SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 213104, July 29, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PO1 CYRIL A. DE GRACIA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the February 10, 2014 Decision1 and the June 17, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128396, which denied the petition for certiorari, assailing the August 31, 2012 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Manila City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 12-289471, for granting the petition for bail of respondent PO1 Cyril A. De Gracia (De Gracia).
The Facts
De Gracia was charged with the crime of Murder, with a prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua. On February 22, 2012, while detained in the Manila City Jail, accused filed a petition for bail.
Prosecution's Evidence
During the hearing on the petition for bail, the prosecution presented Robert Bryan Villanueva (Robert), Joshua Mendoza (Joshua) and Merwin Irison (Merwin), as their witnesses, to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused for the crime of murder was strong.
Their testimonies tended to show that on December 28, 2011, at about past 10:00 o'clock in the evening, victim David Paul (David) together with Robert, Joshua, Merwin, Bless Roquero (Bless) and their other friends celebrated their post-Christmas party in the house of Rio Polintan (Rio), at Ana Sarmiento Street, Malate, Manila.
At about past 12:00 midnight of December 29, 2011, De Gracia came and uttered, "Gate-crasher ako, okay long ba.?" A policeman by profession, he was then in civilian clothes. Sarah, the sister of Rio, then asked De Gracia if he had any pasalubong, to which he replied, "Ito bala." De Gracia then talked with Rio, whom he personally knew. He joined the group and drank coffee cocktail. He then saw Bless at the dining area and recognized her as the ex-girlfriend of his friend. The two talked with each other.
At about 2:00 o'clock in the morning, De Gracia and Bless were still conversing while seated beside each other in the sala. After cooking, Merwin went to the sala and placed some food on the table. He noticed that the gun of De Gracia was also on top of the table. Merwin then saw him insert a magazine with bullets in his gun, place it in his holster and tuck it in his waistline. Merwin sat beside David, who was seated opposite De Gracia and Bless.
After a while, Merwin stood up and went to the kitchen to eat some lumpia. Robert then heard Bless say to De Gracia, "Kayang kaya ko ngang bugbugin ang ex ko, ikaw pa kaya." After uttering these words, Bless pulled De Gracia's hair. Joshua, who was then at the stairway, heard De Gracia, in a somewhat high pitch tone, threaten Bless by saying, "Sige kapag sinabunutan mo ako ulit, babarilin ko yung kaibigan mo." Joshua saw De Gracia hold his gun and point it at David. All of a sudden, De Gracia fired his gun, hitting David on the chest. Out of fear, Robert ran to the kitchen while Merwin, who was then in the kitchen, overheard the gunshot. When the latter turned his head, he saw David slowly slipping down from his seat. Merwin shouted, "Si Dave!" and carried him towards the door.4redarclaw
Robert testified that De Gracia was about 1 to 1 1/4% meters away from David when he fired the gun.
Joshua related that there was no heated discussion within the group before the shooting; that when De Gracia uttered the threatening words to Bless, there was no anger in his tone; that De Gracia had a drink but was not intoxicated; and that after De Gracia threatened Bless, the gun fired.
Merwin added that he saw De Gracia holding the gun after shooting David; that De Gracia approached David and lifted his t-shirt and there was blood on his chest; that De Gracia told them to bring David inside his vehicle; and that David was brought to the Ospital ng Maynila where he was pronounced dead.5redarclaw
The RTC Ruling
In its August 31, 2012 Order, the RTC granted the petition for bail. The trial court ruled that treachery, the essential qualifying element of murder, was not sufficiently established. It found that based on the testimonies of the witnesses, nothing would show that De Gracia made preparations to kill David in a treacherous manner to ensure the execution of the felony. Rather, the killing was perpetrated on the spur of the moment. The RTC concluded that the evidence of guilt for murder was not strong. The decretal portion of the order reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused-petitioner CYRIL DE GRACIA y ARCE is ADMITTED TO BAIL in such amount as the prosecution may suggest subject to the approval of this court.The public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration,7 but it was denied by the RTC in its Order,8 dated November 28, 2012. In the same order, the RTC set the bail in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for his provisional liberty.
