EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
135919
May 9, 2003
-versus-
DANNY DELOS
SANTOS
Y FERNANDEZ,
Appellant.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For automatic review is
the Decision[1]
dated October 2, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos,
Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 3551798, finding appellant Danny delos
Santos
guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of death.
In the Information[2]
dated February 23, 1998, appellant was charged with murder, thus:
"That on or
about the 6th day of November 1997, in the Municipality of San Jose,
Del
Monte, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a kitchen
knife,
with intent to kill one Rod Flores y Juanitas, with evident
premeditation,
treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the
said kitchen knife said Rod Flores y Juanitas, hitting him on the
different
parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which
directly
caused his death."
Upon arraignment,
appellant pleaded "not guilty."[3]
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented
Marcelino de Leon, Marvin Tablate, Dr. Benito Caballero and Romeo
Flores
as its witnesses. Appellant and Sonny Bautista took the witness
stand
for the defense.cralaw:red
Marcelino De Leon testified
that at around 8:00 p.m. of November 6, 1997, he saw Rod Flores
drinking
"gin" with Narciso Salvador, Marvin Tablate and Jayvee Rainier at the
latter’s
house in Sarmiento Homes, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.[4]
As he was about to fetch water from a nearby faucet, he approached them
and borrowed Flores’ cart.[5]
While waiting for the cart, he stood across Flores who was then seated
and conversing with the group.[6]
Suddenly, appellant emerged from the back of Flores and stabbed him
with
a knife,[7]
making an upward and downward thrust.[8]
Flores ran after he was stabbed twice.[9]
Appellant pursued him and stabbed him many times.[10]
As a result, Flores’ intestines bulged out of his stomach.[11]
Appellant ceased stabbing Flores only after he saw him dead.
Thereafter,
he turned his ire against Jayvee Rainier and chased him. Fearful
for his life, witness De Leon hid himself and later on reported the
incident
to the police.[12]
Marvin Tablate corroborated
De Leon’s testimony. On cross-examination, Tablate testified that
he tried to help Flores by separating him from the appellant who ran
away.[13]
He also testified that the latter joined his group at about 11:00 a.m.
and kept on "coming back and forth."chanrobles virtual law library
Dr. Caballero declared
on the witness stand that Flores suffered Twenty-one (21) stab wounds
in
the frontal, posterior and lateral side of his body, eleven (11) of
which
were fatal. Dr. Caballero said it was possible that appellant was
behind Flores considering the stab wounds inflicted at his back.[14]
According to the doctor, Flores died because of "massive
external/internal
hemorrhages due to multiple stab wounds in the thorax and abdomen
penetrating
both lungs, heart, stomach, liver, spleen and intestines."[15]
Romeo Flores testified
that his son Rod Flores was then working at Vitarich, Marilao, Bulacan,
earning P600.00 every 15th day of the month;[16]
that he spent P100,000.00 for his son’s burial and wake; that he has
receipts
in the amount of P19,110.00 spent for the funeral services and
the
cost of the cemetery lot[17]
and a list of other expenses in the amount of P35,960.00;[18]
and that his family has been grieving for the loss of a loved one.cralaw:red
Appellant had a different
version of the events. He denied the accusation and declared that
on November 6, 1997 at 8:00 p.m., he was in his auntie’s house in
Muson,
San Jose del Monte, Bulacan,[19]
forty (40) meters away from the scene of the crime. He was then
fetching
water.[20]
Earlier, at about 5:30 p.m., he and Flores met but they did not greet
each
other. There was no altercation between them. Hence, he
could
not understand why De Leon and Tablate testified against him.cralaw:red
Sonny Bautista testified
that on that particular date and time, he and appellant were in their
auntie’s
house in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.[21]
They watched television up to 8:30 p.m. and then went home. At
about
10:00 p.m., appellant was arrested. Bautista did not inform the
policemen
that they were watching television in their auntie’s house at the time
the crime took place. Neither did he accompany appellant to the
police
station.[22]
On October 2, 1998,
the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
"All
premises
considered, this Court resolves and so holds that the prosecution has
been
able to establish the criminal culpability of the accused beyond
reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, Danny delos Santos is hereby found guilty of the
crime
of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.chanrobles virtual law library
"In the imposition
of
the penalty, the Court hereby takes into account the brutality in the
manner
by which the life of the victim was taken, and if only to serve as
deterrent
to others who might be similarly obsessed, it is believed that the
higher
of the two penalties provided should be meted to the accused herein.
Absent
any circumstance that would mitigate the severity of his criminal act
and
pursuant to Articles 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section
6, Republic Act no. 7659, the accused Danny delos Santos y Fernandez is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death by lethal injection.
