|
SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 144699. March 10, 2004] ROGELIO GARCIA y DE ROXAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. D E C I S I O N CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17060 affirming the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 5, in Criminal Case No. 116-88, convicting the petitioner of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, and of the resolution of the CA denying his motion for reconsideration of its decision. The Indictment The petitioner was charged with homicide in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about the 8th day of December, 1987, at about 9:35 o’clock in the evening, at Ilustre Avenue, Municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an ice pick, with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one Pancrasio de Villa, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following injuries. …[3] Upon his arraignment, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, declared a plea of not guilty. The Case for the People Between 9:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. of December 2, 1987, the passenger jeep owned by Pancrasio de Villa was parked at the Petron Gasoline Station at Ilustre Avenue, near the boundary of Taal and Lemery, Batangas. Inside were Fortunato de Sagun, Pancrasio de Villa, Jose de Castro, Jr. and Arthur de Castro. Each had a bottle of beer while waiting for the fluvial procession of the Virgin Mary. De Sagun fell asleep inside the jeep. Momentarily, petitioner Rogelio “Regie” Garcia and two companions arrived. An altercation ensued between the petitioner and De Villa which led to the petitioner boxing De Villa. The companions of the petitioner tried to intervene but Jose de Castro stopped them. The petitioner forthwith pulled out an ice pick and stabbed De Villa. The latter fled, with the petitioner in hot pursuit. De Castro woke up De Sagun and told the latter to follow De Villa who was being chased by the petitioner. De Sagun forthwith ran after the petitioner and De Villa. De Sagun was already about nine arms’ length away from the petitioner and was in front of the jeepney terminal near the Luzon Development Bank when De Villa tripped and fell to the ground. Upon overtaking De Villa, the petitioner stabbed him anew with the ice pick. De Sagun pleaded to the petitioner, “Regie, Regie, huwag! Huwag!” By then, it was too late. The petitioner fled from the scene. De Sagun brought De Villa to St. Martin Hospital where the latter died. The next day, police investigators, led by Pat. Honorio Caringal, arrived at the scene of the stabbing and conducted an on-the-spot investigation. Caringal was informed that there was an ice pick on the rooftop of Atty. Malabanan’s bolo store. Caringal found the ice pick and took custody of it. Dr. Hermenegildo Declaro, the Municipal Health Physician of Lemery, Batangas, performed an autopsy on the cadaver of De Villa and submitted a report containing his post-mortem findings and the cause of the victim’s death: 1. Stab wound located at the right side of the chest, mid axillary line at the level of the 3rd intercostal space. Wound round measuring one (1) mm. in diameter with the depth of 4 inches. Direction of the wound going medially. 2. Stab wound at the left side of the chest at the anterior axillary line, at the level of the 6th intercostal space. Wound round measuring one (1) mm. in diameter with the depth of five (5) inches. Direction of the wound going medially upward. 3. Stab wound at the left side of the chest mid-axillary line level at the 3rd intercostal space. Wound round, measuring one (1) mm. in diameter with the depth of four (4) inches. Direction of the wound going medially. 4. Stab wound at the right arm, dorsal side, located at the mid-portion one (1) mm. in diameter, going through and through. 5. Stab wound at the lateral side of the left forearm, level of the elbow joint. Wound round, with the diameter of one mm. going through and through. 6. Cut wound at the anterior side of the neck measuring three (3) inches long, direction of the wound horizontally with the depth of one half (1/2) mm. through the entire length. 7. Cut wound at the left cheek one (1) inch long with a depth of one half (1/2) mm. throughout the entire length. 8. Two (2) stab wounds side by side one (1) inch away from each other located at the left leg anterior part, midway with the depth of one (1) mm. Cause of death: Hemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab wounds.[4] The doctor also signed the victim’s certificate of death.[5] Meanwhile, De Sagun and Jose de Castro gave their respective statements to Pat. Honorio Caringal narrating how the petitioner killed the victim.