Republic of
the
Supreme
Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - FORD GUTIERREZ y DIMAANO, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 188602
Present: CARPIO, J.,*
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
4, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
On appeal is the March 12, 2009
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02680, which affirmed with
modifications the August 7, 2006 decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 62, in Criminal Case Nos.
03-3639, 03-3640, and 03-3641-43, finding appellant Ford Gutierrez y Dimaano (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder, frustrated murder and three (3) counts of attempted
murder.
On
August 15, 2003, five (5) separate Informations for murder, frustrated murder
and three (3) counts of attempted murder were filed against appellant. The accusatory portions of the Informations
read:
Criminal
Case No. 03-3639
For: Murder
That on or about the 17th day of
May, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with [a] gun, by means
of treachery and abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fired his gun towards the person of
LEO SALVADOR REGIS, thereby hitting him and inflicting mortal wounds which
caused his death.[3]
Criminal
Case No. 03-3640
For: Frustrated Murder
That on or about the 17th day of
May, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with [a] gun, by means
of treachery and abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one ALEXIS
DALIT y BALOSBALOS hitting him on the arm, thus performing all the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence but
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of the will of
the accused, that is due to the timely and able medical attendance rendered to
the said ALEXIS DALIT y BALOSBALOS which prevented his death.[4]
Criminal
Case No. 03-3641
For: Attempted Murder
That on or about the 17th day of
May, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, with
treachery, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously fired his gun towards one Jaypee S. Boneo, thus commencing the
commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts but did not perform
all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of Murder by reason of
cause or causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is due to the
fact that he was not able to hit the said Jaypee S. Boneo.[5]
Criminal Case No. 03-3642
For: Attempted Murder
That on or about the 17th day of
May, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, with treachery,
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
fired his gun towards one Randy S. Marcelo, thus commencing the commission of the
crime of Murder directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the crime of Murder by reason of cause or causes
other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is due to the fact that he was
not able to hit the said Randy S. Marcelo.[6]
Criminal
Case No. 03-3643
For: Attempted Murder
That on or about the 17th day of
May 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, with treachery,
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
fired his gun towards one Jefferson S. Gallemit, thus commencing the commission
of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the crime of Murder by reason of cause or
causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is due to the fact that
he was not able to hit the said Jefferson S. Gallemit.[7]
When
arraigned, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Trial on
the merits then ensued.
The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) summed up the prosecution’s version as follows:
On May 17, 2003 at nine o’clock in the
evening, the deceased Leo Salvador Regis, private complainants Randy Marcelo,
Jefferson Gallemit, Jaypee Boneo and Alexis Dalit were talking to each other in
front of the house of the deceased at
Jefferson Gallemit, Jaypee Boneo and Alexis
Dalit stood from their seats. Appellant
fired several shots thereafter, one of which hit Dalit’s arm. Boneo and Gallemit ran up the street while
Dalit ran in the opposite direction and hid behind a car. In the meantime, the deceased Leo Salvador
Regis and Randy Marcelo were still huddled together at the spot where the deceased
fell. Appellant stayed at the same spot
where he fired the first shot even after the three ran away. (Ibid., pp. 26-31).
Appellant then pursued Dalit down the street
but did not catch him, prompting appellant to say: “Pagnaabutan ko kayo,
pagpapatayin ko kayo!” Dalit then sought
refuge at BLISS Makati and contacted the police from there (Ibid., pp. 31-34).
The police arrived at the scene after twenty
(20) minutes. Dalit was brought to the Ospital ng
Appellant for his part asserted
self-defense. He testified that:
At around 8 o’clock p.m. of May 17, 2003, he
went to an ihaw-ihaw restaurant with live band in Guadalupe in order to
relax. After taking two (2) bottles of
beer, he decided to go home, took a jeepney ride and alighted in front of a
bakery owned by Barangay Captain Leo Magbantay, one hundred twenty (120) meters
away from his house. While passing by,
he noticed a group of five youngsters who were at the right side of the street. Among them, he only knew Loloy (Jaypee) Boneo,
whom he used to babysit when the latter was still young.