"Further, the
accused
is condemned to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amount of
P50,000.00
for the victim’s death. Moreover, accused delos Santos is ordered
to pay the said heirs of the deceased Rod Flores the following sums of
money:
1.
P264,000.00
for loss of earning capacity;
2. P55,070.00
for actual
and compensatory damages;
3. P50,000.00
for moral
damages;
4. P50,000.00
for exemplary
damages.
"With costs against
the accused.chanrobles virtual law library
"SO ORDERED."
In his
Appellant’s
brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
"I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED
EYEWITNESSES, AND IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELANT ON GROUND OF
REASONABLE
DOUBT.
"II
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF VICTIM THE
AMOUNT
OF P50,000.00 FOR VICTIM’S DEATH; P264,000.00 FOR LOSS OF EARNING
CAPACITY;
P55,070.00 FOR ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; P50,000.00 FOR MORAL
DAMAGES;
AND P50,000.00 FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES."[23]
Appellant contends that
there are some inconsistencies between the testimonies of De Leon and
Tablate,
the prosecution witnesses. Also, there is no evidence that he has
a motive to kill Flores. In fact, there was no previous heated
argument
or altercation between them. That the prosecution witnesses
executed
their sworn statements only after two months from the commission of the
crime raises doubt as to their credibility. Finally, the evidence
for the prosecution failed to meet the exacting test of moral
certainty,
hence, the trial court should not have ordered him to indemnify the
heirs
of Flores.cralaw:red
The Solicitor General,
in the Appellee’s brief, counters that: (a) the inconsistencies pointed
out by appellant are minor and do not vitiate the fact that he was the
one who killed Flores; (b) appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial are
worthless since he was positively identified by the prosecution
witnesses;
(c) he failed to proffer any explanation why the prosecution witnesses
implicated him; (d) the crime was aggravated by cruelty because he
"butchered"
Flores until his intestines bulged out of his stomach; and (e) the
heirs
of Flores are entitled to indemnification as it has been shown beyond
reasonable
doubt that appellant killed him.chanrobles virtual law library
The first assigned error
involves a determination of the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.
Settled is the rule that when it comes to credibility of witnesses,
appellate
courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts.
The
latter are in a best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity
and
spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the
witnesses’
manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court.[24]
We see no reason to
deviate from this rule.cralaw:red
Appellant maintains
that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of De Leon and
Tablate.
While De Leon testified that appellant did not join Flores’ group,
however,
Tablate declared that he was drinking "gin" with them at about 11:00
a.m.
De Leon testified that no one assisted Flores when he was being
attacked
by appellant. However, Tablate stated that he attempted to
separate
Flores from appellant after the former had sustained two stab wounds.cralaw:red
The first alleged inconsistency
is understandable. Unlike Tablate who was with the group in a
drinking
spree, De Leon approached Flores only when he borrowed the cart from
the
latter at about 8:00 p.m. He stayed with Flore’s group only for
about
thirty minutes,[25]
or up to 8:30 p.m. Thus, he could not have observed that
appellant
joined the group earlier, or at about 11:00 a.m.cralaw:red
The second alleged inconsistency
is a minor one that does not enfeeble the prosecution’s theory that
appellant
killed Flores. Evident from De Leon’s testimony is the fact that
he was so shocked in witnessing the gruesome killing of his
companion.
With such a state of mind, it would be too much to demand from him a
full
recollection of the details surrounding the event. Many times we
have ruled that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when
referring
only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the
substance
of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.[26]
They only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of
witnesses
for they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[27]
What we find important in the case at bar is that the two prosecution
witnesses
were one in saying that it was appellant who stabbed Flores with a
knife.
We quote the clear and straightforward account of the incident by De
Leon
and Tablate. During cross-examination, De Leon testified as
follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"Atty. De la Cruz:
Q
You did not see the accused because it was dark in that place, is it
not?
A
No, sir, he suddenly appeared from the back of Rod Flores and started
stabbing
Rod that is why we were surprised.cralaw:red
Court:
Q
How did the accused thrust the weapon to the victim?
A
(Witness demonstrating by making upward, downward thrust at the back of
the victim)
Atty. De la Cruz
Q
Where was Rod Flores hit, if you know?
A
At the back, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How many times?
A
At first, twice, sir.cralaw:red
Court:
Q
That was the time when Rod Flores ran away after having been stabbed
twice.cralaw:red
A
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x x
x
xxx
x x x
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
Q
How did the accused thrust for the second time the weapon at the back
of
the victim.cralaw:red
A
Both at the back, sir.cralaw:red
x x
x
xxx
x x x
Atty. De la Cruz:
Q
Was Rod Flores able to ran away?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Where were you when Rod Flores was running away?
