FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 241632, October 14, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the March 21, 2018 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06982, which affirmed with modifications the July 28, 2014 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 269, Valenzuela City.
In his arraignment, Dayrit pleaded not guilty5 to the offense charged in the Informations. Thereafter, trial on merits ensued.Criminal Case No. 1218-V-13
That on or about August 31, 2013 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with another person, whose name, identity and present whereabouts are still unknown, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, and while on board a motorcycle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot with a handgun one ARIEL SERENILLA y DE CHAVEZ, the latter not being armed and not in a position to retaliate and defend himself due to the suddenness of the attack, hitting him on the neck, chin and chest, which caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3chanrobleslawCriminal Case No. 1219-V-13
That on or about August 31, 2013 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with another person, whose name, identity and present whereabouts are still unknown, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, and while on board a motorcycle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot with a handgun one LOURDES SERENILLA y ESPELETA, the latter not being armed and not in a position to retaliate and defend himself due to the suddenness of the attack, hitting her on the neck, which caused her death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
WHEREFORE, accused ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of Ariel Serenilla and Lourdes Serenilla; and is hereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. The accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victims P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P100,000 as moral damages.On appeal, the CA agreed with the findings of the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly of the children, who were the eyewitness of the crime. The appellate court was convinced that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were duly appreciated. Likewise, the CA finds it proper to consider the generic aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle that attended the commission of the crime which the trial court failed to appreciate. The records show that Dayrit was riding a motorcycle when he trailed and fatally shot the victims. It was also used to facilitate his escape after the commission of the crime. Lastly, the award of damages was modified by adding exemplary damage in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). The fallo of the March 21, 2018 Decision reads:cralawred
The accused may be credited with the corresponding period that he has served under preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code and applicable rules.
Cost against the accused.
SO ORDERED.6
In concluding the guilt of Dayrit, the RTC ratiocinated:
x x x
The identification by Ontiveros of the accused was strongly corroborated by the two other child-witnesses with whom he was playing at the time the accused first arrived near their play area on his orange and black motorcycle. On that first stop, the accused took off his helmet and wiped his perspiration, thus, the children saw his face. Their playmate, Ontiveros, also talked with him; hence they gave notice to him. Thus, when they saw the accused again in a lineup of six persons at the detention cell of Valenzuela City Police Station a few days later, they recognized him as the person in black jacket and on board a motorcycle colored orange and black who stopped near their play area and went to look at the group of Ariel Serenilla in the evening of August 31, 2013, just prior to the shooting incident.
The shooting of both victims was sudden and unex. They were simply boarding a tricycle when all of a sudden, without any warning at all, they were gunned down. Ariel was shot from behind while boarding the tricycle. Lourdes, although shot frontally after Ariel, was seated inside the small sidecar with only one entrance on the side where Ariel was shot. Under the circumstances, both victims had absolutely no chance to evade the assault. They were clearly treacherously assaulted.
The prior acts of the accused plainly evince evident premeditation on his part. He initially checked the presence of his prey. He and his cohort dressed themselves similarly with black jackets and helmets, evidently to conceal their identities. In going back and forth to Anak-Dalita Street, they ensured that their target was still in the area and were obviously waiting for the right time to carry out their ill design. They were armed with a gun, an object not readily available to anyone. In other words, the accused clearly planned and prepared for murder of his victims.7
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The July 28, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 269, Valenzuela City in Criminal Case Nos. 1218-V-13 and 1219-V-13 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:Now before Us, the People and Dayrit, manifested that that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA.
a)Accused-appellant ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR is GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Murder defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of motorcycle, and is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count without eligibility of parole;
b)He is also ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ariel and Lourdes Serenilla the following amounts for each victim: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and
c) Lastly, he is further ORDERED to pay interest on all monetary awards for damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.
SO ORDERED.8
8.T- Papaano ba binaril sina kuya Ariel at ate Seksek mo, [ikuwento]Jurisprudence tells us that where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the instant case, no imputation of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses was ever made by the accused-appellant.
mo nga sa akin lahat ng pangyayari?
