G.R. No. 196434 : People of the Philippines v. Chito Nazareno
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 196434 : October 24, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CHITO NAZARENO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the evidence required for proving conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of abuse or superior strength in a murder case.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charged the accused Chito Nazareno and Fernando Saliendra, a barangay tanod, of murder before the Regional Trial Cow1 (RTC) of that city in Criminal Case 94-133117.1ςrνll
Since Saliendra remained at-large, only Nazareno was tried. The prosecution presented Roy Magallanes, Roger Francisco, SPO1 Teodoro Sinag, SPO1 Julian Bustamante, Dr. Antonio E. Rebosa, and Jovelo Valdez.2ςrνll
On November 10, 1993 David Valdez (David), Magallanes, and Francisco attended the wake of a friend. While there, they drank liquor with accused Nazareno and Saliendra.3ςrνll A heated argument ensued between Magallanes and Nazareno but their companions pacified them.4ςrνll
On the following day, November 11, David, Magallanes, and Francisco returned to the wake. Accused Nazareno and Saliendra also arrived and told the three not to mind the previous nights altercation. At around 9:30 in the evening, while David, Francisco, and their friend, Aida Unos were walking on the street, Nazareno and Saliendra blocked their path.5ςrνll Nazareno boxed Francisco who fled but Saliendra went after him with a balisong.6ςrνll Francisco, who succeeded in hiding saw Nazareno hit David on the body with a stick while Saliendra struck Davids head with a stone.7ςrνll David ran towards a gasoline station but Nazareno and Saliendra, aided by some barangay tanods, caught up with him.8ςrνll As David fell, the barangay tanods took over the assault.9ςrνll This took place as Magallanes stood about five meters across the highway unable to help his friend.10ςrνll Afterwards, Unos brought David to the hospital.11ςrνll Dr. Rebosa performed surgery on Davids head but he died on November 14, 1993 of massive intra-cranial hemorrhage secondary to depressed fracture on his right temporal bone12ςrνll in a form of blunt trauma.13ςrνll
On November 12, 1993 after Davids relatives reported the killing to the police, SPO1 Sinag investigated the case and took Unoss statement.14ςrνll On November 15, accompanied by SPO1 Bustamante and two other police officers, SPO1 Sinag went to the UST Hospital and took a look at Davids body, noting the wounds on his forehead.15ςrνll Subsequently, the officers went to the crime scene but found no witness there.
In his defense, accused Nazareno claimed that he left his house at around 9:30 in the evening on November 11, 1993 to buy milk. While on a street near his house, he noted a commotion taking place nearby. He then bumped into Saliendra. Nazareno proceeded home and went to bed.16ςrνll His wife Isabel supported his testimony, claiming that she asked her husband on that night to buy milk for their children. When Nazareno returned home, he informed her of the commotion outside and how someone bumped into him.17ςrνll
Unos testified that she saw Saliendra chasing David as the latter hang on the rear of a running jeepney. She claimed that she did not see Nazareno around the place.18ςrνll
On March 9, 2004, the RTC found Nazareno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery. The RTC sentenced Nazareno to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay P141,670.25 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, without any subsidiary imprisonment.19ςrνll
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. 20ςrνll Finding no treachery, it convicted Nazareno of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, hence, this appeal.
The issues in this case are:
1. Whether or not Nazareno took part in a conspiracy to kill David;
2. Whether or not a qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing of David.
The Courts Ruling
One. As a rule, the factual findings of the trial court are, except for compelling or exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court especially when fully supported by evidence and affirmed by the CA.21ςrνll Here, no sound reason exists to alter the findings of the RTC and the CA with respect to the facts they deemed to have been proved and the credibility of the witnesses.22ςrνll
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.23ςrνll Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence.24ςrνll 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.