While walking, one in the group cursed him
and shouted “tang ina mo!” Since he was
the only passerby, he stopped and looked at them, but two (2) from the group
approached him. He was suddenly boxed by
Regis Ado, while Dalit was just beside
Thereafter, he fled the scene, and threw the
gun on a vacant lot. Since he did not
know what to do, and confused, he took a jeepney going to Pateros, but since,
he had no money, he alighted somewhere, and rested. When he finally regained his senses, he went to
Cubao and borrowed money from one of their retailers. [9]
Not
finding credence in appellant's claim of self-defense, the RTC convicted him of murder, frustrated murder and
attempted murder on three (3) counts:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, finding
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder of Leo Salvador Regis,
the frustrated murder committed against Alexis B. Dalit, and the three counts
of attempted murder committed against Jaypee S. Boneo, Randy S. Marcelo &
Jefferson S. Gallemit, the court hereby imposes the following penalties:
1. in criminal case no. 03-3639 for murder of
Leo Salvador E. Regis, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and the amount of Php 102,337.25 as actual damages;
2. in criminal case no. 03-3640 for the
frustrated murder committed against Alexis B. Dalit, the [c]ourt hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and 20 days as
minimum to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days as maximum and to indemnify the sum
of Php
22,596.50, representing the victim’s expenses for medical services and
medicine;
3. in
criminal case no. 03-3641 for the attempted murder committed against Jaypee S.
Boneo, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor,
as maximum;
4. in
criminal case no. 03-3642 for the attempted murder committed against Randy S. Marcelo,
the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
5. in criminal case no. 03-3643 for the
attempted murder committed against Jefferson S. Gallemit, the court hereby
sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from Two (2)
years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
Appellant filed an appeal before the
CA, assigning in his brief this lone error allegedly committed by the trial
court:
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED, WHEN
HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, BY GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION EYEWITNESSES.[11]
The OSG, on
behalf of the People, also filed its brief[12]
with a recommendation for the modifications of the felony and of the award for
damages. It asserted that the trial
court correctly gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
and rejected appellant’s claim of self-defense.
The OSG insisted that appellant’s guilt for murder in Criminal Case No.
03-3639 and attempted murder on three (3) counts in Criminal Case Nos.
03-3641-43 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in Criminal Case No. 03-3640, appellant should be held liable
only for attempted murder and not for frustrated murder, since the wound
inflicted on Alexis B. Dalit was not life-threatening. The OSG, therefore, prayed that appellant’s
conviction for frustrated murder be reduced to attempted murder with the
corresponding reduction of penalty.
Finally, it prayed for modification of the actual damages awarded, and
for the grant of moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of Leo Salvador E.
Regis.
On March
12, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, affirming, but with
modifications, the RTC decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 7 August 2006
decision of the P42,337.25.
Moral damages of P50,000.00, temperate damages of P10,000.00,
and exemplary damages of P10,000.00 are additionally awarded to the heirs
of Leo
The 7 August 2006
decision of the
The 7 August 2006
decision of the
SO ORDERED.[13]
Appellant is now before this Court,
submitting for resolution the same matters argued before the CA. Through his
Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief,[14]
appellant states that he will not file a Supplemental Brief and, in lieu
thereof, he will adopt the Appellant’s Brief he filed before the appellate
court. The OSG, likewise, manifests that it is no longer filing a
supplemental brief.[15]
Appellant assails the trial court and
the CA for giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence. He admits having killed Regis and wounding
Dalit, but insists that he did so in self-defense.
Self-defense is
an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability for crimes only
if satisfactorily proved. It requires (a) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by
the accused to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[16]
In People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido
Mara, we explained:
One who admits killing or fatally injuring
another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person claiming self-defense. By invoking self-defense, the burden
is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While
all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof
of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is
proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. [17]
In this
case, appellant utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving unlawful
aggression. His version of the events was
uncorroborated, and his testimony was found to be less credible by the trial
court. On the other hand, the surviving victims were unanimous that appellant
suddenly fired at them, without any provocation on their part. The credibility of the prosecution
witnesses had been weighed by the trial court, and it found their testimonies
to be more convincing. As a rule, the appellate court gives full weight and
respect to the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses,
since the trial judge has the best opportunity to observe their demeanor.[18] While this rule admits of exceptions, none of such exceptions obtains in this
case.