[6] The Case for the Petitioner The petitioner admitted killing the victim but assailed that he did so in self-defense. He testified that between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. of December 8, 1987, he was with his family and a nephew in the passenger jeep owned by his sister. They were parked at the Petron Gasoline Station near the boundary of Taal and Lemery, Batangas. He was talking with Lino Mayuga and Gregorio Almenshor. Momentarily, Pancrasio de Villa and Jose de Castro arrived. De Villa accused the petitioner of being boastful and boxed the latter’s right ear. Blood oozed from his ear. Instinctively, he averted his fall and stood up. De Castro held him by the hands. The petitioner saw that De Villa was pulling out an ice pick from his waistline with his left hand. He managed to free himself from De Castro’s hold and was able to wrest the ice pick from De Villa. The latter then fled, but De Castro woke up his companions. He chased De Villa who was then running towards the bolo store owned by Atty. Malabanan, about one-and-a-half blocks away from the station. He was afraid that De Villa might get hold of one of the bolos in the store and stab him with it. Thus, when De Villa tripped and fell to the ground, he hit the latter several times with the ice pick. The petitioner could not recall how many times he stabbed the victim. After the incident, the petitioner went back to the Petron Gasoline Station. There, he saw SPO1 Eulalio Alilio of the Lemery Police Station on his motorcycle, conducting an investigation in connection with another crime. He approached SPO1 Alilio and told him, “Nakasaksak ako ng tao.” SPO1 Alilio brought him to the Lemery Police Station. He was then turned over to Desk Officer Amado Villavicente who placed the matter in the police blotter. The petitioner testified that he sustained contusions and hematoma in the hands of De Villa, and was examined by Dr. Hermenegildo Declaro on December 10, 1997. The Verdict of the Trial Court After trial, the court rendered judgment convicting the petitioner of homicide. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Rogelio Garcia y de Roxas alias “Regie” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender appreciated in favor of the accused, and hereby imposes on said accused the penalty of imprisonment ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal, minimum; and to pay the heirs of Pancrasio de Villa the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and the further sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages. SO ORDERED.[7] The court appreciated, in his favor, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the appealed decision in toto. The CA rejected the petitioner’s plea for acquittal on his claim of self-defense. The petitioner now contends that the RTC and the CA committed reversible errors, viz.: I … IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. II … IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, ASSUMING THAT COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE COULD NOT BE APPRECIATED IN HIS FAVOR. III … IN IMPOSING THE WRONG PENALTY.[8] On the first assignment of error, the petitioner asserts that the trial court and the CA erred in giving credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of De Sagun and De Castro. He avers that De Sagun was asleep when the petitioner stabbed the victim with an ice pick and did not see how the incident started. It was incredible that De Castro did not prevent the petitioner from stabbing De Villa, and woke up De Sagun only after the petitioner had already slain the victim. The petitioner insists that De Villa was the unlawful aggressor, as the latter insulted and boxed him on his right ear and later pulled out an ice pick. The petitioner had to defend himself when De Villa fled to Atty. Malabanan’s bolo store, as the latter could get hold of one of the bolos there and kill him with it. The petitioner concludes that his use of an ice pick to stab and disable De Villa was reasonable. The petitioner’s submission has no merit. The question as to who between the petitioner and De Villa was the unlawful aggressor is a question of fact addressed to the trial court for determination based on the evidence on record.[9] The trial court had already ruled that the petitioner was the unlawful aggressor. The well-entrenched rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions based on the said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued and misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[10] The Court has reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and finds no justification to deviate from the finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he acted in complete or incomplete self-defense and, as such, is criminally liable for the victim’s death. The plea of self-defense of an accused is both a confession and avoidance. He thereby admits having killed or deliberately inflicted injuries on the victim, but asserts that he has not committed any felony and is not criminally liable for the injuries or death of the victim because he acted in self-defense. The accused is burdened to prove his affirmative defense with clear and convincing evidence and must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the evidence of the prosecution is weak, it can no longer be disbelieved and the accused can no longer be acquitted.[11] To merit approbation, the accused must prove the essential requisites of complete self-defense, namely, (a) unlawful aggression on the victim’s part; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repeal the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[12] There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves the first essential requisite – unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[13] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[14] There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.[15][16] Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence his plea of self-defense, either complete or incomplete. First. De Castro testified that the petitioner stabbed De Villa in the course of a fistfight. Even as the victim fled, the petitioner ran after the victim, saying, “Saan ka man pumunta, papatayin kita:” Q: Between the hour of 9:30 and 9:35 in the evening of December 8, 1987, do you remember where you were? