FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
126028
March 14, 2003
-versus-
EXPEDITO ALFON,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Expedito Alfon appeals
the December 18, 1995 decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Camarines Sur (Branch
30)
in Criminal Case No. T-1249, finding him guilty of murder as follows:
WHEREFORE, the accused
Expedito Alfon is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties inherent thereto,
to
indemnify the heirs of the late Tomas Alferez, through the latter's
brother
Rodolfo Alferez the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) [as civil
indemnity, and] the sum of Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty
Pesos
(P24,220.00) as actual damages, both [in] Philippine Currency, and to
pay
the costs.[2]
On April 30, 1993, appellant
was charged under an information which states:
That on or about 2:00
o'clock in the afternoon of February 18, 1993 at Barangay Oring,
Municipality
of Caramoan, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation while armed with a fan knife
(balisong
biente nueve) without any warning whatsoever did, then and there
willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab the victim Tomas
S.
Alferez hitting the latter twice on his chest and other parts of the
body
thereby inflicting stab wounds which directly caused his instantaneous
death on February 18, 1993 as evidenced by the attached Autopsy Report
marked as Annex "A" and death certificate marked as Annex "A-1" hereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That as a consequence
of the unlawful acts of the above-named accused, the heirs of the late
Tomas S. Alferez have suffered damages.cralaw:red
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon his arraignment
on July 28, 1993,[4]
appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio,[5]
pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed
decision.cralaw:red
The prosecution presented
four witnesses: Vicente Eusebio, Manuel Rayoso, Dr. Minerva Aguirre,
and
Rodolfo Alferez. Their testimonies are summarized below.cralaw:red
Vicente Eusebio testified
that on February 18, 1993, he was smoking cigarettes in front of the
house
of Purificacion Reazon at Barangay Oring, Caramoan, Camarines Sur. At
around
2:00 p.m., he saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being
followed by herein appellant Expedito Alfon. As soon as the victim and
appellant were about six meters away from him, appellant came from
behind
the unsuspecting victim, and suddenly stabbed the latter twice with a
knife
known as balisong 29. The victim was hit on the left portion of his
ribs
and on the right side of his chest. As he fell on the ground face down,
appellant ran away towards the seashore. Eusebio shouted for help, and
immediately, Manuel Rayoso, Jesus Arranza, and Agripino Lazado
responded.
They carried the victim to a motorboat and brought him to a doctor in
Poblacion,
Caramoan. Unfortunately, Tomas Alferez did not survive.[6]
Manuel Rayoso, the second
eyewitness, testified that on February 18, 1993, at around 2:00 p.m.,
while
walking near the house of Purificacion Reazon, he saw the victim
walking
from the opposite direction being followed by the appellant. Shortly
thereafter,
when the victim and appellant were six meters away from him, he
witnessed
the appellant suddenly hold the victim's shoulder and stab the latter
with
a balisong at the lower left side of his chest. Appellant then ran away
towards the seashore.[7]
Dr. Minerva Aguirre,
Municipal Health Officer of Caramoan who conducted the autopsy of the
victim's
body, testified on her post mortem findings. As indicated in the
autopsy
report,[8]
she verified that the victim sustained two stab wounds: one on the
right
lower part of the victim's nipple, and the other on the left lower part
of the chest, which she found to be the more fatal. She also found an
incised
wound on the dorsal part of the victim's right index finger. She stated
that a sharp-bladed instrument could have caused the wounds. The cause
of death, as declared in said autopsy report, is profuse hemorrhage
secondary
to stab wound.[9]
Rodolfo Alferez, the
victim's brother, testified to prove the civil liability of appellant.
