SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 172871 : September 16, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEMENTE CASTA Y CAROLINO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
That on or about the 20th day of August, 1989 in the afternoon, at barangay Goyoden, municipality of Bolinao, province of Pangasinan, New [sic]Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and by means of treachery, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, suddenly and without warning attack and stab DANILO CAMBA with a knife, inflicting upon the victim the following injuries to wit:The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge upon arraignment. The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: Marlyn4 Cister; Modesto Cardona; Domingo Camba; Dionisia Camba; and Dr. Prudencio C. de Perio. The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.
- stab wound, 3 inches in length, 4 inches in depth, located at the back, left side, 5 inches (level) below the armpit; - stab wound at the left forearm, 3 cm. length and 1 inch depth.
which caused his instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Danilo Camba.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.3
According to Dr. de Perio, the victim's cause of death was "shock, due to massive hemorrhage brought about by the stab wounds"21 He added that the stab wounds were caused by a sharp-pointed instrument such as a dagger.22AUTOPSY REPORTx x x x
III. Findings
A male cadaver undergoing rigor mortis, around 5'6" in height, and around 145 lbs. in weight.
- Stab wound, 3 inches in length, 4 inches in depth, located at the back, left side, 5 inches (level) below the armpit.
- Left lung injured and also the heart, causing massive hemorrhages.
- Stab wound at the left forearm, 3 cm. length and 1 inch depth.
Wound is horizontal.20
x x x that on August 20, 1989 in the afternoon, he went to Sitio Matber, Goyoden, Bolinao, to buy fish; that before reaching the place where he will buy fish, he met a person whom he did not know.23 This person called him by waving his hand and pointing to him. He responded to the call of this person by approaching him but when he was near him, this person boxed him but he was not hit. They grappled with each other and he did not notice if there were other persons around them; that he then noticed that his knife was already bloody so he ran away; that there was no person around that he noticed when he saw his knife bloody; that at that time, he did not know the identity of the person with whom he grappled; that when he was already detained, he learned that the person was Danilo Camba.24The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of murder in its decision of August 18, 1999 as follows:
The accused also declared that he was not arrested by the Police, but he surrendered to Pat. Domingo Camba on August 21, 1989 to whom his uncle relayed the information that he wanted to surrender and Pat. Camba fetched him. While under Police custody, he was investigated by Pat. Camba and said investigation was in writing and signed by him (Exhibit D, D-1 and D-2), but he said that the document was not his statement although it bears his signature.25 He was forced to sign the investigation because he was afraid of the investigator who bears the same family name as the victim but he does not know if they are related; x x x x26
On cross-examination, he declared that he did not plan to kill the victim and his killing was accidental.27 He gave his affidavit in the Bolinao dialect in questions and answers (Exhibits D and series); that all the signatures bearing his name are his (Exhibit D-4, D-5, D-6); that this document has an English translation (Exhibit F); x x x that he admitted on direct examination that he stabbed Danilo Camba and he threw the knife into the sea when he rode on a motorboat and was confused; that he knew that the date when he stabbed Danilo Camba was August 20, 1989 and in the afternoon but he did no know the time.28
On re-direct examination, the accused declared that the reason for his stabbing Danilo Camba was that when they met on the road and Camba was drunk, without any provocation on his part, Camba positioned to box him so he drew his knife and stabbed him; that he did not know the reason why Camba wanted to box him; that at that time, Camba was with one Fedelino Gatchalian; that he had no previous grudge with Camba because he did not know him; that he did not see the victim with any weapon and he did not know if he was armed or not; and that he is bigger than Camba.29 [Footnotes referring to the pertinent parts of the record supplied]
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment, finding the accused Clemente Casta y Carolino, of Barangay Goyoden, Bolinao, Pangasinan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder for the death of Danilo Camba, of the same place, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P50,000.00 as compensation for the death of the victim, P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and P13,000.00 as actual damages.The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,31 we endorsed the case and its records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.32
With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.30
This in-court admission confirms the separate admission he made at the Bolinao police station on August 22, 1989 in the presence of counsel, Atty. Antonio V. Tiong.ATTY. ROMIE V. BRAGA:
Q:In your direct-examination, you admitted having stabbed the deceased Danilo Camba, will you tell the Court where was that knife which you used in stabbing Danilo Camba?
CLEMENTE CASTA:
A:I left it in the sea, sir.
Q:You mean you threw it into the sea?
A:Yes, sir.
Q:Will you tell the Court why you threw the knife which you used in stabbing Danilo Camba into the sea?
A:Because I rode in a motor boat and then I threw it into the sea, sir.
Q:And will you tell the Court why you threw or drop it into the sea?
A:Because I was confused, sir.
Q:Now will you tell us what time was it more or less when you stabbed Danilo Camba?
A:I do not know the time, sir.
Q:But it was in the afternoon of August 20, 1989, is that correct?
A:Yes, sir. x x x35 [Emphasis ours]
Like the RTC, we do not believe that the appellant acted in self-defense.ATTY. TEOFILO A. HUMILDE:
Q:After Gumangan left and you continued walking, were you able to reach the place where you were to buy fish?