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where were you? A: At about that time and date, between the hour of 9:00 and 9:35 in the evening of December 8, 1987, we were at Ilustre Avenue between the boundary of Lemery and Taal. Q: While in that place at that time and date, do you remember if there is any unusual incident that took place? A: Yes, sir. Q: Will you please inform the Honorable Court what was that unusual incident that took place? A: That incident started from a fistfight resulting in the stabbing of Pancrasio de Villa by Rogelio Garcia. Q: Will you please inform this Honorable Court, how was this happened? A: At about 9:35 at night while we were waiting for a fluvial procession, Rogelio Garcia and Pancrasio de Villa met and had altercation that led to the stabbing of Pancrasio de Villa. Q: At that time, when the incident took place, were with you with anybody? A: Yes, sir. Q: Who were they? A: Arthur de Castro and Fortunato de Sagun. Q: At the same time, do you know if Rogelio Garcia have companion at that time? ATTY. MEDINA: Misleading, Your Honor. COURT: Reform. ATTY. ROXAS: Q: After Rogelio Garcia had stabbed Prancrasio (sic) de Villa, what happen? A: After Rogelio Garcia had stabbed Prancrasio (sic) de Villa but the latter followed him uttering whenever you go I will kill you (saan ka man pumunta, papatayin kita). Q: After that, what happened next? ATTY. MEDINA: May we request that the last portion of the answer of the witness be deliet (sic) into the record because it is heresay (sic). COURT: Let the witness answer first. A: He told me, sir, that continuous stab blows were delivered by Rogelio Garcia to Pancrasio de Villa? ATTY. MEDINA: May we request that the answer of the witness be stircken (sic) out of the record being heresay (sic). COURT: Let it remain on record. ATTY. ROXAS: Q: After having been told by Fortunato de Sagun of what had happened as he followed the two, as you instructed Ronnie, what did you do after that? A: After that, sir, Ronnie and I went to Agoncillo to see the acquintance (sic) of him to relay the matter to the parents of Pancrasio what had happened to Pancrasio. Q: Were you and Ronnie able to relay the matter to the parents of Pancrasio what had happened to him? A: Yes, sir. Q: By the way, you mentioned a while ago that Rogelio Garcia stabbed Pancrasio de Villa, did you notice what kind of instrument was used in stabbing by Rogelio Garcia? A: Yes, sir. Q: Will you please inform the Honorable Court what kind of instrument used by Rogelio Garcia in stabbing Pancrasio de Villa? A: A pointed instrument, an ice pick.[17] De Sagun testified that he followed the petitioner who was, in turn, running after the victim. When the latter tripped, the petitioner overtook the victim and stabbed the latter several times with an ice pick, even as De Sagun pleaded to the petitioner to stop: Q- Will you please enlighten the Court how this stabbing incident took place? A- This is what happened, sir. At about 9:35 P.M. of December 8, 1987, while I was asleep at that time inside the parked jeep of Pancrasio de Villa in that Petron Gasoline Station, I was awakened, sir, by the shout of Jose de Castro, who asked me to follow Pancrasio de Villa, who at about that time was being chased. (Hinahabol ng saksak.) Court: Q- What kind of jeep was that owned by Pancrasio de Villa? Was it a private jeep or passenger jeep? A- Passenger jeep, sir. Atty. Roxas: Q- Having heard and awakened by the shout of Jose de Castro for you to follow Pancrasio de Villa who was being chased by Rogelio Garcia, what did you do? A- I followed the two, sir, towards the direction of BLTB Co. Terminal. Q- Did you notice what kind of instrument Rogelio Garcia have when chasing Pancrasio de Villa then holding (sic)? A- Yes, sir. Q- And up to what place were you able to follow the two? A- To the distance, sir, when I was more or less nine (9) arm-lengths away from the two. Q- At this point and time, where was Pancrasio de Villa and where was Rogelio Garcia? A- At that distance, sir, of mine (sic) away from the two, the two were in front of the jeepney terminal of Balayan. Q- And this jeepney terminal is located where? A- In front, sir, of the Luzon Development Bank. Q- Incidentally, you stated a while ago, you were asked about the kind of instrument that Rogelio Garcia was holding then, you said yes, will you please inform the Court what kind of instrument was that? A- It was, sir, a pointed weapon and as I saw it, it was an ice pick. Q- If that instrument will be shown to you, will you be able to identify it? A- Yes, sir. Atty. Roxas: We are reserving the presentation of the instrument, Your Honor. Q- Now, at the time which according to you, you caught up a distance of nine (9) arm-lengths away from the two, will you be able to tell to this Honorable Court what exactly the two of them doing? A- Yes, sir. Q- Will you please do so? A- Pancrasio was dripped (sic) or “nadapa” and then Rogelio Garcia delivered successive stab blows to him. Q- And what happened after that? A- And then I shouted, “Regie, huwag, huwag!” Q- Having shouted to Regie, “Huwag, Huwag,” what did Regie do? A- As I uttered “Regie, huwag, huwag,” Regie turned his back and then ran away to the direction where he came from.