He stated that he spent a total of P24,220.00 for the funeral and
burial
expenses, as itemized in the list of expenses he submitted as evidence.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Expedito Alfon,
on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. He narrated that
in
the afternoon of February 18, 1993, he was on his way home from his
sister's
house. While walking along Sampaguita Street, the victim and his
brother
Rodolfo Alferez waylaid him. Rodolfo punched appellant on his left eye
and later brought out a knife. Appellant ran away and the victim chased
him. A fistfight then ensued between appellant and the victim. Rodolfo
soon after caught up with them and tried to stab appellant with a
knife.
Appellant evaded the thrust and Rodolfo hit Tomas instead. Appellant
then
ran away and later learned that Tomas had died.[11]
The trial court concluded
that the eyewitnesses' testimonies convincingly established that
appellant
had killed the victim with treachery. It, however, ruled out the
aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation for lack of proof. It rejected
the
denial and version of the appellant due to the lack of supporting
evidence.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.cralaw:red
In his Brief, appellant
submits for our consideration the following errors allegedly committed
by the trial court:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES.cralaw:red
II. THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF TOMAS S. ALFEREZ WAS QUALIFIED BY
TREACHERY.cralaw:red
III. THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT IT WAS
RODOLFO ALFEREZ WHO ACTUALLY STABBED HIS BROTHER TOMAS S. ALFEREZ.cralaw:red
IV.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION
TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.cralaw:red
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT LIABLE FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
P24,220.00.[12]
Under the first, third
and fourth assigned errors, this Court is called upon to determine
whether
or not the trial court was correct in finding the evidence of the
prosecution
sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in
rejecting
the version of the defense.cralaw:red
Appellant contends that
the trial court erred in giving credence to the eyewitnesses'
testimonies,
which he insinuates to be incredible and unreliable.cralaw:red
As his first point,
he asserts that considering the circumstances of the stabbing incident
as narrated by the prosecution and the location of the injuries, an
attack
from behind is hardly believable. He avers that assuming that he was
indeed
following the victim prior to the attack, it could have been easier and
more convenient for him to stab the victim's back. However, as it now
appears,
the injuries are all found on the front of the victim. He thus argues
that
in the ordinary course of things, the attack was more likely frontal,
contradictory
to the testimonies of the prosecution.cralaw:red
This Court is not convinced.
The two eyewitnesses testified that appellant came from behind before
stabbing
the victim since the former was following the latter prior to the
sudden
attack. Eusebio's detailed account of the manner of assault explains
why
the injuries are on the front of the victim, despite the assailant
having
come from behind:
xxx
xxx
xxx
Q: You said a while
ago that you saw the accused following the victim, Tomas Alferez
[b]efore
[he] was stabbed twice. Would you go down the witness stand and
demonstrate
to us how Expedito Alfon approached Tomas Al[f]erez and stabbed him?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Expedito Alfon went
towards the right side of Tomas Alferez coming from behind and suddenly
stabbed Tomas Alferez using his right hand in an embracing position
with
his left hand on the victim's left shoulder [and] with his right hand
striking
the victim [with] a swinging motion hitting the victim's left lower
rib.
The second strike hit the victim on the right portion of his body.cralaw:red
(STENOGRAPHER'S NOTE:
The witness demonstrated the act by using the Interpreter as medium.)[13]
Though not as specific,
the testimony of the second eyewitness, Rayoso, is corroborative on the
aforesaid manner of attack:
xxx
xxx
xxx
Q: And when you saw
this Expedito Alfon, the accused [whom] you pointed a while ago[,]
following
this Tomas Alferez , what happened next?
A: He [held] the shoulder
and stabbed him.cralaw:red
Q: From behind?
A: From behind.cralaw:red
Q: As you said from
behind, Tomas Alferez was stabbed. Was he hit when stabbed by Expedito
Alfon?
A: Yes sir.cralaw:red
Q: Where?
A: (Witness pointed
to the lower left side of the chest/breast.)[14]
Unrefuted on cross,
these testimonies on the manner of attack sufficiently establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the assailant came from behind, held the shoulder
of the victim with one hand, and in a sudden and swift manner, stabbed
the front of the victim with the other hand. The argument that it could
have been more convenient for appellant, who was behind the victim, to
stab at the back cannot prevail over the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses.
