FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
137042
June 17, 2003
-versus-
FELIPE MUSA, JR.,
SILVERIO MANJARES, JR. (DECEASED),
ALLAN REOLO, RANDY
LLENO AND ANGELO MABINI,
Accused.
FELIPE MUSA, JR.,
ALLAN REOLO, RANDY LLENO AND
ANGELO MABINI,
Appellants.
D E C I S I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Felipe Musa Jr., Allan
Reolo, Randy Lleno and Angelo (Gil) Mabini, together with Silverio
Manjares
Jr. (now deceased) were charged with Murder before the Regional Trial
Court
of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 52, which was docketed as Criminal Case
No.
2540. The Information filed against them reads as follows:
That on or
about the 17th day of July 1988, at Barangay Putiao, municipality of
Pilar,
province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, armed with stones,
and
with treachery and evident premeditation, and taking advantage of
superior
strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack,
assault and throw stones at one Zaldy Marifosque, thereby hitting the
latter
on the different parts of his body which directly caused his death, to
the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said Zaldy Marifosque.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
All the accused pleaded
"not guilty" upon arraignment.[2]
Thereafter, the case was tried on the merits.chanrobles virtual law library
At 9:00 p.m. of July
17, 1998, brothers Javier "Bebot" Marifosque and Zaldy Marifosque were
inside their house at Putiao, Pilar, Sorsogon. They were getting
ready for bed when suddenly stones fell on their roof. They
looked
out the window and saw Felipe Musa Jr., Allan Reolo, Angelo Mabini,
Randy
Lleno and Silverio Manjares, Jr. standing in the middle of the road and
pelting stones at their house.[3]
Bebot and Zaldy ran towards the house of Musa’s father, Felipe Sr.,
seventeen
meters away, to report the stoning incident to him. The five
accused
followed them and stood in front of the Musa house. Felipe Jr.
attacked
Bebot and hit him with a piece of wood above the left ear.[4]
Felipe Sr. grabbed his son and beat him up. He ordered his other
son, Ricardo, to get a rope because they will tie up Felipe Jr.
Upon
hearing this, the latter scampered away. Felipe Sr. re-assured
Bebot
and Zaldy that he will take full responsibility for his son’s acts.[5]
On their way home, Bebot
walked five meters ahead of Zaldy because of fear that they might be
waylaid.
After they passed a jeepney parked on the other side of the road, the
five
accused suddenly appeared. Musa, Lleno and Manjares hurled stones
at Zaldy, who was hit on the face and fell to the ground. Mabini
and Reolo stood behind the other three accused holding stones.[6]
Bebot ran to their house to get a weapon to use against the assailants.[7]
In the meantime, Barangay
Tanod Ireneo Mendez was asleep in his house nearby when he was awakened
by the sound of stones hitting the road and shouts for help saying,
"Don’t
kill me."[8]
He went out of his house and saw Zaldy sprawled on the road and five
individuals
standing around him. When he shouted, "Hey, what is that,"[9]
the five men ran away.[10]
He was able to get a good look at their faces since the area was lit
with
a fluorescent lamp. He approached Zaldy and recognized him to be
the brother of Bebot. Bebot arrived carrying a lead pipe, but the
five assailants were gone. Together, Mendez and Bebot brought
Zaldy
to the Albay Provincial Hospital.cralaw:red
Dr. Cesar Ong Chua,
the resident physician of Department of Surgery at the Albay Provincial
Hospital, performed a "craniectomy or burr holing" on the skull of
Zaldy
to evacuate "hematoma" or the "blood clot surrounding the brain."[11]
Dr. Chua found that Zaldy suffered massive internal bleeding caused by
strong force applied directly to his head.[12]
However, Zaldy died the next day after the operation.cralaw:red
The defense claims that
in the evening of July 17, 1998, the five accused were drinking in
front
of Alcazar’s Store in Putiao, Pilar, Sorsogon. Later, they
transferred
to Realubit’s Store. Musa left the group to relieve
himself.
Zaldy and Bebot suddenly attacked him with lead pipe for allegedly
throwing
stones at their house.[13]
Musa tried to parry the blows and hit Zaldy with a stone. He then
ran toward his house.[14]
The other accused allegedly were unable to help Musa because of shock.[15]
While the case was pending
trial, accused Silverio Manjares, Jr. died.cralaw:red
On April 17, 1998, the
trial court rendered a judgment of conviction as follows:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing consideration, the prosecution having proved
the
guilt of the accused by evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of
Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code,
qualified by the circumstance of treachery, the court hereby sentences
Felipe Musa Jr., Allan Reolo, and Randy Lleno to suffer an imprisonment
of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the
deceased the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as
indemnity
for the loss of earning capacity of the victim; P20,000.00 for moral
damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.