[18] The petitioner’s claim that the victim was pulling out an ice pick from his waistline and was about to stab him with it when he, the petitioner, managed to wrest the weapon from the victim and stab the latter with it to defend himself is incredible. The petitioner failed to account for the ice pick, and to explain why it was found on the rooftop of the store of Atty. Malabanan. In People v. Tumayao,[19] we held that: Moreover, as held in People v. Piamonte, the fact that accused-appellant threw the knife away, as in this case, instead of surrendering the knife to the authorities and reporting the incident to them negates the claim of self-defense. … Even if the petitioner’s claim were true, the inceptual aggression of the victim ceased when he fled towards the jeepney terminal in front of the Luzon Development Bank. The danger or peril to the life and limb of the petitioner had already ceased. It was no longer necessary for the petitioner to still pursue the victim and stab the latter several times, causing his death. The victim sustained no less than three stab wounds on the left and right side of his chest; two stab wounds on the left anterior part; a stab wound on the right arm; a stab wound on the left forearm; and cut wounds on the neck and left cheek. The location and number of wounds sustained by the victim indicate the petitioner’s deliberate intent to kill and belie the plea of self-defense.[20] Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[21] The petitioner’s assertion that the victim could have stolen a bolo from the store of Atty. Malabanan is sheer speculation. There is no evidence on record that the said store was still open between 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. when the incident occurred. Besides, the evidence of the prosecution is that the victim was stabbed by the petitioner in front of the Luzon Development Bank. On the penalty imposed by the trial court, the petitioner contends that the indeterminate sentence of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal imposed on him by the trial court is not correct. The petitioner asserts that since he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty should be from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years. The contention of the petitioner is not correct. The imposable penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its full range. From this penalty, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be determined by taking into account the attendant modifying circumstances. Under Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, when only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of a crime, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the minimum of the penalty imposed by law, viz., reclusion temporal in its minimum period which has a range of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, reclusion temporal has to be reduced by one degree without taking into account the attendant modifying circumstances. The penalty lower by degree is prision mayor in its full range. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be within the full range of prision mayor which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The trial court is given the widest discretion to fix the minimum of the indeterminate penalty provided that such penalty is within the range of prision mayor. In fixing the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the trial court is to consider two aspects, namely: … [F]irst, the more or less mechanical determination of the extreme limits of the minimum imprisonment period; and second, the broad question of the factors and circumstances that should guide the discretion of the court in fixing the minimum penalty within the ascertained limits.[22] Hence, the trial court may impose prision mayor in its minimum, or medium, or maximum period as the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. In this case, the trial court correctly imposed 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum. The trial court ordered the petitioner to pay to the heirs of the victim P20,000 as moral damages. We do not agree. The prosecution failed to present any of the heirs of the victim to testify on the factual basis for an award for moral damages.[23] IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that the award of P20,000 as moral damages is DELETED. In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Puno, J., (Chairman), on leave. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo LL. Salas with Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Edgardo P. Cruz concurring. [2] Penned by Executive Judge Glicerio L. Cruz. [3] Records, p. 50. [4] Id. at 7. [5] Exhibit “D.” [6] Exhibits “A” and “B,” Records, pp. 4-6. [7] Rollo, p. 34. [8] Id. at 16. [9] People v. Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572 (2001). [10] People v. Camacho, 359 SCRA 200 (2001). [11] People v. Geneblazo, supra. [12] People v. Basadre, 352 SCRA 573 (2001). [13] People v. Saul, 372 SCRA 636 (2001); People v. Camacho, supra. [14] Calim v. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 559 (2001). [15] People v. Basadre, supra. [16] People v. Saul, supra. [17] TSN, 23 August 1989, pp. 4-7. [18] TSN, 11 March 1989, pp. 4-7. [19] 356 SCRA 491 (2001). [20] People v. Basadre, supra. [21] People v. Silvano, 350 SCRA 650 (2001). [22] People v. Cucosin, 59 Phil. 109 (1933). [23] People v. Caballero, G.R. Nos. 149028-31, April 2, 2003. |
