FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015
PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO Y SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
That on or about May 27, 2000, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused, with intent to kill, did [then] and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one MARIO DE LUNA y HALLARE, by then and there firing his service firearm, .9 mm Barreta Pistol with Serial No. M19498Z, hitting the said Mario De Luna y Hallare on the chest and other parts of the body thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wounds which were necessarily fatal and mortal and which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4
Contrary to law.3cralawlawlibrary
On May 27, 2000, at about seven o'clock in the evening, Mario De Luna, Emil Hipolito and Florentino Magante were having a drinking session at Mario's house located at Panday Pira Street, Tondo, Manila.For his part, accused-appellant admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense.6 In support of this claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was precipitated by the victim's unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The latter was allegedly left with no other recourse but to use his service firearm to neutralize the aggressor.7 As testified to by witness Marita:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
At about 8:30 in the evening, the three, together with Edwin Hipolito and Jaime Mabugat continued their drinking session at the house of Edwin, also at Panday Pira Street, Tondo, Manila. While drinking thereat, they noticed that another group, with appellant (accused-appellant), was also having a drinking session along Panday Pira Street which was about three to four arms length from Edwin's place.
Emil, Mario, Jaime and Florante joined the group in their drinking session. While drinking, appellant (accused-appellant) poked a gun at Jaime and told him "wag kang magulo, babarilin kita." Jaime retorted, "san, bakit," and was then approached by her sister who asked him to go home to which he acceded. Thereafter, appellant (accused-appellant) called on Mario De Luna and fired several shots at him. Mario de Luna fell down to the ground. He was then immediately brought to the hospital by his mother and sister where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Dr. Emmanuel Arenas, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, conducted a post-mortem examination of the body of Mario De Luna and found that the victim died as a result of the gunshot wounds on the chest and different parts of his body.5cralawlawlibrary
On May 27, 2000, at about 10:00 p.m., she was in front of their house at 1663 Interior 24, F. Varona, Tondo, Manila, when she saw Ferdie Tapang, her nephew, and four others having a drinking spree beside a lighted electric post. Shortly thereafter, she noticed appellant (accused-appellant) pass by. Then Jaime together with Mario arrived at the scene and approached the group of Ferdie Tapang, uttering the words: "Gusto nyo itaob ko long lamesang ito." Sensing trouble upon seeing two of Ferdie Tapang's drinking buddies rise from the bench where they were seated, Marita rushed to the house of appellant (accused-appellant) to ask for his help in preventing a confrontation between the two groups.On 28 May 2008, accused-appellant, accompanied by Police Senior Inspector (PS/Insp.) Rosauro Dalisay, arrived at the Western Police District and surrendered his service firearm.9
Appellant (accused-appellant) had just arrived from his duty as police officer at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Unit of the Western Police District and was changing into civilian clothes when Marita came and apprised him of the situation. Together with Marita, he proceeded to the site of the drinking spree. Noticing the group was becoming rowdy, appellant (accused-appellant) approached Mario and asked if the latter knew him. When Mario replied yes, appellant (accused-appellant) went on to tell the group to put an end to their drinking session. Mario and Jaime immediately left the scene while the others voluntarily dispersed.
Minutes later, Mario and Jaime went back to the locus. While standing beside appellant (accused-appellant), Marita heard Mario shout towards their direction the words: "Walang pulis-pulis sa akin!" Appellant (accused-appellant) likewise heard Mario's utterances: "Walang pulis-pulis sa amin! Anong akala mo sa amin, basta-basta mo na lang pauuwiin." Mario then pulled out a knife and lunged at appellant (accused-appellant) who evaded the first thrust. Mario tried to stab appellant (accused-appellant) a second time but the latter dodged the knife, drew his pistol and fired two successive shots at Mario. Appellant (accused-appellant) was leaning backwards when he fired at Mario. Fatally hit, the latter slumped to the ground.