SO ORDERED.6
The OSG asserts that the evidence proving guilt of the accused was strong. It cites the RTC order which stated that "it is evident that the accused decided to shoot any of the friends of Bless in an instant."12 The OSG points out that the word "decided" indicates the conscious and deliberate adoption of a mode of attack by the accused to facilitate the killing without risk to himself.ISSUE
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RTC WAS CORRECT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWING RESPONDENT PO1 CYRIL DE GRACIA GUILTY OF MURDER IS STRONG AND, THUS, AGREEING WITH THE RTC'S ORDER ADMITTING RESPONDENT TO BAIL.11
Joshua also testified as follows:
Q: Are you referring to whom when you say the two of them? A: Bless and the accused. Q: Did you hear what they were talking about? A: Yun ano lang po, "pag sinaktan mo ang mga kaibigan ko, sasabunutan kita." Q: Who said that? A: Bless. Q: To whom did he say that? A: To the accused. Q: And what did the accused reply when she said that if any? A: He suddenly pointed the gun, and the gun fired. The incident happened so fast.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses only pointed to the suddenness of the shooting. Nowhere in their testimonies did they clearly state that De Gracia consciously adopted the means of firing the gun. David might have no chance to defend himself, but there was no showing that De Gracia deliberately chose the means employed which resulted in his killing. Absent any circumstance that accused wilfully and thoughtfully espoused, through any external manifestation, the manner to kill David, the element of alevosia could not be appreciated. It is a well-settled rule that treachery is never presumed.22redarclaw
Q: At any point while you were on your laptop, was there any instance that caught your attention as to the dialogue between accused and Bless? A: My attention was focus [on] them when I heard the word, "sige sabunutan mo ako ulit, babarilin ko itong kaibigan mo." Q: Who was in front of him at that time? A: It was Dave, ma'am. Q: So when you look at the accused pointing the gun at Dave, can you tell us what happened next, if any? A: Right after he said those words, the gun fired, ma'am. Q: Who was hit? A: Dave was hit, ma'am.
In the instant case, based on the unrebutted evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that the accused decided to shoot any of the friends of Bless in an instant. Irritated by the act of Bless in pulling his hair, the accused suddenly aimed and fire his gun to anyone, xxx23redarclawThe Court is not persuaded. The assailed RTC order should be read as a whole and not in isolation. A cursory reading thereof demonstrates that the quoted text refers to the discussion of the trial court as to the swiftness of the attack. The RTC continued, nevertheless, that there was no evidence that De Gracia deliberately and consciously adopted such treacherous mode to kill David. The very short interval of time,24 between the act of De Gracia in threatening Bless and the actual shooting, strongly suggests that the accused was not able to meditate on the employment of his attack. De Gracia was simply irritated by the childish act of Bless of pulling his hair when he shot David. Such fact showed that the killing was perpetrated on the spur of the moment.[Emphases Supplied]
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, per Special Order No. 2115, dated July 22, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 142-151; Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
2 Id. at 152-153.
3 Id. at 57-63; Penned by Presiding Judge Alfredo D. Ampuan.
4 Id. at 33-34.
5 Id. at 59.
6 Id. at 63.
7 Id. at 64-66.
8 Id. at 74-75.
9 CA rollo, p. 239.
10 Id. at 42.
11Rollo, p. 16.
12 Id. at 61.
13 Id. at 19.
14 Id. at 130-132.
15 Id. at 160-166.
16Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, 438 Phil. 417, 452 (2002).
17People v. Hon. Cabral, 362 Phil. 697, 709 (1999).
18Aguilar v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 629, 642.
19People v. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 597, 607.
20 G.R. No. 207629, October 22, 2014.
21People v. Dagani, 530 Phil. 501, 520-521 (2006).
22People v. Ramos, 411 Phil. 115, 125 (2004).
23Rollo, p. 61.
24 Id. at 61, where Robert testified that accused immediately shot David less than 3 seconds after finishing his sentence with Biess. On the other hand, id. at 61, Joshua testified that accused shot David after accused uttered his words.