inquire on the trouble which occurred there. They reached the house of the victim while the latter was playing dart with a certain Tomas Beroy. The victim invited the police officers to get inside the house but only the accused-appellant Alawig and Ventinilla entered. The victim admitted to them that he had a quarrel with his wife which caused him to shoot the thermos bottle. Thereafter, the victim joined them in reporting back to the police station in order to explain the alleged trouble that took place in the area where he also resided. The victim brought his armalite rifle and .45 pistol and boarded the owner-type jeep of Ventinilla. When they were about to leave, Ventinilla noticed that the victim was holding a plastic sachet containing “shabu”. There, Ventinilla said to the victim, “Matagal ka nang tinatrabaho ng DILG Parak.” Upon arrival at the police station, the accused-appellant Alawig went to a store to buy cigarette and, when he returned, he saw the victim and the accused Ventinilla having a heated argument. During the occurrence, Dabu and De Vera left the station to respond to a reported illegal gambling while the victim and Ventinilla went inside the station.Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Inside the station, the victim made a telephone call and thereafter the heated argument between the victim and Ventinilla resumed. Alawig could see the events from outside the station where he was seated. He saw the victim [kick] his armalite rifle and [point] it at Ventinilla which the latter tried to impede by holding the end part of the weapon and pointed it upward. At the same time, Ventinilla kicked the table towards the victim which caused the latter to fall down to his knees. At that moment, the victim fired his armalite rifle and, in retaliation thereto, Ventinilla shot the victim x x x several times. Thereafter, Alawig told Ventinilla to stop[,] after which the latter left the scene.14cralaw virtualaw library
x x x x
For his part, Dabu testified that he was not among those who fetched the victim at his house. He remained at the police station to wait for De Vera before they would respond to a reported illegal gambling somewhere in Pasong Balete Hills. Immediately after De Vera arrived, Dabu left the station with De Vera. They apprehended three (3) persons in their operation and brought them to their station. Upon their arrival at the station, Dabu learned that a shooting incident transpired between the victim and Ventinilla while they were away. Due to the incident, Dabu released the persons he apprehended in an illegal gambling pursuant to an order of his superior, SPO4 Miraples.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in this case, finding accused Alfredo Alawig and Enrique M. Dabu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery. There being attendant in the commission of the offense the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation without any mitigating circumstance present, the greater penalty shall be applied (Art. 63, par. 1, RPC). Under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, the maximum penalty of the crime of Murder is death. Accordingly, both accused Alawig and Dabu, who stand trial, are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.Considering, however, the failure of SPO2 Dabu to appear during the promulgation of the Decision, the RTC issued an Order16 directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, SPO2 Dabu filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 of the RTC Decision but the same was denied in an Order18 dated October 25, 2005.
Accused Dabu and Alawig are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim, Miel Cafe, compensatory damage in the amount of P50,000.00, actual damages in the amount of P325,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
SO ORDERED.15
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, in Manila rendered on May 17, 2005 in Criminal Case No. 99-170722 finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of murder is hereby AFFIRMED by us with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of death imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryHence, this appeal
SO ORDERED.21
Self-defense
- X X X erred in its factual finding that [APPELLANT] claimed self-defense despite evidence showing that his defense was total denial.
- X X X erred in not resolving the following issues raised to it on appeal from the trial court, to wit:
- WHETHER X X X THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE [APPELLANT] WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
- whether x x x the trial court erred in ruling that there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that the [APPELLANT] conspired in killing the victim
- whether x x x the trial court erred in ruling that there was motive on the part of the [APPELLANT]
- X X X ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.
- X X X ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
- X X X ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER X X X THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING FLIGHT ON THE PART OF [APPELLANT].23
1. Around x x x noon of November 30, 1996, Reyes saw appellant and the late PO3 x x x Ventinilla enter the house of [the victim] after the latter’s friend Tomas Beroy, opened the door upon the instruction of [the victim];The prosecution likewise presented corroborating evidence which constitute an unbroken chain leading to the inevitable conclusion that appellant is guilty of killing the victim. For instance, the presence of gunpowder nitrates on appellant after a paraffin test;30 the firearm used in the killing which could either be a .38 caliber or 9 mm pistol31 dovetails with the testimony of Reyes that he saw appellant carrying a .38 caliber short firearm which was later found to have been recently fired; and the absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of the victim after a paraffin test32 which belies appellant’s claim that he was shot by the victim or that the latter exchanged fire with PO3 Ventinilla.
