SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 223512, July 24, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ANTONIO ALMOSARA,* ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
That on or about the 6th day of December, 2000 in the City of Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a bladed weapons (sic), conspiring and confederating together with Anthony Almosara y Buenaflor and Ronnie Almosara who are still at large and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another with intent to kill, with treachery, and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one Arnulfo Cabintoy y Oliar with said bladed weapon on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused his instantaneous death
Contrary to law.3
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Antonio Almosara y Perez is found GUILTY of the crime of MURDER and is sentenced to suffer the maximum sentence under the law and is hereby sentenced to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Cristito Manasan y Cervantes (sic) Php75,000.00 in Exemplary Damages, Php50,000.00 in Moral Damages and Php40,600.00 in Actual Cost with costs against suit. Damages representing unearned income of the deceased is not justified as no supporting document was ever presented in this case.
Accused Antonio Almosara y Perez is hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid Prisons (sic) for immediate service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed 2 September 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipoio City, Branch 73 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as to the civil liability:
Accused-Appellant Antonio Almosara y Sy is hereby ORDERED to pay the heirs of Arnulfo Cabintoy y Oliar the following:
1) Temperate damages, in the amount of Php25,000.00; 2) Civil Indemnity, in the amount of Php75,000.00; 3) Moral Damages, in the amount of Php50,000.00: 4) Exemplary Damages, in the amount of Php30,000.00; and 5)6% interest per annum to all monetary awards from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.44
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 perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
x x x x x x x x x
Gregorio's testimony Q: Do you know the person who killed your father? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Do you know his name? A: Yes, Sir. Q: What is his name? A: Antonio, Sir. Q: Are you referring to the accused in this case? A: Yes, Sir.49 x x x x x x x x x Q: How many persons killed your father? A: Four (4) persons, Sir. Q: Do you know their names? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Will you please name them. A: Antonio, Rodolfo, Ronnie and Anthony. Q: And their family names are all Almosara? A: Yes, Sir.50 x x x x x x x x x Q: Would you please explain how your father was killed by these four (4) persons? A: Antonio placed himself on top of my father. Q: And he was stabbed? A: Yes, Sir. Q: How many times? A: He stabbed my father two (2) times, Sir. Q: And you are referring to Antonio Almosara? A: Yes, Sir. Q: How about the other Almosaras, how many times they stabbed your father? A: Anthony stabbed my father once (in) the stomach. Q: How about the other two (2)? A: Rodolfo and Ronnie. My father was stabbed 6 times by the other accused (in) his back, Sir.51 x x x x x x x x x Marife's testimony Q: Do you know the circumstances of the death of your father? A: Yes, sir, he was stabbed. Q: Do you know who stabbed your father? A: Yes, sir. Q: Who? A: Antonio, Anthony, Rodolfo and Ronnie. Q: Do you know the surnames of the persons you mentioned? A: Almosara.52 x x x x x x x x x Q: If Antonio Almosara is in Court, can you identify him? A: Yes, sir, that one. (witness pointed to a person who gave his name as Antonio Almosara) Q: Why do you know this Antonio Almosara? A: Because he killed my father.53 Q: You said these persons came back carrying bladed weapons, what happened next? A: They stabbed my father. Q: When you said they stabbed your father, to whom are you referring to? A: Antonio, Anthony, Ronnie. Q: Can you remember what Antonio Almosara did to your father? A: He repeatedly stabbed my father.54 x x x x x x x x x
In cases where the issue rests on the credibility of witnesses, as in this case, it is important to emphasize the well-settled rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination."
We explained in Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals that the findings of the trial court will not be overturned absent any clear showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have altered the outcome of the case, viz.:Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses. We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest decree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe 'the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the veracity of the testimony if the inconsistencies do not pertain to material points. (Emphasis supplied)x x x x x x x x x
Sota and Gadjadli failed to attribute any ill motive on the part of Jocelyn in testifying against them. Notably, nothing from the records can sustain a finding that Jocelyn, who was a child when called to the witness stand, was moved by ill will against Sota and Gadjadli sufficient to encourage her to fabricate a tale before the trial court. Both Sota and Gadjadli, according to her, were even the friends of Artemio. At her tender age, Jocelyn could not have been able to concoct particulars on how the group killed Artemio and burned their house. Settled is the rule that the absence of evidence as to an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Rachel was only ten (10) years old when she witnessed the murder of the victim. She testified in open court two (2) years later. Thus, she cannot be expected to give an error-free narration of the events that happened two years earlier. The alleged inconsistencies between her sworn statement and testimony referred to by appellants do not affect her credibility. What is important is that in all her narrations she consistently and clearly identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against witness' credibility since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open court.x x x x x x x x x
x x x every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. x x xx x x x x x x x xThe appellant did not object to Carl's competency as a witness. x x x All that the Defense did was to attempt to discredit the testimony of Carl, but not for once did the Defense challenge his capacity to distinguish right from wrong, or to perceive, or to communicate his perception to the trial court. Consequently, the trial judge favorably determined the competency of Carl to testify against the appellant.