In Razon
v. People,[19]
we held:
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by
independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the
burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[20]
The trial
court and the CA cannot, therefore, be faulted for rejecting appellant’s plea
of self-defense.
This Court also agrees with the trial
court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the
latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission
without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victims.[21]
The pieces of evidence gleaned by the
trial court, the facts, are enough to show that treachery was employed by appellant.
The attack was sudden, as testified to by the witnesses, and unexpected. Provocation on the part of the victims was not
proven, and appellant’s testimony that the victims were about to attack him
cannot be given credence. The victims had no inkling that an attack was
forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense. Thus, treachery was correctly appreciated as a circumstance
to qualify the crime to murder.
Under
Article 248[22] of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended, the penalty imposed for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being
no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article
63, paragraph 2[23] of the
RPC. The prison term imposed by the
trial court in Criminal Case No. 03-3639 is correct.
We also affirm the CA ruling that
appellant is guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal
Case No. 03-3640 for the injury sustained by Dalit. No convincing proof was offered to show that
the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his death had
medical help not been provided. It is
well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient
to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had not
performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's
death.[24]
The CA correctly assessed the penalty
to be imposed on appellant for attempted murder in Criminal Case Nos. 03-3640
to 03-3643. The
penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the
consummated felony under Article 51 of the RPC. Accordingly, the imposable
penalty is prision mayor. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision
correccional, and the maximum penalty to be imposed should be within the
range of prision mayor in its medium period. Hence, for the crime of attempted
murder, appellant was rightly sentenced by
the CA to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
And now, the award of damages. When death occurs due to a crime, the
following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory
damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[25]
The CA awarded P42,337.25 as
actual damages and P10,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of
Regis. In People v. Villanueva[26] and
People v. Abrazaldo,[27]
we ruled that temperate and actual damages are mutually exclusive in that both
may not be awarded at the same time. Hence,
no temperate damages may be awarded if actual damages have already been
granted. The award of P10,000.00
as temperate damages must, therefore, be deleted.
The grant of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper, and thus, we
sustain the same. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity,
which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof
other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the
accused's responsibility therefor.[28] Moral damages, on the
other hand, are awarded in view of the violent
death of the victim. There is no need
for any allegation or proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[29]
Likewise, the award of exemplary
damages is warranted when the commission of the offense is attended by an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying,[30]
as in this case. Accordingly, we sustain the CA’s award of exemplary damages to
the heirs of Regis, but we increase the award to P30,000.00.
Similarly, we affirm the award of P22,596.50
as actual damages to Dalit, who is, likewise, entitled to moral damages, which
this Court fixes in the amount of P40,000.00. Ordinary human experience and common sense
dictate that the wounds inflicted on the surviving victims would naturally
cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar
injuries. Finally, the award in the amount of P20,000.00, as exemplary
damages to Dalit, is also in order considering that the crime was attended by
the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[31]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02680 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Ford Gutierrez y Dimaano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER (Criminal Case No. 03-3639) and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant is also ordered to pay the heirs of
Leo Salvador E. Regis the amounts of P42,337.25 as actual damages, P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00
as exemplary damages.
Ford Gutierrez y Dimaano is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4)
counts of ATTEMPTED MURDER (Criminal Case Nos. 03-3640 to
03-3643) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) years, four
(4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum,
to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, on each
count, with all the accessory penalties imposed by law. Appellant is further ordered to pay Alexis B.
Dalit the amounts of P22,596.50 as actual damages, P40,000.00 as
moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice Chairperson |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision 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
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per Special Order No. 818 dated January 18, 2010.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Isaias P. Dicdican, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 30-48.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, p. 17.
[14]
[15]
[16] Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 161007, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 365, 369.
[17] People
of the
[18]
[19] G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 284.
[20]
[21] People
of the
[22] ART. 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:
1. With treachery, x x x.
[23] ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - x x x.
x x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
[24] People v. Ronas, G.R. Nos. 128088 & 146639, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 663, 677.
[25] People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 671, 699.
[26] G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003, 408 SCRA 571.
[27] G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003, 397 SCRA 137.
[28] People v. Goleas, G.R. No. 181467, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 380.
[29] People v. Balais, G.R. No. 173242, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 555.
[30]
[31] People v. Tolentino , supra note 25, at 701.