A
We were left behind, sir. I was not able to move anymore.cralaw:red
Q
And was the accused able to reach Flores?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What did the accused do?
A
Again, he started stabbing at the back, sir.cralaw:red
Q
So the stabbing was inflicted at the back of the victim?
A
Not all, sir, because he turned him face up and stabbed him again, sir."[28]
Tablate’s direct testimony
reads:
"Fiscal Vicente:chanrobles virtual law library
x x
x
xxx
x x x
Q
How did Danny delos Santos stab Rod Flores?
A
"Patalikod," sir.cralaw:red
Q
What do you mean?
A
Danny delos Santos stabbed Rod Flores at the back, sir.cralaw:red
Q
When you said Danny delos Santos stabbed Rod Flores at the back, are
you
saying that Danny delos Santos was at the back of Rod Flores at the
time?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How many times did the accused stab Rod Flores?
A
I saw him stabbed the victim twice, sir. (Witness demonstrated in
downward position as if he was holding something).cralaw:red
Q
What was he holding?
A
A knife, sir.cralaw:red
x x
x
xxxx
x x x
Court:
x x
x
xxx
x x x
Q
Are you sure that when Rod Flores fell to the ground, he was not able
to
rise nor was he able to run away?
A
He was able to run but then he was drunk and the accused was able to
catch
and stab him again, sir.cralaw:red
x x
x
xxx
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
Q
Are you positive to the identity of Danny delos Santos that he was the
one who stabbed Rod Flores?
A
Yes, sir."[29]
Appellant argues that
since the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no altercation
between him and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be
attributed
to him. This is an inconsequential argument. Proof of
motive
is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused
is
positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is
adequately
established.[30]
In People vs. Galano,[31]
we ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the
offense,
it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive
and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. In the
case before us, no such doubt exits as De Leon and Tablate positively
identified
appellant.cralaw:red
In a last-ditch attempt
to cast doubt on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
appellant
questions why their statements were taken only on January 29, 1998 when
the incident happened on November 6, 1997. The two-month delay is
hardly an indicium of a concocted story. It is but natural for
witnesses
to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding particularly when the
crime committed is of such gravity as to show the cruelty of the
perpetrator.
Born of human experience, the fear of retaliation can have a paralyzing
effect to the witnesses.[32]
Thus, in People vs. Dacibar,[33]
we held that the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer
information
about a criminal case is of common knowledge and has been judicially
declared
as insufficient to affect credibility, especially when a valid reason
exists
for such hesitance.cralaw:red
Anent the second error,
appellant contends that the trial court erred in indemnifying the heirs
of Flores since his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Suffice it to state at this point that the evidence for the prosecution
produces moral certainty that appellant is guilty of the crime charged,
hence, should be answerable for all its consequences.cralaw:red
As earlier mentioned,
appellant’s defenses are mere alibi and denial. He
testified
that at the time the crime took place, he was in his auntie’s house in
Muson, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. When probed by the trial
court,
he categorically stated that the house is only 40 meters away from the
scene of the crime and may be traveled in about three or five minutes.[34]
For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to
preclude
any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused
at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[35]
Certainly, the required impossibility does not exist here.cralaw:red
Weighing the evidence
of the prosecution vis-à-vis that of the defense, the scale of
justice
must tilt in favor of the former. Time and again, we ruled that
positive
identification, where categorical and consistent and without any
showing
of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter,
prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of
weight in law.[36]
With marked relevance is the fact that appellant did not present any
evidence
to show that the prosecution witnesses, in testifying against him, have
improper motive.chanrobles virtual law library
The prosecution was
able to establish that appellant’s attack on Flores was from behind
without
any slightest provocation on his part[37]
and that it was sudden and unexpected. This is a clear case of
treachery.
Where the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from
behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be
described
as treacherous.[38]
There being treachery, appellant’s conviction for murder is in order.cralaw:red
However, in the imposition
of penalty, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty
considered by the trial court. Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state not only the
qualifying
but also the aggravating circumstances.[39]
This rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the
well-established
rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
construed
as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage.[40]
The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not having been alleged in the
Information, may not be appreciated to enhance the liability of
appellant.cralaw:red
Under Article 248[41]
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the consummated crime of
murder
is reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, the lesser of the
two
indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstances attending the crime.[42]
In keeping with the
current jurisprudence, the heirs of Flores are entitled to the amount
of
P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto.[43]
As regards the actual damages, it appears that out of the P55,070.00
awarded
by the trial court, only P19,170.00[44]
was actually supported by receipts. The other amounts were based
solely on a list prepared by Romeo Flores. To be entitled to
actual
damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a
reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best
evidence
obtainable to the injured party.[45]
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present receipts for the
other expenses incurred. Thus, in light of the recent case of
People
vs. Abrazaldo,[46]
we grant the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages inasmuch as the
proven
actual damages is less than P25,000.00. The moral damages
awarded
in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed, there being proofs that
because
of Flores’ death, his heirs suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish,
anxiety and similar injury.[47]
However, we reduce to P25,000.00 only the trial court’s award of
P50,000.00
as exemplary damages.[48]chanrobles virtual law library
The amount of indemnity
for loss of earning capacity is based on the income at the time of
death
and the probable life expectancy of the victim. In
the
case at bar, the trial court found that Flores’ annual gross income is
P14,400.00 computed at the rate of P1,200.00 a month for twelve (12)
months.