2. Reyes saw appellant and [PO3] Ventinilla carrying [an] armalite [rifle] and [a] .38 caliber [pistol];
3. Reyes heard appellant and [PO3] Ventinilla tell [the victim] that he was being instructed by SPO4 x x x Miraples, the Chief of Police of Police Kababayan Center I, Doña Ata Subdivision Station, Marulas, Valenzuela, [to join a team of police which will apprehend] a big person x x x involved in illegal drugs in Malanday, Valenzuela;
4. Because of the alleged instruction of [the victim’s] superior, Reyes saw [the victim] leave his house together with appellant and PO3 Ventinilla around 1:00 [p.m.] of November 30, 1996;
5. [A f]ew minutes thereafter, Reyes received a telephone call from [the victim who] nervously told him, “Pare wala pala kaming tatrabahuhin, ako pala ang tatrabahuhin. Tulungan mo ako sumundo ka ng tao na tutulong sa akin.” But before Reyes could respond, the line at the other end of the telephone was suddenly cut x x x; and
6. Later in the afternoon, Reyes learned from his friend that [the victim] was already dead.29
x x x In the case at bar, the record of the case is enmeshed with various acts of the accused, before, during, and after the killing of Cafe that are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. Before the victim was fetched by Alawig, Ventinilla, Dabu, de Vera and Corpuz, as witnessed by Reyes, accused made it appear in Exh. “KK-1” that on November 30, 1996 at 2:45 p.m., accused Alawig, Vent[i]nilla, de Vera, Corpuz and a certain Cariño who is not a member of PKC-1 and without including accused Dabu, they were dispatched to an unnamed place to conduct surveillance on a suspect involved in drugs. A cursory reading of said entry presupposes that said accused were already dispatched at the place at 2:45 p.m. Although it appears strange that the subject area and the subject person are not specified in the entry contrary to the standard practices in making entry in a Dispatch Log Book, accused Alawig, however, when confronted with the said entry during the trial, had a different tale to tell. He claims that another instruction was made by their Police Precinct Commander, co-accused Ponciano Miraples, to proceed instead to Gumamela Street where there was a reported trouble. Thus, his group according to him proceeded to Gumamela St. at 1:00 o’clock p.m. on the said date but said [change] of dispatch was not recorded in the Dispatch Log Book of the PKC-1. Interestingly, the court finds the version of Alawig incredible. For how can a later dispatch instruction (2:45 p.m. dispatch) be changed by another instruction that occurred earlier (1:00 p.m. dispatch to Gumamela St. per accused Alawig) than the first? The Court likewise notes the entry on Exh. “LL-1”. The same is a clear indication of orchestrating the purported activities of the accused on the day of the killing of the victim. Accused entered in the police blotter at 3:00 p.m. about a call regarding a trouble in Gumamela St. to which the group of Alawig according to him responded. If indeed they were dispatched to the said place at 1:00 p.m., how then could it be possible, when the call about the reported incident happened at 3:00 p.m.? To the Court’s mind, the latter entry (Exh. “LL-1”) further strengthen the theory of the prosecution that the police operation before and after the killing of the victim, which the accused want to dramatize are nothing but falsehood and are part of the grand design where each of the accused are made to appear doing acts that are independent of each other in order to muddle the events that actually transpired when Cafe was killed.Thus, by manipulating the entries in the logbook, the accused conspired to make it appear that they were in some place other than where the killing took place and that they were performing acts independent of each other. The entries were recorded with the concurrence of all the accused. With PO3 Ventinilla dead, appellant painted him as the sole perpetrator and tried to exculpate himself and the rest of the accused. Records also show that none of the accused attempted to prevent the killing of the victim. More telling is their act of placing six empty cartridges at the crime scene to make it appear that the victim fired his firearm and was the unlawful aggressor. As borne out by the Firearms Identification Report No. FAID-212-96:36 the two cartridges were fired from an M16 rifle with Serial No. RP154135; two other cartridges were fired using an M16 rifle with Serial No. RP144440; while the last two cartridges were fired from an M16 rifle with Serial No. RP138254. Per the Initial Investigation Report37 of SPO1 Angeles I. Miranda, the M16 rifle with Serial No. RP144440 belonged to appellant as well as a 0.38 caliber revolver with Serial No. BBW4740; the M16 rifle with Serial No. RP154135 and the 0.38 caliber revolver with Serial No. AUS1926 belonged to PO3 Ventinilla; while the M16 rifle with Serial No. RP138254 and 0.45 caliber pistol with Serial No. 162457 belonged to the victim. Significantly, the Physical Sciences Report No. 0-552-9638 indicated that all the aforementioned firearms were fired. However, as already mentioned, the victim tested negative for gunpowder nitrates hence the possibility that he fired his weapons is remote. Besides, as already testified to by Dr. Bernales, the possible firearm used could be caliber 0.38 of which both the appellant and PO3 Ventinilla were equipped at the time the victim was killed.