S- Naglalaro po kami noon ng mga kaibigan ko sa may tapat [ng] bahay nila Angelo sa may taas ng Anak-Dalita tapos po ay may dumating na naka-motorsiklo na kulay green sa unahan at itim sa likod at itong may dala ng motor ay naka-kulay itim na jacket at itim na helmet tapos ay finlash-lightan kame nito tapos ay hinubad niya iyong helmet at jacket niya at nagpunas ng pawis tapos po ay nilapitan ko siya at tinanong ko siya "KUYA BAKIT PO KAYO PALAKAD LAKAD?" dahil bumaba siya ng motorsiklo at naglalakad habang patingin-tingin sa nag-iinuman na sina kuya Ariel and sagot niya sa akin ay may inaantay lang siya tapos pinapauwi na learning lahat pero hindi kami umuwi tapos ay naglaro na lang ako ulit tapos sumakay ulit siya sa motor niya at bumaba ng Anak-Dalita pero maya-maya ay bumalik siya ulit pero may kasama na siyang isang lalaki na naka-itim din na jacket at helmet at iyong kasama [niya] ng kinausap ko kanina ang nagmamaneho ng motor tapos ganun lang po ang ginagawa nila pabalik-balik lang sila sa taas ng Anak-dalita.
9. T- Pagtapos ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?
S- Habang naglalaro pa rin ako ay inutusan ako ni Nino na bumili ng sigarilyo kaya nagpunta ako sa may baba at nakasabay ko sina kuya Ariel na may dalang bike pati ang asawa na si Ate Seksek at habang naglalakad po kami ay binibiro pa ako ni Kuya Ariel tapos nakita ko na iyong kaninang dalawang lalaking nakamotorskilo ay nakasunod sa amin tapos ay huminto na ako sa tindahan samantalang sina kuya Ariel a[y] naglakad at sumakay ng tricycle at ng umabante iyong tricycle ay hinarang na sila noong naka-motor at pinagbabaril na sila ng lalaking naka-angkas sa motor na siya rin iyong lalaking kinausap ko.
The use of motor vehicle may likewise be considered as an aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The records show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the jeepney driven by Saladio after which appellant's back rider mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate their escape after they accomplished their mission.The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape.21 Here, it was established that Dayrit was riding a motorcycle when he followed and fatally shot Ariel and Lourdes. Afterwards, he fled the crime scene on board the motorcycle. Clearly, a motor vehicle was used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate his escape after the consummation of his plan to kill Ariel and Lourdes.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-16.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Emma C. Matammu; CA rollo, pp. 124-136.
3 Records, Crim. Case No. 1218-V-13, p. 1.
4 Records, Crim. Case No. 1219-V-13, p. 1.
5 Records, Crim. Case No. 1218-V-13, pp. 53-55.
6 CA rollo, p.136.
7Id. at 132-135.
8Rollo, p.15.
9Johnny Garcia Yap v. People, G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018 and People v. Racal, 817 Phil.
665,677(2017).
10 Records, dim. Case No. 1218-V-13, pp. 66 and 76.
11People v. Richard Dillatan, Sr. y Pat. et al., G.R. No. 212191, September 5, 2018.
12People v. Lawa, 444 Phil. 191, 203 (2003).
13 Records, Crim. Case No. 1218-V-13. pp. 11-12.
14People v. Avila, 787 Phil. 346, 358 (2016).
15People v. Bensurto, Jr., 802 Phil. 766, 778 (2016).
16People v. Joseph A. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
17 Id.
18People v, Macaspac, 806 Phil. 285, 293 (2017).
19People v. Lorelo Dagsily Caritero, G.R. No. 21 8945. December 13, 2017.
20 333 Phil. 422, 433 (1996).
21People v. Salahuddin, 778 Phil. 529, 552 (2016).
22People v. Bringcula, G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018, 853 SCRA 142, 154.
23 783 Phil. 806(2016).
24 See Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
LOPEZ, J.:
I register my concurrence with the ponencia which affirmed the conviction of the accused for two counts of murder with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and use of motor vehicle. However, I disagree that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
For proper reference, there is a need to revisit the facts of the case.
