THE PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO
MORALES, J.*
Acting Chairperson,
- versus - TINGA,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO DE CASTRO,**
and
BRION, JJ.
LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA,
Appellant. Promulgated:
May 8, 2009
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
On appeal is
the
The accusatory portion of the information reads:
Criminal Case No. Q-94720
That on or about the16th day of [August 2000], in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then the legitimate husband of FLORDELIZA TABLA GARCHITORENA, with intent to kill, did then and there, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of said FLORDELIZA TABL[A] GARCHITORENA, his wife, by then and there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on the head, thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wound, which was the direct and immediate cause of her untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said FLORDELIZA TABLA GARCHITORENA.
Contrary to law.[2]
Appellant entered a not guilty plea. Trial ensued.
The
prosecution witnesses consists of PO3 Florencio Escobido, the police
investigator who responded to the crime scene; P/Sr. Inspector Michael
Maunahan, medico-legal officer of the Central Police District Crime Laboratory;
P/Sr. Inspector Grace Eustaquio, forensic chemist; Marivic Bartolome, cousin of
the victim; Rosario Tabla, mother of the victim and Dr. Edgar Savella,
medico-legal officer of the NBI.
PO3
Escobido went to the house of appellant and the victim to investigate. He went inside the bedroom and found blood on
the carpeted floor, a 9 mm. caliber pistol and two (2) live bullets. Appellant disclosed to PO3 Escobido that the
spouses had an altercation and appellant suspected that his wife had an
extramarital affair. Appellant then
cocked his pistol twice, gave it to his wife, and told her “kung guilty ka,
ituloy mo.” The victim allegedly took the gun, pointed it
to her head and squeezed the trigger. PO3 Escobido requested a ballistic
examination of the firearm.[3]
Capt.
Maunahan conducted an autopsy on the victim. In the Medico-Legal Report No.
M-078-00, it was found that the victim had sustained a gunshot wound and the point of
entry was at the right temporal region, measuring 3x1.8 cm, 15 cm from anterior
midline, 9cm from the vertex, directed slightly anteriorwards, downwards to the
left, contusion collar superiorly 0.2cm, there is blackening of bullet tract
from scalp up to inner table.[4] In
short, the entry of the bullet was on the right side of the victim’s head and
its trajectory was downward.
P/Sr.
Inspector Eustaquio conducted the paraffin test, the findings of which
indicates absence of powder nitrates on the hands of the victim.[5]
Bartolome
attested that the victim was left-handed while Table recounted that her
daughter appeared to be in trouble days before her death and that the victim had
intimated that she was fearful of her husband.[6]
Dr.
Savella also conducted an autopsy on the body of the victim and opined that is
unnatural and unlikely that the victim’s injury was self-inflicted.[7]
Appellant and
Aigel Camba (Camba) testified for the defense.
Appellant gave a different account of the incident. He related that on
Camba, a
talent trained by the spouses, testified that after hearing a lone gunshot,
she had heard appellant shout: “Babe,
bakit mo ginawa?[10] Camba did not notice any quarrels between the
couple.[11]
On
rebuttal, the prosecution presented Police Inspector Leonard Arban who claimed
that appellant narrated a different story at the time he was under
interrogation from what he stated in court.[12]
On
The
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings and sustained the judgment
of conviction. The appellate court
centered on the inconsistencies of the statement of appellant before the police
investigator and the trial court. It
gave weight to the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility
of appellant. Moreover, it noted that
the trajectory of the bullet disproved the defense of suicide.
Indeed,
great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court
particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can
only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial
court had overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of
weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[13] After a careful scrutiny of the records,
this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts
below.
The elements
of the crime of parricide are: (1) a
person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the
deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of
the accused or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.[14]
All
the above elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. It was stipulated during the pre-trial that
appellant and the victim are married on
In the instant case, the totality of the circumstances warrant a finding that accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The fact that accused and the deceased were the only persons in the bedroom when the shooting incident occurred is undisputed. Secondly, there was an argument between the spouses, as narrated by the accused to the police investigator and during trial. Thirdly, accused, giving no logical excuse, got a gun. In this, the Court finds criminal purpose. Also, there is a finding by this Court of improbability of the deceased shooting herself.
While admittedly there is no direct evidence presented by the prosecution on the killing of the deceased by the accused, the established circumstances aforestated, however, constituted an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other [hypothesis] that he is not. And when circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other, it cannot be overcome by inaccurate and doubtful evidence submitted by the accused.[15]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA LEONARDO DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*Acting Chairperson as replacement of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on official leave per Special Order No. 618.
** Additional member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 619.
[1]Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, concurred in by associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.
[9]TSN,