Having immediately left the crime scene after hearing the first gunshot, Marita failed to witness what transpired thereafter.8cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused GUILTY of the crime of Homicide and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the heirs of Mario De Luna the amount of Php1,600,000.00 as loss of earning capacity; Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php2,577.00 as hospital expenses; and Php300.00 as funeral expenses; and Php250,000 as attorney's fees.On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded. It affirmed the P50,000 civil indemnity in favor of the victim's heirs.11 But instead of the actual damages in the total amount of P2,877 (P2,577 for hospital expense plus P300 for funeral expenses), temperate damages of P25,000 were awarded in their favor.12 The appellate court deleted the award of P1,600,000 for loss of earning capacity on the ground of lack of competent proof to substantiate the claim and reduced the attorney's fees from P250,000 to P100,000.13 It affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and the latter's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.14 The CA likewise found that the trial court did not err in overruling accused-appellant's plea of self-defense.15
SO ORDERED.10cralawlawlibrary
[A]ppellant's tale of self-defense is negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim's body. Medico-Legal Report No. W-359-2000, the autopsy report, showed that the victim sustained two gunshot wounds, one at the base of his neck and another in the chest area. In both injuries, after penetrating the victim's body, the bullets traveled from left side downward to the right portion of his body. XxxIndeed, physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks higher in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.25 In criminal cases such as murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth.26 Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.27
x x x x
The graphic representation of the travel path of the bullets from the entry to the exit points is shown in prosecution's Exhibit "B-5." On the basis of the bullet's trajectory, Dr. Aranas concluded that the shooter must have been positioned higher than the victim when the shots were fired. Thus, the trial court concluded that the results of the autopsy disproves appellant's claim that he fired the shots while leaning backward after the victim tried to stab him a second time.24 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 117-133; Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
2 Id. at 115-116.
3 Id. at 117-118.
4 Id. at 118.
5 Id. at 118-119.
6 Id. at 119.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 120-121.
9 Id. at 121.
10 Id. at 121-122.
11 Id. at 129.
12 Id. at 129.
13 Id. at 132.
14 Id. at 123.
15 Id. at 128.
16People v. Pateoy Garcia, G.R. No. 156786, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 609.
17EspaƱo v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 798 (1998).
18 Id.
19People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, 24 July 2013, 702 SCRA 204.
20People vs. Maalat, 341 Phil. 200 (1997).
21People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 109660, 01 July 1997, 275 SCRA 19; People vs. Maalat, 341 Phil. 200 (1997); People vs. Unarce, 339 Phil. 826 (1997); 337 Phil. 430 (1997); People vs. Nalangan, 336 Phil. 970 (1997); People vs. Tobias, 334 Phil. 851 (1997); People vs. Cahindo, 334 Phil. 507 (1997); and People v. Supremo, G.R. No. 100915, 31 May 1995, 244 SCRA 548.
22 Supra note 1, at 124.
23 Id. at 125.
24 Id. at 125-127.
25People v. Marquina, 426 Phil 46-61 (2002).
26 Id.
27People v. Marquina, 426 Phil 46-61 (2002); Tan, Jr., vs. CA, 396 Phil. 808 (2000); People vs. Roche, et al., 386 Phil. 287 (2000); and Jose vs. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 30 (2000).
28 Supra note 1, at 123-124.
29 Id. at 124.
30 Id. at 124. Citing People v. Barriga, 588 Phil. 376 (2008).
31 Id. at 119.
32 Id. at 127-128.
33People v. Paleo, G.R. No. 156786, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 609.
34 In determining the minimum term of indeterminate penalty, it is left entirely within the discretion of the court to fix it anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without reference to the period into which it may be subdivided. (Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, p. 776. Citing People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933)).
35 Revised Penal Code, Article 249.
36 Supra note 1, at 129.
37 Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225.
38 The penalty next lower must be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without considering in the meantime the modifying circumstances, such as, the mitigating or aggravating circumstances. (Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, pp. 775-776. Citing People v. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, 552 (1942)).
39 The maximum term shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code. (Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, p. 775. Citing Sec. 1, Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225).
40 Id. at 132.
41 Id. at 129.
42Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 215366, 18 March 2015; People v. Villalba, G.R. No. 207629, 22 October 2014.
43People v. Agudez, G.R. No. 138386-87, 20 May 2014, 428 SCRA 692.
44 Supra note 1, at 129. Citing People v. Gerasla, 595 Phil. 1087 (2008).
45Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 215366, 18 March 2015; People v. Villalba, G.R. No. 207629, 22 October 2014.
46Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
47People v. Palmay Varcas, G.R. No. 212151, 18 February 2015.