From this amount is deducted the necessary and incidental expenses,
estimated
at 50%, leaving a balance of P7,200.00. His net income would then
be multiplied by his life expectancy, using the following formula: 2/3
x 80 - 25 (age of the victim at time of death). Considering
that he was 25 years old when he died, his life expectancy would be
37.
Multiplying the net balance of his annual income by his life
expectancy,
the loss of his earning is P266,400.00, thus:
"In computing the life
expectancy and loss of earning capacity of a person the following
formula
is used:
Life expectancy -
2/3 x (80-the age of
the victim at the time of death)
2/3 x (80-25)
2/3 x 55
= 36.66 or 37
Loss of earning capacity
-
net annual income x
life expectancychanrobles virtual law library
P7,200 x 37
= P266,400.00"[49]
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated October 2, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos,
Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 3551798, finding appellant Danny
delos
Santos y Fernandez guilty of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION
in the sense that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
and to pay the heirs of the late Rod Flores y Juanitas the amounts of
P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P25,0000.00 as temperate damages, P50,000.00 as
moral
damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P266,400.00 for
loss
of earning capacity.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Cesar M. Solis, Rollo at 123-128.
[2]
Rollo at 2.
[3]
Records at 15.
[4]
TSN, July 3, 1998 at 2; July 1, 1998 at 4.
[5]
TSN, July 1, 1998 at 5.
[6]
Id. at 4.
[7]
TSN, July 3, 1998 at 4.
[8]
Id. at 5.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id. at 6.
[13]
Id. at 8.
[14]
TSN, September 21, 1998 at 3.
[15]
RTC Decision at 17, Rollo at 124.
[16]
TSN, September 1, 1998 at 8.
[17]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Records at 99.
[19]
TSN, September 28, 1998 at 2.
[20]
Id. at 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Id. at 7.
[22]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Rollo at 47-57.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
People vs. Ave, G.R. Nos. 137274-75, October 18, 2002; People vs.
Alfanta,
378 Phil 95 (2000).
[25]
TSN, July 1, 1998 at 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
People vs. Bato, 382 Phil 558 (2000).
[27]
People vs. Dando, 382 Phil. 290 (2000).
[28]
TSN, July 3, 1998 at 5-6.
[29]
TSN, August 17, 1998 at 3-8.
[30]
People vs. Lozada, G.R. No. 130589, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 602; Lack
of
motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for such
crime
when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely proved.
People vs. Quillosa, 382 Phil. 638 (2000).
[31]
384 Phil. 206 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get
involved
in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness’ delay in
reporting a crime to the authorities. (People vs. Galido, 383 Phil. 61
(2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
382 Phil. 618 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
TSN, September 28, 1998 at 4-5.
[35]
People vs. Tanail, 380 Phil. 646 (2000).
[36]
People vs. Jose, 381 Phil. 845 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
People vs. Aquino, 379 Phil. 845 (2000); People vs. Lumacang, 381 Phil.
266 (2000).
[38]
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 485.
[39]
Section 8, Rule 110.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 144266, November 27, 2002; People vs.
Arrojado,
G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 679.
[41]
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
"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 x x x."
[42]
People vs. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 5, 2003; Article 63 (2) of
the
Revised Penal Code; People vs. Piedad, G.R. No. 131923, December 5,
2002.
[43]
People vs. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, November 21, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[44]
Records at 99, 100-103.chanrobles virtual law library
[45]
People vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001; People vs.
Suelto,
381 Phil. 351 (2000); People vs. Samolde, G.R. No. 128551, July 31,
2000,
336 SCRA 632.
[46]
G.R. No. 124392, February 6, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[47]
People vs. Manlansing, G.R. No. 131736, March 11, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[48]
People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 636.chanrobles virtual law library
[49]
People vs. Cabande, 381 Phil. 889 (2000). People vs. Rubio, G.R.
No. 128871, March 17, 2003; See also People vs. Visperas, Jr., G.R. No.
147315, January 13, 2003, citing People vs. Laut, G.R. No. 137751,
February
1, 2001, 351 SCRA 93. |