Furthermore, the manner as testified to is the more plausible one, as
it
shows that the assailant aimed to stab the front of the victim while
holding
the latter's shoulder from behind, to ensure the execution of the act
and
the instant death of the victim. The evidence is indisputable that one
of the injuries inflicted on the victim was so severe that death most
likely
occurred in not more than five minutes.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As his second point,
appellant seeks to inject reasonable doubt on the ground of the alleged
conflicting evidence of the prosecution on the number of stabbing blows
executed by the assailant. Witness Eusebio testified that the victim
was
stabbed twice,[16]
while in the narration of witness Rayoso, it appears that the victim
was
stabbed only once.[17]
Dr. Aguirre, on the other hand, opined in her testimony that the
assailant
most likely threw three stabbing blows.[18]
The argument fails.
First, with regard to the inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses'
testimonies,
this Court holds that these are insufficient to affect the essential
veracity
of their testimonies. It is settled that conflict in testimonies of
witnesses
in describing details of an event may be due to differences in
observations
and memory which do not necessarily imply falsehood on their part.[19]
Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the
witnesses
where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and
positive
identification of the assailant.[20]
In the present case, though the two eyewitnesses differed as to the
number
of stabbing blows, they were unwavering and consistent in declaring
that
they witnessed no less than the appellant stabbing the victim at the
chest
with the use of a balisong. Second, as regards the doctor's testimony,
this Court notes that her opinion that the assailant most likely threw
three stabbing blows was only surmised from her finding of three
injuries.
Such finding does not discount the possibility that the third wound on
the victim's finger could have been caused in the victim's attempt to
parry
the appellant's knife. Given these, therefore, the alleged discrepancy
fails to render the eyewitnesses' testimonies unreliable and
incredible.
As this Court has consistently held, inconsistencies on minor details
reinforce
rather than weaken credibility.[21]
Against the evidence
presented by the prosecution, which the trial court found sufficient
and
convincing, appellant interposes denial as his defense. He begrudges
the
trial court for not appreciating his defense that it was Rodolfo
Alferez
who stabbed the victim.cralaw:red
This Court agrees with
the trial court's observation that the version of the appellant is
doubtful.
First, the two disinterested eyewitnesses both testified that Rodolfo
was
not at the scene during the incident. This point in said testimonies
was
confirmed by Rodolfo himself, and was not challenged by the defense.
Second,
appellant's version evidently conflicts with the physical evidence
showing
that the victim suffered three injuries. Assuming that Rodolfo indeed
hit
the victim by mistake, the two other wounds remain unexplained. Third,
appellant failed to present evidence on any ill-motive Rodolfo and
Tomas
Alferez would have against appellant. The fact that that there was no
bad
blood between the families of the brothers and appellant was even
stipulated
by the parties.[22]
Fourth, and more importantly, appellant failed to present any
independent
evidence other than his own denial to bolster his claim. It is
doctrinal
that to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence
of non-culpability.[23]
If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and
self-serving, deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[24]
In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to overcome the
eyewitnesses'
testimonies, which positively identified him as the perpetrator of the
crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the foregoing,
this Court concurs with the trial court in attributing full faith and
credence
to the testimonies of the disinterested eyewitnesses and in
disregarding
the denial of appellant. As between categorical testimonies that ring
of
truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former must
prevail.[25]
The rule is settled that the trial court's evaluation of the
credibility
of witnesses will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal, absent any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts and circumstances of weight and
substance.[26]
In this case, this Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the
court a quo.cralaw:red
In his second assigned
error, appellant avers that the killing could not have been attended by
treachery considering that the wounds were inflicted on the front of
the
victim. As discussed earlier, he seeks to cast doubt on the
prosecution's
averment that the attack came from behind, arguing that the attack
could
be more likely frontal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The essence of treachery
is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the
latter
unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and
severity of the attack.[27]
This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind.