On August 31, 2013 at around 10:00 p.m., Lloyd Ontiveros and his friends saw a man wearing a black jacket and a helmet on board a green and black motorcycle. The man was seen "palakadlakad" on the street and observing a group of persons which included Ariel Serenilla. Lloyd recognized the man as Angelito Dayrit and asked him why he was there. Angelito responded that he was waiting for someone and soon left on his motorcycle. After a few seconds, Angelito returned in the same motorcycle with a companion, who was also wearing a black jacket and a helmet. They were driving back and forth along the same street. Later, Lloyd met Ariel and his wife Lourdes Serenilla on his way to buy cigarettes. As they were walking together, Lloyd noticed that Angelito and his companion are following Ariel and Lourdes. Upon reaching the store, Lloyd stayed behind while Ariel and Lourdes boarded a tricycle. Thereafter, Angelito and his companion blocked the tricycle and fired a gun four times that fatally injured Ariel and Lourdes. The assailants then drove the motorcycle and sped away to escape.
In appreciating evident premeditation, the majority ruled that the accused and his cohort monitored the victims and subsequently drove back and forth on the street to ensure that they remained in the area. The accused and his companion were also wearing helmets and black jackets while stalking their victims showing that they planned the means on how to carry out the crimes. The ponencia then concluded that the time between monitoring the victims and waiting for the perfect opportunity to kill them indicated cool thought and reflection on the part the accused.
Notably, evident premeditation has the following elements, to wit: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.1 Specifically, the prosecution must establish that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between the malefactor's determination and execution.2 Indeed, case law had specified the periods for purposes of reflection or cool thinking on the part of the accused.
In People v. Mojica,3 a period of one month from the time of the humiliation inflicted against the accused is enough. In People v. Lasafin,4three days' time is considered sufficient for the accused to meditate upon the crime which he intended to commit. In People v. Renegado y Señora,5 the accused had more or less sixty-four hours to ponder over his plan and listen to the advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience. In People v. Dosal,6 a period one whole day is enough to appreciate evident premeditation. In People v. Magayac,7 an intervening period of 11 hours was sufficient for the accused to have a cool reflection on the consequences of his criminal plan. In People v. Benilo y Restuhog,8 a six-hour interval between the alleged grave offense committed by the victim against the accused and the assassination was more than sufficient to enable the accused to recover his serenity. In People v Dumdum, Jr.,9 a one-hour interval from conceiving the crime and its commission is considered sufficient.
Corollarily, the Court will not appreciate evident premeditation absent showing that there was enough time that had lapsed between the conception and execution of the crime to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts.10 Here, there is no evidence as to the period of time when the accused resolved to commit the crime and had cool thought and reflection to arrive at a calm judgment. The prosecution witnesses only attested that they saw the accused and his companion scouting the area and stalking the victims. Moreover, the assailants were in disguise and in possession of a gun. Yet, these circumstances are insufficient to prove cool thought and reflection of the crime to be executed. In People v. Chua,11 the Court emphasized that the premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious. It must be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. In the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient. More importantly, the fact that a riding in tandem committed the crime should not automatically result in a finding of evident premeditation especially if there are no external acts of deliberate planning. In People v. Punsalan,12 two men on board a motorcycle passed by the victim and his wife who were in front of their store. The riding in tandem then stopped in front of the couple and asked the victim his name. Thereafter, the accused shot the victim four times. The Court did not consider evident premeditation because there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out.
To reiterate, the prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements of evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt.13 The Court cannot rely on mere suspicion. Accordingly, I vote to affirm the conviction of the accused for two counts of murder with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and use of motor vehicle sans evident premeditation.
(Sgd.) MARIO V. LOPEZ Associate Justice |
Endnotes:
1People v. Guillermo, 361 Phil. 933 (IW)).
2People v. Abierra, G.R. No. 227504. June 13, 2018
3 162 Phil. 657(1976).
4 92 Phil. 668 (1953).
5 156 Phil. 260(1974).
6 92 Phil. 877(1953).
7 387 Phil. 1 (2000).
8 165 Phil. 871 (1976).
9 180 Phil. 628 (1979).
10People v. De Guia, 257 Phil. 957 (1989); People v. Baldino y Quillo, 338 Phil. 350 (1997); People v. Garcia y Romano, 467 Phi. 1102 (2004 ); People v. Abierra, supra; People v. Illescas, 396 Phil. 200 (2000); and People v. Agramon, G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 104.
11 357 Phil. 907(1998).
12 421 Phil. 1058 (2001).
13People v. Peña, 353 Phi. 782 (1998).