SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 218581, March 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY LUMAHANG Y TALISAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by the accused-appellant Larry Lumahang y Talisay (Lumahang) assailing the Decision2 dated July 14, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05819, which affirmed with modifications the Judgment3 dated October 23, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 217 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-08-156459 and Q-08-156460, finding Lumahang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder and Slight Physical Injuries.
The version of the prosecution, as summarized in its Brief for the Appellee,6 is as follows:Criminal Case No. Q-08-156459
That on or about the 14th day of December 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the [appellant], with intent to kill, with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission and evident premeditation of the crime of murder directly by overt acts, by then and there stabbing one AUGUSTO PORNELOS Y Buizon, with a knife, but the said accused did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder by reason of some cause other than their spontaneous desistance, that is, the timely intervention of another and non-fatal nature of the wounds inflicted to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.4Criminal Case No. Q-08-156460
That on or about the 14th day of December 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one RODEL VELITARIO y CAPACIO, by then and there stabbing him several times, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.5
On December 14, 2008, around nine o'clock in the evening, Alberto Poraso, Rodel Velitario and Augusto Pornelos were attending a wake in Joan of Arc Street, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City when appellant appeared fuming mad. Suddenly, appellant approached Pornelos from behind and stabbed him in a hook motion with knife in his left hand. Pornelos, who was hit on the buttocks, quickly ran towards an alley. Without warning, appellant then turned his ire on Velitario and stabbed him repeatedly on different parts of his body.On the other hand, the version of the defense, as summarized in its Brief for the Accused-appellant,8 is as follows:
Dr. Joseph Palmero, medico-legal examiner of Velitario, found two (2) stab wounds in the latter's abdomen, one (1) incise wound on the left shoulder and another on the left posterior thigh. He found multiple abrasions on the (sic) Velitario's right collar bone and on both toes which were presumably caused by a scuffle between said victim and his assailant. It was determined that the cause of Velitario's death was the multiple stab wounds he sustained on the abdomen, which among others, hit his left kidney. Dr. Palmero estimated that based on the depth of the wounds, the assailant was within an arm's length from the victim and that the weapon used was a bladed knife measuring around eight (8) cm. long.
On the other hand, Dr. Engelbert Ednacot of the Quezon City General Hospital, examining physician of Pornelos, found a stab wound on the latter's right buttocks, which he concluded to be a non-fatal wound that required treatment for around seven (7) days. In his medical opinion, the victim was attacked from behind.7
On December 14, 2008, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, accused LARRY LUMAHANG and his cousin LL were on their way home from buying barbecue when five (5) bystanders who were under the influence of alcohol blocked their way. The bystanders approached Larry and LL. Suddenly, two (2) of them touched the hands, shoulders and breasts of LL while the others laughed. LL said "Huwag!" while the accused asked them to stop and told them that if they like LL, they should do it the right way and go to their house to court her. Upon hearing that, the bystanders approached the accused and one of them punched him while another pulled out a knife. The person who drew the knife stabbed the accused but he was able to thwart the thrust. However, he was hit on his left thigh and they grappled with the knife. When he saw a chance to run away, he ran towards the direction of his aunt's house with the bystanders running after him. They were not able to catch him but they tried to destroy the house of his aunt by kicking it but still, they were not able to pull him out of the house.When Lumahang was arraigned, he pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged.10 Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
He identified Augusto Pornelos as one of the bystanders who blocked their way. When the BPSO went to his aunt's house looking for him, he voluntarily surrendered, after which, he was brought to the hospital and thereafter, to Camp Karingal. He was surprised of the charges of murder and attempted murder against him because he only grappled with the knife and did not stab anyone.
The first time he met the private complainant Pornelos and the deceased Velitario was during the incident and he could not recall any disagreement or confrontations that happened between them before December 14, 2008.