Moreover, the Court also observes that the alleged call claimed by Dabu to have been received by accused Miraples on the same day at 3:20 p.m. about people playing tong-its was not recorded in the PKC-1 Police Blotter (Exh. “LL”). Strangely, it was the dispatch for the purpose that was recorded in the Dispatch Log Book (Exh. “8-A”, Dabu) at a very precise time at 3:28 p.m., November 30, 1996 by accused de Vera. How then can accused de Vera record such dispatch when according to Alawig upon their arrival at the PKC-1 from Gumamela St., accused Dabu and de Vera immediately left without the latter entering the police precinct? It is also noted that such entry (Exh. “8-A”) has signs of peculiarity from the rest of the entries in the Dispatch Log Book. The time written was precise up to the last minute (3:28 p.m.) unlike the other entries the time is rounded-off to 3:25 or 3:30. Also, the time is written in bold stroke. Compared with the other entries, the same bears signs of alterations. Such entry therefore supports the view that there was actually no dispatch made to Pasong Balete Hills. The alleged arrest of three (3) people playing tong-its in the area never happened there being [no] such entry in the PKC-1 Police Blotter. Gleaned from the foregoing, every entry made in the record books could not be accomplished by just one or two accused without the concurrence of the rest of the accused assigned at the PKC-1 and the imprimatur of the Police Precinct Commander, accused Ponciano Miraples.
After the victim was brought to the PKC-1, accused Alawig tried to make the Court [believe] that his co-accused Ventinilla, who is already deceased, was the sole perpetrator in killing Cafe, exculpating himself and the rest of the accused. The version of Alawig, however, is [diametrically at odds with the conclusion of] Dr. Bernales of the NBI that there were more than one assailant in slaying Cafe. From the evidence adduced by the defense, there is no iota of credible evidence to show that one or two accused at least attempted to prevent the slaying of Cafe. To the Court[’]s mind, there was indeed a concurrence of sentiments among the accused for the attainment of evil purpose.
The joint purpose and concurrence of sentiments among the accused is further demonstrated when accused Alawig again tried to mislead the Court in claiming that it was [he] who brought the victim to the hospital after being shot when in truth and in fact as shown in Exh. “A”, it was his co-accused Vivencio Corpuz who brought the victim to the hospital. The most outrageous act done by the accused, as police officers, was when they tampered with the evidence to cover-up the crime while the team of P/Insp. Lopez was still conducting investigation in the PKC-1 premises. The accused placed six (6) spent ammunition cartridges coming from the office of accused Miraples that were not initially found lying on the floor. Likewise, they submitted a T-shirt (Exh. “OO”) allegedly worn by the victim at the time of the shooting for forensic examination. It was found out, however, by Dr. Bausa that despite the gunshot wounds sustained by the victim, the submitted T-shirt does not bear a single bullet hole that would match the location of any of the gunshot wounds in the body of Cafe. To top it all, the accused failed to record the killing of Cafe in the PKC-1 police blotter, which should have been done as a matter of standard operating procedure.
In light of the foregoing, it is inescapable to conclude that conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the offense. Thus, the guilt of one is the guilt of all and the accused are equally liable for the offense committed.35
THE APPROXIMATE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE VICTIM AND THE ASSAILANT.Considering the contusions, abrasions, and puncture wounds sustained by the victim, it is clear that he was first manhandled prior to the shooting. The location of the gunshot wounds likewise is indicative of the relative positions of the assailants vis-à-vis the victim. As noted by Dr. Bernales, the first assailant was facing the victim but more to his left; the second assailant was at the left side but more at the back of the victim; while the third assailant was at the right side of the victim. More importantly, the assailants were positioned on a higher level than the victim which could mean that the victim was in a kneeling or stooping position. Thus, as correctly pointed out by the RTC, “[b]ased on the nature and location of the wounds sustained, the victim definitely would not be able to put up any defense even if he was armed with armalite rifle and caliber .45 at the time. This explains why he was found negative of gunpowder nitrate in both hands x x x when he was killed. He was not able to fire his gun to defend himself. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the attack on the victim was perpetrated with alevosia, hence, qualifying the killing to murder.”45cralaw virtualaw library
In determining the relative positions, we assumed that both are standing, in anatomical position and that, the assailant is a right-handed person.
In gunshot wound No. (1), based on the trajectory of the projectile from the entrance wound to the exit wound, which was BACKWARD, DOWNWARD AND LATERALLY; the assailant and the victim are both facing each other, with the assailant positioned more to the left side of the victim and that, he could be on a stooping position or the assailant is taller and/or positioned in a higher level.
In gunshot wound No. (2), based on the trajectory of the projectiles, from the entrance wound to exit wound, which was MEDIALLY, SLIGHTLY FORWARD AND DOWNWARD; the assailant is at the left side and more to the back of the victim, with the victim leaning to the left or the assailant is positioned on a higher level.
