SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 222561, August 30, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN TICA Y EPANTO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 24, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01130-MIN, which affirmed with modifications the September 14, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Cagayan de Oro City.
That on July 27, 2008, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Zone 4, Sarat, Baybay, Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, armed with a knife, which he was then conveniently provided of, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Eduardo Intia y Dalagan, hitting the 4th intercostal space, left anterior axillary, thereby inflicting a fatal wound on the victim which was the direct and immediate cause of his death.3In his arraignment, Tica pleaded "Not Guilty" to the offense charged in the Information.4 He admitted killing Eduardo Intia (Intia), but put up the justifying circumstance of self-defense; hence, reverse trial ensued while he was under detention.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused JONATHAN TICA Y EPANTO guilty of the crime of MURDER punished under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby meted the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos. No subsidiary imprisonment.In concluding that the requisites of self-defense were not met to justify the killing of Intia, the RTC ratiocinated:
SO ORDERED.5
The Court finds the testimony of the accused to be incredible taking into account the circumstances attendant thereto. If indeed the victim had a knife tucked in his waistline, he could have made use of it instead of the broken bottle just to ensure the death of the accused if ever. He could have stabbed the accused instead of drowning him .first.On the appeal, the CA ruled that Tica failed to discharge the burden of proving his plea of self-defense by credible, clear, and convincing evidence. It agreed with the RTC that his testimony is too incredible since it was not only uncorroborated by separate competent evidence but also extremely doubtful in itself. Moreover, the number and seriousness of the stab wounds of Intia indicated Tica's determined effort to kill him. Lastly, no evidence of improper motives on the part of Sabanal and Bagajo was found for them to falsely testify against the accused. While the judgment of conviction was sustained, the award of damages was modified. The fallo of the August 24, 2015 Decision reads:
The accused demonstrated in Court during his testimony on direct examination as to their relative height and position at the time he was allegedly pushed down by the victim in order to be drowned. He admitted to be taller by three (3) inches than the victim as he stands 5 ft. and 4 inches. x x x. The Court cannot imagined (sic) why it was the victim who was pushing him down to the bottom of the sea when the accused is taller than him. He even admitted that he is bigger in built and younger than the victim. x x x. There were also inconsistencies noted by the Court particularly on how he was able to get the knife allegedly from the waistline of the victim and the fact that he was not able to fight back when the victim was allegedly in the act of drowning him. x x x
Granting arguendo that the aggression emanated from the victim, yet there was no reasonable necessity to stab the victim several times. The Medical Certificate showed that the victim sustained a [stab wound] at the "4th intercostal space, left anterior Axilliary", which means that the injury was at the left side of the breast. The location of the fatal wound indicated that the victim was lying faced (sic) up. This will buttressed (sic) the testimony of the eyewitnesses that the accused was on top of the victim.
The prior incident of July 26, 2008 at 8:30 PM triggered the incident of July 27, 2008. Admitted by the accused was that he got angry when the victim failed to account to him the proceeds of the seashells that the accused needed much. He even admitted to have punched the victim out of anger. x x x. This circumstance led the accused to premeditate and clung (sic) to his desire to avenge.6
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 14, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 17 in Criminal Case No. 2008-472 convicting accusedappellant Jonathan Tica y Epanto of Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is ordered to indemnity the heirs of the late Eduardo Intia the sum of PhP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000.00 as moral damages, PhP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.Now before Us, both the People and the accused-appellant manifested that they would dispense with the filing of a Supplemental Brief so as to avoid repetition of the issues and arguments already discussed in their respective briefs filed before the CA.8
SO ORDERED.7
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2475 dated August 29, 2017.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-11; CA rollo, pp. 60-68.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Florencia D. Sealana-Abbu; records, pp. 254-261; CA rollo, pp. 31-38.
3 Records, p. 3.
4Id. at 22.
5Id. at 261; CA rollo, p. 38.
6Id. at 259-260; id. at 36-37. (Citations omitted)
7Rollo, p. 10; CA rollo, p. 67. (Emphasis on the original)
8Rollo, pp. 19-21, 28-29.
9People v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 224900, March 15, 2017; Dela Cruz v. People, et al., 747 Phil. 376, 385 (2014); Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, 698 Phil. 706, 719 (2012); and People v. Duavis, 678 Phil. 166, 174 (2011).
10People v. Bugarin, supra; Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra; Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, supra; and People v. Duavis, supra, at 175.
11People v. Bugarin, supra note 9, and Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, supra note 9.
12 "Unlawful aggression x x x presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely speculative." (Dela Cruz v. People, et al., 747 Phil. 376, 385 [2014]).
13People v. Bugarin, supra note 9; Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra note 9, at 384; Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People; supra note 9, at 719-720, and People v. Duavis, supra note 9.
14Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra note 9, at 384 and Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, supra note 9, at 720.
15People v. Bugarin, supra note 9, and People v. Duavis, supra note 9.
16Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra note 9, at 393.
17Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, supra note 9, at 721.
18Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra note 9, at 386.
19Id. at 391.
20Belbis, Jr., et al. v. People, supra note 9, at 722.
21 Tica admitted that the long-necked bottle with broken edges was not used by lntia in stabbing him (TSN, October 12, 2009, p. 17). Likewise, Daig attested that it was thrown away when lntia and Tica were grappling with each other (TSN, August 4, 2009, p. 25).
22 TSN, September 15, 2009, p. 19; TSN, October 12, 2009, pp. 8, 22-23; TSN, August 2, 2011, pp. 5, 8, 19.
23 While Tica claimed that the knife he used to kill belonged to lntia (TSN, October 12,2009, pp. 4-5; TSN, May 25, 2010, p. 14), his own witness, Daig, testified that Tica brought with him a knife that was tucked at his side (TSN, August 4, 2009, pp. 27-28). Sabanal and Bagajo also declared that the knife was owned by Tica (TSN, May 2, 2011, p. 11; TSN, June 7, 2011, pp. 8-9; TSN, August 2, 2011, pp.3-4).
24Dela Cruz v. People, et al., supra note 9, at 393.
25 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331. See People v. Raytos, G.R. No. 225623, June 7, 2017; People v. Tuardon, G.R. No. 225644, March 1, 2017; People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 197365, February 15, 2017; Ramos v. People, G.R. Nos. 218466 & 221425, January 23, 2017; and People v. Dayaday, G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017.
26 See Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of2013, effective July 1, 2013, in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013).