Even
a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed
victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[28]
The fact that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not
in itself negate treachery.[29]
In the case at bar, it was established that appellant came from behind,
went towards the right of the victim, and suddenly stabbed the victim's
chest while holding the latter's left shoulder. Evidence shows that,
first,
at the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself,
as he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant suddenly held
and stabbed him; and second, appellant consciously and deliberately
adopted
the particular means of attack, as he was seen surreptitiously
following
the victim with a balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore,
treachery
attended the crime.cralaw:red
Finally, as to the civil
liability imposed by the trial court, some modifications are in order.
The trial court erred in awarding actual damages in the amount of
P24,220.
To recover actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount
of
loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, on the basis of competent
proof
and the best evidence obtainable.[30]
The prosecution in this case merely presented the testimony of the
victim's
heir, and a list of funeral and burial expenses made by the same
witness
without producing any receipt or other evidence to support the claim.
There
was thus no sufficient proof to sustain the trial court's award of
actual
damages. Be that as it may, considering that it cannot be denied that
the
heirs suffered some pecuniary loss though the exact amount cannot be
proved
with certainty, an award of P25,000 by way of temperate damages is
appropriate.[31]
In addition to this, this Court likewise grants the amount of P25,000
as
exemplary damages given the presence of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.[32]
The civil indemnity for the victim in the amount of P50,000 is
sustained.cralaw:red
All things considered,
this Court is convinced that appellant Expedito Alfon is guilty of
murder.
Given that the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of the New
Death Penalty Law (Republic Act No. 7659),[33]the appropriate penalty under
Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment is reclusion
temporal
in its maximum period to death. Inasmuch as there is neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed
by the trial court is correct.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in addition
to
the civil indemnity of P50,000, appellant is further ordered to pay the
heirs of the victim P25,000 as temperate damages and P25,000 as
exemplary
damages. The award of actual damages is deleted. Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Written by Judge Alfredo A. Cabral.
[2]
RTC Decision, p. 9; RTC Records, p. 188.
[3]
Rollo, p.8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Certificate of Arraignment, records, p. 24; Order, records, p. 26.
[5]
Atty. Sabino Briones.
[6]
TSN, February 2, 1994, pp. 5-10.
[7]
TSN, August 22, 1994, pp. 2-3.
[8]
RTC Records, pp. 4-5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, March 1, 1994, pp. 3-6.
[10]
TSN, February 21, 1995, pp. 2-5.
[11]
TSN, April 4, 1995, pp. 2-4.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 64-65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, February 2, 1994, pp. 8-9.
[14]
TSN, August 22, 1994, p. 3.
[15]
TSN, March 1, 1994, p. 6.
[16]
TSN, February 2, 1994, pp. 6-7.
[17]
See Note 13, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, March 1, 1994, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Mamac, 332 SCRA 547 (2000).
[20]
People v. De Leon, 332 SCRA 37 (2000).
[21]
People v. Villar, 322 SCRA 380 (2000).
[22]
RTC Records, p. 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Visperas, Jr., et. al., G.R. No. 147315, January 13, 2003.
[24]
People v. Lustre, 330 SCRA 189 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Alvero, 329 SCRA 737 (2000).
[26]
See Note 24, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Lopez et. al., G.R. No. 141112-13, January 14, 2003.
[28]
People v. Adrales, 322 SCRA 424 (2000); People v. Tampon, 258 SCRA 115
(2000).
[29]
People v. Bello, et. al., G.R. No. 139054, December 9, 2002.
[30]
People v. De la Tongga, 336 SCRA 687 (2001).
[31]
People v. Ronas, 350 SCRA 663 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Sicad, et. al., G.R. No. 133833, October 15, 2002.
[33]
Took effect on December 31, 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA 31 (1996). |