CLEMENTE CASTA:
A:No, sir.
Q:Why?
A:I met the person whom I don't know, sir.
x x x
Q:What did you do when you saw that person by the roadside after you have seen Gumangan?
A:None, sir, he called me.
x x x
Q:Will you tell us what you heard when you said that person called you?
A:He called me by waving his hand and then he pointed me [sic].
Q:After that, did you respond to his hand-waving by getting near?
A:When I got near him, he boxed me, sir.
Q:Were you hit when he boxed you?
A:No, sir.
Q:What happened next after that person boxed you?
A:We fought each other by grappling, sir.
x x x
Q:When you grappled with each other, who was the first who grappled against whom?
A:He, sir.
Q:What happened when he grappled with you and you grappled with him, what happened next?
A:I did not notice that my knife has already blood so I ran away.
x x x
Q:Did you come to know him later, that person whom you grappled with?
A:When I was in prison, sir.
Q:Who was that?
A:Danilo Camba, sir.36 [Emphasis ours]
Art. 11. Justifying Circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement to establish self-defense that unlawful aggression must be present. It is a condition sine qua non; there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.38
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.x x x
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:Treachery, the qualifying circumstance alleged against the appellant, exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.41 This definition sets out what must be shown by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. To reiterate, the essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.421. With treachery x x x x 40
That the appellant surrendered only in the morning of August 21, 1989 (or a day after the stabbing incident) does not diminish nor affect the voluntariness of his surrender. For voluntary surrender to mitigate an offense, it is not required that the accused surrender at the first opportunity.45 Here, the appellant went voluntarily went with SPO1 Camba to the police station within a day after the killing to own up to the killing. Thus, the police did not devote time and effort to the investigation of the killing and to the search and capture of the assailant.ATTY. ROMIE V. BRAGA:
Q:Now, as police investigator, will you inform the Court if Clemente Casta, the accused herein, ever presented himself to your office?
DOMINGO CAMBA
A:Yes, sir.
Q:And in relation with this incident and that appearance of Clemente Casta in your office, was it reflected and entered in your police blotter?
A:Yes, sir.
Q:Now, will you go over your police blotter and read into the record the fact of the appearance of Clemente in your office in relation with this incident?
A:On entry 4302 21 August, 1989 07 hundred hours Clemente Casta y Carolino, 21 years old, single, fisherman, resident of Goyuden Bolinao, Pangasinan was brought into this station for investigation following his voluntary surrender to have allegedly killed Danilo Camba on or about 1500 hundred hours 20 August 1989 in Goyuden this municipality.44
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag; rollo, pp. 3-18.
2 Penned by Judge Lilia C. Español; CA rollo, pp. 17-24.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 In some parts of the record, her name is spelled as Marlene.
5 TSN, November 5, 1991, p. 4.
6Id., p. 5.
7Id., p. 7.
8 TSN, November 12, 1991, pp. 5-8.
9Id., p. 10.
10Id., p. 19.
11 TSN, November 21, 1991, p. 5.
12Id., p. 6.
13 TSN, November 26, 1992, p. 12.
14 In some parts of the record, his name appears as Atty. Chiong
15 TSN, November 21, 1991, pp. 10-
16 TSN, December 3, 1991, p. 11.
17Id., pp. 9-12.
18Id., p. 14.
19 TSN, January 7, 1993, p. 8.
20 Records, p. 11.
21 TSN, January 7, 1993, p. 11.
22Id., p. 24.
23 TSN, May 3, 1994, p. 3.
24Id., pp. 5-6.
25Id., pp. 6-7.
26Id., p. 8.
27 TSN, July 28, 1994, p. 6.
28 TSN, January 18, 1995, pp. 3-5.
29Id., p. 5-8.
30 CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
31 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 656.
32 Per our Resolution dated September 20, 2004; CA rollo, p. 147.
33Id., pp. 35-45.
34People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 172696, August 11, 2008, citing People v. Garalde, 521 SCRA 327, 340 (2007).
35 TSN, January 18, 1995, pp. 4-5.
36 TSN, May 3, 1994, pp. 5-6.
37 See People v. Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999, 308 SCRA 104.
38People v. Ansowas, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002, 394 SCRA 227.
39People v. Rada, G.R. No. 128181, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 227.
40 Under R.A. 7659 (The Heinous Crimes Law), the penalty for murder is now reclusion perpetua to death.
41People v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 272, 288.
42People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146.
43Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002, 393 SCRA 419.
44 TSN, November 21, 1991, p. 7.
45People v. Saul, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 637.
46 See: People v. Derilo, G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 633, 661-663.
47 Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225.
48Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, June 16, 2004, 432 SCRA 329; People v. Buenavidez, G.R. No. 141120, September 17, 2003, 411 SCRA 202.
49 G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003, 397 SCRA 137.
50 G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003, 408 SCRA 571.
51People v. Eling, G.R. No. 178546, April 30, 2008.
52 See People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008.
53People v. Ballesteros, supra note 34.
54 See Licyayo v. People G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008; People v. Tabuelog, G.R. No. 178059, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 301.