FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 212818, January 25, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO QUITA ALIAS "GREG", Accused-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the January 10, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04782, the dispositive portion of which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated December 1, 2010 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 195, in Criminal Case No. 06-0294 is hereby MODIFIED, increasing the amount of civil indemnity ex delicto to P75,000.00, moral damages to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to P30,000.00.Factual Antecedents
SO ORDERED.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about the 17th day of November[,] 2002, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one ROBERTO SOLAYAO, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death.As these accused were not promptly apprehended when the foregoing Information was filed, this case was ordered archived by the RTC. But on January 8, 2007, Gregorio was arrested, hence the case was revived on the said date.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The fact of death of the victim was duly established by his death certificate (exhibit "C"). Accused Gregorio was one of those who killed the victim. The killing was qualified by treachery. Obviously, the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide.Upon these facts, the RTC disposed as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This Court finds Paquito Solayao's eyewitness account of the incident worthy of belief. His positive, straightforward, categorical[,] and unequivocal testimony that accused Gregorio held both hands of the victim at the back while being stabbed by his co-accused Fleno who is his brother, deserves full credence. It is worthy of note that Paquito was not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against both accused and indict them for a crime as serious as murder. All that was shown was his ardent desire to give justice to his murdered son. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that their positive and categorical testimonies and declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath are worthy of full faith and credence (Buenaventura vs. People, 493 SCRA 223; People vs. Cabbab, Jr., 527 SCRA 589). In the instant case, absent any evidence of improper motive on Paquito's part to testify as principal witness, his testimony deserves credit (Nerpito vs. People, 528 SCRA 93).
Paquito's testimony that both hands of the victim were held at the back by accused Gregorio while being stabbed by accused Fleno shows the presence of treachery because under such situation the victim was deprived of any real chance to fight back and defend himself. In the cases of People vs. Pascual, 512 SCRA and People vs. Concepcion, 514 SCRA 660[,] the Supreme Court held that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods, or form in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make. In the instant case, holding the hands of the victim while being stabbed was the means employed by the accused to insure that the former could not fight back and defend himself.
The defense of denial interposed by accused Gregorio, on the other hand, cannot prevail over Paquito's positive, direct[,] and categorical declarations made in a straightforward manner while in the witness stand that he held both hands of the victim while being stabbed by his brother, accused Fleno. It must be noted that aside from his self[-]serving testimony that on the date in question, he just stayed home after coming from Better Living, Parañaque City where he attended a birthday party and that when they left the house of the birthday celebrant, the group of Berto waited for them on the road and that when they passed in front of them he was allegedly punched by one of Berto's companions, no other clear and convincing evidence was presented to substantiate the same. His "kababayans", Jose and Gerry Vertudaso, were not even presented to establish at least the fact that he indeed was with them from 10:30 in the morning up to 4:00 in the afternoon of November 17, 2002. Neither was his testimony that he was employed as a truck driver with Leslie Corporation prior to the date in question nor that he was employed as delivery boy (driver) of a certain company from December 2002 up to 2004 was duly established. His alleged pahinante, Danilo, was not presented to corroborate such testimony. Even the tricycle driver, who[,] according to his wife Analyn, was the one who informed her that he was arrested while driving his tricycle in Dasmariñas, Cavite, was not presented to corroborate this testimony.
The Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, ruled that evidence[,] to be believed[,] must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but x x x must [also] be credible in itself[,] such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, the evidence presented by the accused did not pass this test.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Gregorio Quita, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which carries with it the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which he shall suffer even though pardoned unless the same shall have been expressly remitted therein.Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Accused Gregorio Quita is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as actual damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity ex delicto; Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) as moral damages; and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.
The City Jail Warden of Parañaque City is hereby ordered to transfer said accused to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
As regards accused Fleno Quita, this case shall remain in archive. The alias warrant of arrest issued against him stays.
SO ORDERED.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryBut the CA predictably sustained the RTC's factual underpinnings of the case, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Paquito Solayao, the victim's father who was an eyewitness to the incident, positively identified Accused-Appellant Gregorio Quita to be the person who held the hands of the victim while the other accused Fleno Quita stabbed the victim. He knew the two accused because they were water delivery boys in the water station three streets away from their place. He saw the accused in the water delivery station one month before and also one week before the incident happened [on] November 17, 2002. The faces of the accused had become familiar to the witness that it is believable for him to recognize them when he saw them ganging up on his son that fateful night. The incident happened in the middle of the street in front of a lamp post so that the witness, who was but five (5) meters away, clearly saw Gregorio Quita holding both the hands of his son, who was struggling, at the back while Fleno Quita stabbed his son.But the CA modified Gregorio's civil liability to reflect the recent jurisprudential teaching. That CA thereafter disposed as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The positive identification of an accused where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellant whose testimony was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Accused appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness to falsely accuse him of the crime. He tried to discredit the eyewitness's testimony because he was the victim's father but the same would not hold.
