ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
|
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
JOEL LUCES,
G.R.
No.
149492
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredThis is a petition for
review seeking to annul and set aside the March 23, 2001 decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals[2]
in CA-G.R. CR No. 23581 which affirmed with modification the decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court of Bugasong, Antique, Branch 64 finding
petitioner
Joel Luces guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide in
Criminal
Case No. 0249.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wound incised, 3" muscle deep more or less horizontal, palm left outer proximal quadrant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Conclusion: Cause of death was shock cardiogenic due to above-described wound.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred On the other hand, the defense evidence consisted of denial and alibi. Petitioner declared that at 6:00 pm. of November 11, 1997, he was in San Jose, Antique, waiting for the arrival of his wife from Iloilo City. When his wife arrived at 7:00 pm., they left for Brgy. La Rioja, Patnongon, Antique, and reached home at about 7:30 pm. The following day, November 12, 1997, his friend told him that he was the suspect in the killing of Clemente Dela Gracia. For fear that he might be incarcerated, he went into hiding, but his mother convinced him to surrender to the police station of San Jose Antique. On November 25, 1997, he finally surrendered to the authorities and denied authorship of the crime.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Nelson Magbanua was presented as hostile witness for the defense. He admitted that he signed an affidavit of desistance stating, inter alia, that the person who stabbed the victim "was not Joel Luces but it might be some other persons"[14] He stressed, however, that he knew it was the petitioner who stabbed the victim but he yielded to the pleas of petitioner’s wife and signed the affidavit because he pitied her as she was then pregnant. He added that when he signed the document in the house of the petitioner, Dante Reginio, was not with him.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Atty. Maribeth T. Padios, a branch Clerk of Court before whom the affidavit of desistance was allegedly subscribed, declared that two persons who represented themselves as Dante Reginio and Nelson Magbanua signed the affidavit in her presence. She claimed that she did not explain the contents of the affidavit to the affiants inasmuch as the same is no longer her duty.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred On July 16, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The dispositive portion thereof reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In view thereof, this Court finds the accused Joel Luces guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Homicide and in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance to offset each other, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Accused is ordered to pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Clemente dela Gracia; nominal damages of P10,000.00 and cost.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The bailbond posted by the accused is cancelled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Accused is ordered remitted to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, within three (3) months from the finality of this decision, unless his continued detention in the Province of Antique is justified.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred SO ORDERED.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dissatisfied, petitioner
interposed the instant petition for review anchored on the following
assignment
of errors:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The instant petition is anchored mainly on the veracity of the affidavit of desistance allegedly executed by Dante Reginio and Nelson Magbanua. Petitioner contends that the statement in the said affidavit that the person who stabbed the victim "was not Joel Luces but it might be some other persons" shows that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the culprit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The contention is without
merit. The affidavit of desistance relied upon by petitioner as a means
to exculpate himself from criminal liability was sufficiently impeached
by the testimonial evidence of the very same persons who allegedly
executed
the affidavit. Dante Reginio declared that the signature appearing
above
his type-written name on the affidavit of desistance was not his, while
Nelson Magbanua stated that he merely signed the affidavit out of pity
for the petitioner’s wife. As between the assailed affidavit of
desistance
and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses before the court, the latter
should prevail. An affidavit of desistance obtained as an afterthought
and through intimidation or undue pressure attains no probative value
in
light of the affiant’s testimony to the contrary.[20]
The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. A careful review of the records shows that the positive identification of petitioner by Dante Reginio is convincing and worthy of credence. Finding no ill-motive that would impel said witness to testify falsely against the petitioner, the trial court’s assessment of his credibility must be affirmed.[21] The settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case.[22] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine in the case at bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The denial and alibi put up by petitioner cannot prosper. Such defenses are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of petitioner.[23] Moreover, San Jose, Antique where petitioner claimed to be staying at the approximate time of the commission of the offense is only a thirty-minute drive by a public utility vehicle from Patnongon, Antique. Thus, failing to meet the test that there must be clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, his defense of alibi cannot prosper.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Furthermore, we sustain the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner’s act of hiding from the authorities when he learned that he was a suspect in the killing of the victim is inconsistent with his plea of innocence. Jurisprudence has held that the flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established "for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence."[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the attendance thereof in the instant case. Treachery (alevosia) is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[26] In the case at bar, the victim was not deprived of a real chance to defend himself. Note that the attack in the instant case was frontal and that the victim sustained a defensive wound on his left palm.[27] Moreover, the presence of the victim’s companions, Dante Reginio and Nelson Magbanua, reveals that the victim was not completely helpless. Neither was there sufficient evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack. The meeting between the victim and the petitioner was a casual encounter. Absent evidence showing that petitioner deliberately planned or adopted the mode of execution of the offense, treachery cannot be appreciated.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Anent the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the same in favor of the petitioner. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[29] Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance.[30] In People v. Viernes,[31] we held that going to the police station to clear one’s name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In the case at bar,
petitioner surrendered to the authorities in order to disclaim
responsibility
for the killing of the victim. This hardly shows any repentance or
acknowledgment
of the crime on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, at the time
petitioner
surrendered, there was already a pending warrant of arrest against him.[32]
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|
|