In gunshot wound No. (3), based on the trajectory of the projectile, from the entrance wound to exit wound, which was MEDIALLY, DOWNWARD AND SLIGHTLY BACKWARD; the assailant is at the right side of the victim with the assailant positioned on a higher level.
THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN.
Based on negative findings of any products of explosion of a bullet, with exception of the projectile, the approximate distance could be more than one (1) foot, to a small firearm and more than two (2) to three (3) feet, to a high powered firearm.
THE POSSIBLE CALIBER OF FIREARM USED IN KILLING THE VICTIM,
Based on the sizes of the entrance wounds, the possible caliber used could be caliber 32 to 38, including 9 mm. caliber pistol.
The trajectory of the bullet that hit the body of the victim was already mentioned in the above paragraph relative to the positions of the victims and the assailant.44
the loss of earning capacity of the victim who died at the age of 31 would be P1,445,990.00 computed as: 2/3 x (80-31) x (P88,530.00 – P44,265.00).
Net Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x Gross Annual Income – Living Expenses = [2/3 (80-age of death)] x (GAI) – 50% of GAI)55
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1548 dated September 16, 2013.cralawnad
** Per Raffle dated September 2, 2013.cralawnad
1 CA Rollo, pp. 256-268; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.cralawnad
2 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1844-1849; penned by Judge Luis J. Arranz.cralawnad
3 See Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 43-45.cralawnad
4 Id. at 169-170.cralawnad
5 See Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information with Manifestation, id. at 161-165.cralawnad
6 See Order dated May 21, 1999, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 441-442. In A.M. No. 99-1-42-RTC, the Court en banc issued a Minute Resolution dated February 2, 1999 granting the request of the Department of Justice for the transfer of venue of the trial of the case from the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela to Regional Trial Court of Manila. Id. at 433.cralawnad
7 Records, Vol. 1, p. 169.cralawnad
8 See Certificate of Death, records, Vol. 3, p. 1359.cralawnad
9 Id. at 1242.cralawnad
10 Id. at 1787.cralawnad
11 Exhibit “A,” Folder of Exhibits.cralawnad
12 Exhibit “B,” id.cralawnad
13 Exhibit “C,” id.cralawnad
14 CA Rollo, pp. 261-262.cralawnad
15 Records, Vol. 3, p. 1889.cralawnad
16 Id. at 1890.cralawnad
17 Id. at 1904-1928.cralawnad
18 Id. at 1993-1999; penned by Executive Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr..cralawnad
19 CA Rollo, pp. 33-41.cralawnad
20 Id. at 107-113; penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion (now a Member of this Court) and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo.cralawnad
21 Id. at 267.cralawnad
22Rollo, pp. 30-60.cralawnad
23 Id. at 37.cralawnad
24 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 258-261.cralawnad
25 Id. at 259.cralawnad
26 Records, Vol. 3, p. 960.cralawnad
27People v. Manchu, G.R. No. 181901, November 29, 2008, 572 SCRA 752, 759.cralawnad
28People v. Osianas, G.R. No. 182548, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 319, 329.cralawnad
29 CA Rollo, p. 236, Citations omitted.cralawnad
30 Exhibit “I,” Folder of Exhibits.cralawnad
31 Exhibit “F,” id.cralawnad
32 Exhibit “H,” id.cralawnad
33People v. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 76, 85.cralawnad
34Asetre v. Asetre, G.R. No. 171536, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 471, 486-487.cralawnad
35 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1880-1883.cralawnad
36 Records, Vol. 1, p. 254.cralawnad
37 Id. at 320-321.cralawnad
38 Records, Vol. 3, p. 926.cralawnad
39People v. Balais, G.R. No. 173242, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 555, 568.cralawnad
40People v. Nueva, G.R. No. 173248, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 449, 465-466.cralawnad
41 Exhibit “A”, Folder of Exhibits.cralawnad
42 Exhibit “C”, id.cralawnad
43 Records, Vol. 1, p. 242.cralawnad
44 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 243-244.cralawnad
45 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1886-1887.cralawnad
46People v. Nueva, supra note 40 at 468.cralawnad
47People v. Iligan, 369 Phil. 1005, 1041 (1999).cralawnad
48People v. Eribal, 364 Phil. 829, 840 (1999).cralawnad
49 G.R. No. 180925, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 752, 760.cralawnad
50People v. Berondo, Jr. G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 547, 554-555.cralawnad
51People v. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008, 565 SCRA 341, 361.cralawnad
52People v. Dulay, 401 Phil. 400, 413 (2000).cralawnad
53People v. Pondivila, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013.cralawnad
54 Exhibit “Z,” Folder of Exhibits.cralawnad
55People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 188902, February 16, 2011, 643 SCRA 524, 529.cralawnad
56People v. Rarugal, G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013.