He had also sustained injuries from being punched in the head and had a stab wound on his left thigh. Due to these injuries, he was confined in a clinic in Novaliches which name he could no longer remember. As proof, he showed to the court a one-inch scar with five stitches on his left thigh. When he voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities, no knife was recovered from him.9
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:The RTC convicted Lumahang on the basis of the testimony of the prosecution eyewitness Alberto Poraso (Poraso), who positively identified him as the assailant of Velitario and Pornelos. The RTC held that the stabbing of Pornelos and the killing of Velitario were attended by treachery because the attacks were sudden, the victims were unarmed, and they were not able to defend themselves. However, as to the attack on Pornelos, the RTC only convicted Lumahang of less serious physical injuries as it could not be inferred from the attack, or the wound sustained by Pornelos, that Lumahang had the intent to kill Pornelos.
1) In Criminal Case No. Q-08-156459, finding accused LARRY LUMAHANG Y TALISAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES and there being attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstance (sic), he is thereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day to 6 months; 2) In Criminal Case No. Q-156460 for Murder, likewise finding accused LARRY LUMAHANG Y TALISAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and hereby sentences him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of the deceased Rodel Velitario the sums of P75,000.00 as death indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.12
(1) | Whether the CA erred in convicting Lumahang despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; |
(2) | Whether the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. |
It bears stressing that [Porazo] was only about a meter and a half away from appellant when he saw the latter stab [Pornelos]. Also, [Porazo] was about 3 meters away from [Velitario] when he saw appellant turned to stab [Velitario]. Even if it was already 9:00 in the evening, and he is not familiar with appellant, [Porazo]'s proximity to the two victims and the appellant gave him unimpeded view of the stabbing incident. Thus, appellant easily and unmistakably identified appellant in open court as the assailant of the victims.As against the positive identification by an eyewitness, Lumahang could only interpose the defense of denial and a blanket claim of defense of relative. To repeat, his version was that the group of Poraso, Velitario, and Pornelos made indecent advances to his cousin. According to him, he tried to intervene and protect his cousin, but one of them stabbed him on his thigh. He then grappled with the knife and ran away when the first opportunity to do so presented itself.
Of marked relevance is the failure of appellant to impute and show ill-motive on the part of [Porazo] to wrongly implicate him in the present criminal cases. Appellant's admission that he does not know [Porazo] and is unaware of any reason for the latter to falsely testify against him, serves to bolster the credibility of [Porazo] 's testimony. The rule is that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive for a prosecution witness, like [Porazo] to testify falsely against an accused, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.22
At any rate, accused owned up to being present during the stabbing incident as he stated that they grappled for the possession of the knife but he could not recall how the victim Rodel Velitario and Augusto Pornelos were stabbed which is highly incredible to be believed by the court. Further if indeed it is true that he was with his cousin when Rodel Velitario, Alberto Porazo and Augusto Pornelos molested his cousin "LL", why did LL did not (sic) file charges against them? Or even then, why did his cousin did not (sic) testify to corroborate his testimony?28 (Emphasis supplied)With regard to the stab wound on his thigh, this, by itself and without any medical examination conducted on the same, only proves that he had a stab wound. As the CA stated, "it does not show how and when he sustained such injury or who inflicted it and under what circumstances."29 Thus, the claim of defense of relative must necessarily fail for the failure of the defense to establish the element of unlawful aggression.
Appellant walked and approached [Pornelos] from behind, and suddenly stabbed him with a knife on his right gluteal area. Dr. EDNACOT confirmed that [Pornelos] was attacked from behind, as it would be difficult for the assailant to stab [Pornelos] 's buttocks if he was facing him. Clearly, the execution of appellant's attack made it impossible for [Pornelos] to defend himself or retaliate. Fortunately, [Pornelos] was able to run away before appellant could stab him any further.The Court disagrees with the CA insofar as it holds that treachery attended the attack on Velitario.