The appellant points to inconsistencies supposedly incurred by Carl. That is apparently not disputed. However, it seems clear that whatever inconsistencies the child incurred in his testimony did not concern the principal occurrence or the elements of the composite crime charged but related only to minor and peripheral matters. As such, their effect on his testimony was negligible, if not nil, because the inconsistencies did not negate the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator. x x x
x x x x Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola, the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals, the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight. (Emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
Gregorio Q: Would you please explain how your father was killed by these four (4) persons? A: Antonio placed himself on top of my father. Q: And he was stabbed? A: Yes, Sir.66 x x x x x x x x x Marife Q: Can you describe the position of your father while he was being slabbed by these persons? A: My father was already lying down, the four persons were still stabbing my father.67 x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x Q: When your father was stabbed, was he also carrying a bolo? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Was he able to draw the bolo from the holester (sic)? A: No, Your Honor. Q: (Was) your father able to hold that bolo? A: No, Your Honor.68 x x x x x x x x x Q: When your father was stabbed by these four (4) accused, he was not able to defend himself? A: Yes, Sir.69 x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x Q: Considering the location of the incise wound, can we estimate the position- of the assailant when the incise wound was incurred by the victim?72 A: It is possible that the assailant was on the left back portion of the victim. x x x x x x x x x Q: Do I get it right that all of the fatal wounds were located at the left back portion of the victim? A: Yes, sir and there is one on the front left side.73 x x x x x x x x x
Following the jurisprudence laid down by the Court in People v. Jugueta, accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of Hernando Villegas, Jose Villegas, and Benito Basug, Jr. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. It was also ruled in Jugueta that when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date, of finality of this decision until fully paid.
Endnotes:
* The trial court's records indicate "Perez" as appellant's middle name. In the Court of Appeals, however, the indicated middle name of appellant is "Sy." Notably, too, in the Information itself, appellant's middle name was "Buenaflor."
1 Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting; CA rollo, pp. 92-103.
2 Penned by then Executive Judge, now CA Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin; Decision dated September 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City, in Criminal Case No. 00-19993, entitled People of the Philippines v. Adolfo Almosara y Perez and Antonio Almosara y Perez ; CA rollo, pp. 39-44; Record, pp. 453-458.
3 Record, pp. 1-2.
4Id. at 21.
5Id. at 34.
6 TSN, February 21, 2002, p. 4; TSN, March 29, 2007, p. 3.
7 TSN, March 29, 2007, p. 4.
8 TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 13-14.
9 TSN, March 29, 2007, pp. 6-7.
10 See Maria's Salaysay dated December 7, 2000, Record, p. 3.
11 TSN, March 29, 2007, pp. 6-7.
12 TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 7-8; TSN, March 29, 2007, p. 8.
13 TSN, February 21, 2002, p. 12.
14 See Maria's Salaysay dated December 7, 2000, Record, pp. 3-4.
15 TSN, July 27, 2006, pp. 3-5.
16 TSN, June 4, 2009, p. 5.
17Id. at 6-12.
18Id. at 17.
19 TSN, June 8, 2011, p. 4.
20Id at 4-7.
21Id at 8-9.
22 CA rollo, pp. 39-44; Record, pp. 453-458.
23 CA rollo, p. 44; Record, p. 458.
24 See Appellant's Brief dated July 13, 2015; CA rollo , pp. 21-37.
25 CA rollo, p. 29.
26Id. at 29-30.
27Id. at 31.
28Id. at 33-34.
29Id. at 34.
30Id. at 35.
31Id. at 35.
32Id. at 36.
33 See the People's Brief dated November 16, 2015, id. at 68-85.
34Id. at 74.
35Id.
36Id. at 75.
37Id. at 80.
38Id. at 80-81.
39Id. at 81-82.
40Id. at 82.
41Id. at 82-83.
42Id. at 83.
43Id. at 92-103.
44Id. at 102.
45Rollo, p. 19
46 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
47People of the Philippines v. Charlie Flores, et al., G.R. No. 228886, August 08, 2018.
48 Record, p, 471.
49 TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 5-6.
50 TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 6-7.
51Id. at 7-8.
52 TSN, March 29, 2007, p. 4.
53Id.
54Id. at 7-8.
55 See People of the Philippines v. Marcial D. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 211 (2017).
56 G.R. No. 218200, August 15, 2018.
57 G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 113, 133.
58 See People of the Philippines v. Alberto Petalino, G.R. No. 213222, September 24, 2018.
59 Gregorio and Marife were only eight years old (in 2002) and eleven years old (in 2007), respectively, when they testified in court.
60 718 Phil. 370, 378 (2013).
61 See People of the Philippines v. Golem Sota, supra note 57, at 132.
62 761 Phil. 300, 311-312, 313 (2015).
63People of the Philippines v. Alberto Petalino, supra note 58.
64 G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017, 838 SCRA 476, 489.
65People of the Philippines v. Golem Sota, supra note 57, at 138.66 TSN, February 21, 2002, p. 7.
67 TSN, March 29, 2007, p. 8.
68 TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 14-15.
69Id. at 16.
70 Record, p. 471.
71 TSN, June 4, 2009, pp. 7-18.
72Id. at 7.
73Id.at 16.
74 See supra note 55, at 217.
75 See People of the Philippines v. Golem Sota, supra note 57, at 140.
76 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended. Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
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 perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances x x x x
77 Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — x x x x
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof
x x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
78 G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018,
79Id.