Here, both the RTC and the CA found conspiracy in attendance. Magallanes and Francisco testified that accused Nazareno and Saliendra purposely waited for David and his companions out on the street as they came out of the wake. The witnesses testified that each of Nazareno and Saliendra took concerted steps aimed at killing or causing serious harm to David. Nazareno repeatedly struck David on the area of his neck with a stick; Saliendra hurled a fist-sized stone on his head. Even when David tried to flee, they still chased him and together with other barangay tanods, beat him to unconsciousness. Although Magallanes testified that Saliendra and Nazareno acted "quite differently" from each other before the attack,25ςrνll their actions before and during the incident reveal a common purpose.26ςrνll Saliendra appears to have delivered the fatal blow but Nazareno cannot escape liability because, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.27ςrνll
Magallanes and Francisco saw the commission of the offense from different angles but the core of their stories remains cohesive. The result of the autopsy of Davids body corroborates such stories. True their accounts have certain inconsistencies but these do not weaken their credibility since they concurred on material points.28ςrνll Rather, those small inconsistencies strengthened their credibility as they evince spontaneity and candor.29ςrνll Completely uniform and identical statements manifest rehearsed testimonies.30ςrνll
Taken against these considerations, the Court cannot give credence to Nazarenos defense of alibi. To be admissible, not only must he be at a different place during the commission of the crime, his presence at the crime scene must also be physically impossible.31ςrνll Here, Nazareno even admits that he encountered Saliendra, the accused who went into hiding, on the street and noticed the commotion.32ςrνll
Two. The CA held that the killing of David should be characterized as one of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. The Court finds no fault in this ruling. There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend himself.33ςrνll The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor.
Here, Nazareno and Saliendra evidently armed themselves beforehand, Nazareno with a stick and Saliendra with a heavy stone. David was unarmed. The two chased him even as he fled from them. And when they caught up with him, aided by some unnamed barangay tanods, Nazareno and Saliendra exploited their superior advantage and knocked the defenseless David unconscious. He evidently died from head fracture caused by one of the blows on his head.
On the matter of penalty, the Court affirms the imposition of reclusion perpetua.34ςrνll The Court retains the amount of P141,670.25 as actual damages.35ςrνll But, consistent with current jurisprudence, 36ςrνll the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01308 dated December 17, 2010, that found Chito Nazareno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength in Criminal Case 94-133117.
The Court also AFFIRMS the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused Nazareno but MODIFIES the award of damages to P141,670.25 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.ςrαlαωlιbrαr
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez, per Special Order 1343 dated October 9, 2012.
1ςrνll Records, p. 1
2ςrνll RTC Decision, id. at 399.
3ςrνll TSN, July 30, 1998, pp. 225-226.
4ςrνll Id. at 226-227.
5ςrνll Id. at 231.
6ςrνll TSN, August 13, 1998, p. 262.
7ςrνll Id. at 263.
8ςrνll Id. at 233.
9ςrνll TSN, August 13, 1998, p. 265.
10ςrνll TSN, July 30, 1998, pp. 234-235.
11ςrνll TSN, August 13, 1998, p. 263.
12ςrνll Notes of the Post-Mortem Examination, records, p. 62.
13ςrνll Certificate of Death, id. at 61.
14ςrνll TSN, September 24, 1998, pp. 186-187.
15ςrνll TSN, December 14, 1998, pp. 200-201.
16ςrνll TSN, April 11, 2000, pp. 286-288.
17ςrνll TSN, March 2, 2000, p. 315.
18ςrνll TSN, February 14, 2000, pp. 366-368.
19ςrνll Supra note 2, at 404-405.
20ςrνll Rollo, pp. 3-14.
21ςrνll Serra v. Mumar, G.R. No. 193861, March 14, 2012.
22ςrνll Miranda v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012.
23ςrνll Revised Penal Code, Art. 8.
24ςrνll People v. Bustamante, G.R. No. 172357, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 203, 216.
25ςrνll TSN, July 30, 1998, p. 231.
26ςrνll People v. Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 552, 564.
27ςrνll People v. Rollan, G.R. No. 175835, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 57, 63.
28ςrνll People v. Pajes, G.R. No. 184179, April 12, 2010, 618 SCRA 147, 161.
29ςrνll People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 210, 227.
30ςrνll People v. Leonardo, G.R. No. 181036, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 166, 197.
31ςrνll People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 222, 233.
32ςrνll TSN, April 11, 2000, p. 295.
33ςrνll People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 275, 284.
34ςrνll Republic Act 9346: "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," approved on June 24, 2006.
35ςrνll Supra note 2.
36ςrνll People v. Arbalate, G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 239, 255.