Meanwhile, granted that [Velitario] noticed the commotion between [Pornelos] and appellant, as he was not more than 2 meters away from [Pornelos], the swiftness and unexpected attack of appellant nonetheless caught [Velitario] off guard. Thus, instead of running away from appellant, [Velitario] remained standing and was unable to defend himself. Within a couple of seconds, appellant's right arm hooked on [Velitario]'s nape and stabbed him four (4) times on the stomach with a six-inch double blade knife. The mere fact that the attack on Rodel was frontal does not negate the presence of treachery. A frontal attack would qualify as treachery when the assault is sudden and unexpected and not even preceded by a dispute, to the point of incapacitating the person attacked the opportunity to repel the assault or to escape from it. Appellant's attack being sudden and unexpected, and with his right armed (sic) locked on Rodel's nape, any attempt at excape (sic) by the latter would be all for naught.30
Suddenness of the attack by itself, is inadequate to support a Finding of treachery. It must be coupled with proof that the victim was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself against the attack thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. It is, thus, decisive that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.31The CA, however, oddly did not follow the foregoing standard. The CA held that the swiftness and unexpectedness of the attack caught Velitario off guard, which rendered him unable to defend himself.32 This conclusion is erroneous.
[t]reachery, just like any other element of the crime committed, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence — evidence sufficient to establish its existence beyond reasonable doubt. It is not to be presumed or taken for granted from a mere statement that "the attack was sudden"; there must be a clear showing from the narration of facts why the attack or assault is said to be "sudden."34Stated differently, mere suddenness of the attack is not sufficient to hold that treachery is present, where the mode adopted by the aggressor does not positively tend to prove that he thereby knowingly intended to insure the accomplishment of his criminal purpose without any risk to himself arising from the defense that the victim might offer.35 Specifically, it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.36
Even if it was possible that Velitario was so surprised by the attack that he was unable to do anything, this does not automatically make the attack on Velitario treacherous. It is true that Velitario was unable to defend himself from Lumahang's attacks not because he was not given an opportunity to do so, but simply because he was not able to react in time from the initial attack on Pornelos.
Q: Mr. Witness, if you know, after [Pornelos] was stabbed by [appellant] what was the reaction of [Velitario]? A: [Velitario] just stood there, Sir.37
The qualifying circumstance of treachery can not logically be appreciated because the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the commission of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate.40 (Emphasis supplied)In addition, the attack itself was frontal. In People v. Tugbo,41 the Court held that treachery was not present because the attack was frontal, and hence, the victim had opportunity to defend himself. While a frontal attack, by itself, does not negate the existence of treachery, when the same is considered along with the other circumstances, like the attack not being unexpected, it already creates a reasonable doubt in the existence of the qualifying circumstance. From the foregoing, the Court must perforce rule in favor of the accused and not appreciate the said circumstance.
Endnotes:
1See Notice of Appeal dated August 7, 2014; rollo, pp. 18-19.
2 Id. at 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 43-61. Penned by Judge Santiago M. Arenas.
4Rollo, p. 2-A.
5 Id. at 3.
6 CA rollo, pp. 74-89.
7 Id. at 80-81.
8 Id. at 26-41.
9 Id. at 33.
10Rollo, p. 3.
11 Supra note 3.
12 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
13 Supra note 2.
14Rollo, p. 6.
15 Id. at 10-11.
16 Id. at 13.
17 Id. at 13-14.
18 CA rollo, p. 36.
19 Id.
20People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
21 See People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
22Rollo, pp. 9-10.
23People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
24 Id.
25People v. Francisco, 386 Phil. 709, 716 (2000).
26People v. Agapinay, G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 812, 823.
27 Id.
28 CA rollo, p. 52.
29Rollo, p.11.
30 Id. at 13.
31 Id. at 12, citing People v. Peralta, 403 Phil. 72 (2011) and People v. Satonero, 617 Phil. 983 (2009).
32 Id. at 13.
33 175 Phil. 113 (1978).
34 Id. at 122.
35People v. Delgado, 11 Phil. 11, 15-16 (1946).
36People v. Bacho, 253 Phil. 451, 458 (1989).
37Rollo, p. 8.
38People v. Delgado, supra note 35.
39 83 Phil. 738 (1949).
40 Id. at 742.
41 273 Phil. 346, 352 (1991).
42 602 Phil. 877 (2009).
43 Id. at 886.
44 Id. at 886-887.
45Rollo, p. 14.
46 783 Phil. 806 (2016).