Accordingly, the bond posted by accused Felipe Musa Jr., Allan Reolo
and
Randy Lleno are hereby cancelled.chanrobles virtual law library
Accused Angelo
Mabini
at the time of the commission of the crime is only 17 years and 3
months
old, applying the law on youthful offender, he shall be credited a
privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority and by applying the Indeterminate
Sentence
Law, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum, to 8 years, and 1 day of
Prision
Mayor as maximum.
It appearing that
accused
Silverio Manjares Jr. is already dead, as evidenced by a death
certificate
filed before this court, the case against him is hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Hence this appeal,
based
on the following assignment of errors: I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS OF CONSPIRACY.
II
THE COURT ERRED IN
FINDING
THAT THERE WAS TREACHERY IN THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM.
III
THE COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The appeal lacks merit.cralaw:red
Appellants contend that
the killing was not attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery
because the victim was forewarned of an attack against him as the
assault
was preceded by the stoning of his house and the challenge made by Musa
to the Marifosque brothers. We disagree.cralaw:red
Treachery may still
be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger to his
person
as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim
to defend himself or to retaliate.[17]
The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack by an
aggressor
or an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who does not give any slightest
provocation,
depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.[18]
The records show that
appellants hid themselves and lay in wait for Bebot to pass by before
pelting
Zaldy with stones. Thus, there was a deliberate and unexpected
attack
on the unarmed victim who was in a helpless position to defend himself
or retaliate from the five assailants, who continuously hurled stones
at
him. To reiterate, what is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.cralaw:red
We likewise disagree
with the appellants’ argument that there was no conspiracy because
there
was no prior agreement to commit the crime, that the prosecution’s
evidence
only proved their presence at the scene which is insufficient, and that
only three of the assailants stoned the victim while the two others ran
away.cralaw:red
It is well-settled that
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning
the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[19]
Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same
may
be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common
understanding
among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[20]
It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and
entered
into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme
or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried
out.
The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted
in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design to
kill the victim. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of
all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of
the
crime committed.[21]chanrobles virtual law library
In the case at bar,
Bebot and the Tanod, Mendez, both saw the five appellants at the scene
of the crime. Although Bebot testified that he only saw Musa,
Manjares
and Lleno actually hurl stones at the victim, he declared that Mabini
and
Reolo were standing behind them and they were holding stones. On
the other hand, Mendez averred that when he shouted, all of them
immediately
fled. Their physical presence at the scene of the crime, their
being
armed with stones and their simultaneous flight all manifest a common
design
and a unity of purpose and action leading to the indubitable conclusion
that they acted in conspiracy.cralaw:red
Likewise, the trial
court correctly rejected appellant Musa’s theory of self-defense.
The medical certificate shows that Musa suffered only abrasions which
could
not have been caused by the lead pipes allegedly used by the Marifosque
brothers in assaulting him. Where an accused invokes self-defense
to escape criminal liability, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by
clear and convincing evidence the attendance of such justifying
circumstance;
otherwise, having admitted the killing, conviction is inescapable.[22]
It must be noted that
appellants’ conviction was based on the positive identification made by
the prosecution witnesses. Bebot clearly and categorically
identified
appellants, whom he recognized as residents of the same locality.
His testimony was corroborated by Mendez, who saw the faces of the five
appellants near the victim after the assault. As there was no
indication
that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any improper motive, the
presumption
is that they were not so moved and their testimonies must be given full
faith and credence.[23]
Moreover, it is basic that this Court will not interfere with the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any
indication
that some material fact was overlooked or neglected.[24]chanrobles virtual law library
Clearly, we find no
compelling reason to depart from the factual findings of the trial
court
that appellants, in conspiracy with one another, committed the crime of
Murder qualified by treachery.cralaw:red
At the time of the commission
of the crime in 1988, the penalty prescribed for Murder under Article
248
of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death.[25]
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attending the
commission
of the crime, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period
-
reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
In view of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority of appellant Angelo Mabini, the
penalty
next lower in degree shall be imposed in its proper period, pursuant to
Article 68, paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code, which is prision
mayor
maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Since no modifying
circumstance
was appreciated, the medium period shall be imposed, i.e., reclusion
temporal
minimum, or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years
and
eight (8) months.cralaw:red
Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, appellant Mabini shall be entitled to a minimum term to
be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision
correccional
maximum to prision mayor medium, ranging from four (4) years, two (2)
months
and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Hence, the trial court erred
in
imposing the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty.