By and large, relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural tor a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the culprit. The natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits.
Furthermore, Paquito Solayao's eyewitness account of the incident was steadfast and unequivocal, viz.:
x x x Pros. Robles Q Now, what happened Mr. Witness when you left your house and immediately proceeded to fetch your son Roberto? Witness A When I went out of my house and I was in the middle of the street of Annex 40, I saw three (3) persons having a fight ma'am. Q When you saw these three persons having a fight, Mr. Witness, how far were you from them? A More or less ten (10) meters, ma'am. Q What did you do, Mr. Witness, upon seeing that there are three persons along Annex 40 who are having a tight? A I walked faster to know who they were. Q What happened next after that, Mr. Witness? A I saw Gregorio Quita holding the hand of my son while being stabbed by the other accused Fleno Quita alias Eddie Boy. Q And at the time, Mr. Witness, that you saw the incident, how far were you from them? A More or less five (5) meters, ma'am. x x x Q Are you sure, Mr. Witness, at that time that it was the two accused who stabbed and held the hand of your son? A Yes, ma'am. Q And what made you so sure of that, Mr. Witness? A Because in that area the two accused deliver water in Annex 22 and in Annex 40.x x x
His positive, straightforward[,] and unequivocal manner of recounting what he witnessed on the date of the incident led the trial court to find his testimony to be worthy of belief. The rule is that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses because of [its] unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses in the process of unearthing the truth. Thus, except for compelling reasons, We are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.
The testimony of the witness that the assailant was in front of the victim when he was stabbed was corroborated by the testimony of the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim that since the wounds were located anteriorly, it is possible for the assailant to inflict the fatal wound in front of the victim, although he did not discount the fact that the assailant could be at the back of the victim holding [his] body x x x.
And, because of the positive identification of the accused-appellant, his alibi deserved scant consideration. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that he could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
Accused-appellant recounted that on the date of the incident, he attended a birthday party in Annex Better Living, Parañaque City, which is where the victim also had a drinking spree. While he claimed that he arrived home in Sucat, Muntinlupa at around 6:30 to 7:00 in the evening, it does not discount the possibility that he was at the scene of the crime in Better Living, Parañaque City at around 8:30 in the evening of the same day, especially so when he narrated in his testimony an account of an altercation with a group led by a certain "Berto" which happened in the street near Annex 22 where the birthday party was held.
With respect to the alleged delay in indicting accused-appellant, Paquito Solayao explained that he filed a complaint in 2002 against the siblings Gregorio Quita and Fleno Quita but when he learned that the accused escaped, he did not pursue the case anymore. When he learned later on that the suspects were already in Manila, he decided to pursue the case again by giving a statement on January 23, 2006.
The Information charged accused-appellant, in conspiracy with Fleno Quita, with the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The fact of death was duly established by the death certificate of the victim Roberto Solayao as well as the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Edgardo Vida indicating that the fatal stab wound inflicted on the victim's right shoulder caused his death.
There is treachery when 'the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.' These means or methods are made in the form of a swift, deliberate and unexpected attack, without any warning and affording the victim, which is usually unarmed and unsuspecting, no chance at all to resist or escape the impending attack.
Holding the hands of the victim to his back while he was being stabbed rendered him defenseless against the perpetrators thereby insuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders of any defense that the victim might make.
The Information likewise alleged conspiracy between Gregorio Quita and Fleno Quita in committing the crime. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence. Proof that the perpetrators met beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose.
Although Paquito Solayao testified that it was Fleno Quita whom he saw stab the victim, the act of Gregorio Quita in holding the hands of the victim while he was being stabbed by Fleno Quita showed a common design and oneness of purpose to inflict harm upon the victim. Hence, the basic principle of conspiracy that 'the act of one is the act of all' applies in this case.
By reason of the foregoing, the prosecution has sufficiently established, beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant's culpability. His conviction of the crime of murder, therefore, must be upheld.12 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated December 1, 2010 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 195, in Criminal Case No. 06-0294 is hereby MODIFIED, increasing the amount of civil indemnity ex delicto to P75,000.00, moral damages to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to P30,000.00.In a Resolution14 dated July 28, 2014, both parties were required to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs. However, both filed Manifestations15 stating that the filing of a supplemental brief is no longer necessary because they have already exhaustively discussed all issues.
SO ORDERED.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 92-103; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Romeo F. Barza.
2 Id. at 101.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id. at 55.
5 Id. at 76.
6 National Bureau of Investigation.
7 Exhibit "D," records, p. 240.
8 Branch 195, Parañaque City, penned by Aida Estrella Macapagal.
9 Records, pp. 335-336.
10 Id. at 336-337.
11 CA rollo, p. 47.
12 Id. at 97-101.
13 Id. at 101.
14Rollo, pp. 19-20.
15 Id. at 21-33.
16 See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.