Consistent
with our ruling in People v. Paredes,[26]
appellant Angelo Mabini is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
prison term of four (4) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of
prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, four (4) months
and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.cralaw:red
The trial court’s award
of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed.
Considering
the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the amount
of P25,000.00 is further awarded to the heirs of the victim as
exemplary
damages. In People v Catubig,[27]
we ruled that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned,
exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present
an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the
commission
of the crime.[28]
As regards the award of moral damages, the amount of P20,000.00 should
be increased to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29]chanrobles virtual law library
Under Article 2206 of
the Civil Code, appellants shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased. Indemnification for loss of earning
capacity
partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven.[30]
As shown by the victim’s service record,[31]
he was holding the position of Supervising Civil Engineering Draftsman
at the Department of Public Works and Highway (Region V, Legazpi City)
when he died at the age of 30 on July 18, 1988.[32]
His salary then was P58.21 per day, hence, his gross annual income
would
be P20,955.60. Using the American Expectancy Table of Mortality,
the award of damages representing loss of earning capacity should be
P349,225.07,
computed as follows:
Net
= Life
expectancy
x Gross Annual Income - Living expenses
Earning
[2/3 (80 - age at death)]
(GAI)
50% of GAI)
Capacitychanrobles virtual law library
=
2/3 [(80-30)] x P20,955.60 - 50%chanrobles virtual law library
=
33.33 x P20,955.60 - 50%chanrobles virtual law library
=
33.33 x [P20, 955.60 - 10,477.80]chanrobles virtual law library
=
33.33 x P10,477.80
=
P349,225.07
WHEREFORE, in view of
all
the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon,
Sorsogon,
Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 2540, convicting appellants Felipe Musa
Jr., Allan Reolo, Randy Lleno and Angelo Mabini of the crime of Murder
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellants Felipe Musa Jr., Allan
Reolo, Randy Lleno are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua,
while appellant Angelo Mabini is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of
prision
correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, four (4) months and ten
(10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. All the appellants
are
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased, Zaldy
Marifosque, the sums of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral
damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P349,225.07 as actual
damages
for loss of earning capacity.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, p. 89.
[2]
Records, p. 172.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
TSN, November 20, 1989, pp. 5-9.
[4]
Id., pp. 9-13.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id., pp. 14-15.
[6]
Id., pp. 15-19.
[7]
Id., pp. 21-23.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, July 21, 1992, p. 15.
[9]
TSN, February 18, 1992, p. 52.
[10]
Id., p. 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
TSN, October 19, 1989, pp. 13, 25-26.
[12]
TSN, October 19, 1989, pp. 13-14.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
TSN, November 11, 1996, pp. 9, 18-22, 36-37; TSN, September 17, 1997,
pp.
5-11; TSN, September 18, 1997, pp. 11; 28-29; TSN, October 21, 1997,
pp.
4-7.
[14]
TSN, June 27, 1996, pp. 20-24; 29.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
TSN, December 12, 1996, p. 7; TSN, September 17, 1997, p. 13; TSN,
September
18, 1997, p. 36; October 21, 1997, p. 14.
[16]
Records, p. 1312.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
People v. Tanoy, G.R. No. 115692; 12 May 2000, 332 SCRA 12.
[18]
People v. Samson, G.R. No. 124666, 15 February 2002.
[19]
People v. Orbita, et al., G.R. No. 122104, 19 January 2000.
[20]
People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, 16 June 1999.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
People v. Givera G.R. No. 132159, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 513.
[22]
People v. Aguilar, 354 Phil 360 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
People v. De la Rosa Jr., G.R. No. 133443, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA
425.
[24]
People v. Hinaut, G.R. No. 143764, 15 February 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
As amended by R.A. 7659, which took effect 31 December 1993, murder is
now punishable with reclusion perpetua to death.
[26]
332 Phil. 633 [1996].chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
G.R. No. 137842, 23 August 2001.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
People v. Samson, G.R. No. 124666, 15 February 2002.
[29]
People v. Pardua, et al., G.R. No. 110813, 28 June 2001.
[30]
People v. Panabang, G.R. Nos. 137514-15, 16 January 2002.
[31]
Exhibit "C".chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Exh. "B". |