July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181468 : July 28, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DOMINGO ABINES :
[G.R. No. 181468 : July 28, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DOMINGO ABINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 28 July, 2008
G.R. No. 181468 (People of the Philippines v. Domingo Abines)
This is an appeal from the August 24, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02189 entitled People of the Philippines v. Domingo Abines, which affirmed the February 22, 2006. Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Labo, Camarines Norte in Criminal Case No. 02-0892 finding accused-appellant Domingo Abines guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
The facts follow.
On September 17, 2001 at around 2:00 a.m., Felicito Odiana saw accused-appellant entering the house of the latter�s mother-in-law, Soledad Villagomez, in Labo, Camarines Norte. Accused-appellant was armed with a bolo and a knife. While accused-appellant was inside her house, Felicito heard a loud thud followed by a female voice which cried �Aray ko po!(Ouch!)� He later saw accused-appellant leave the house. Hours later, Felicito peeped through a small hole in Soledad�s house and saw her lying in a pool of blood. The police were called in and found her already expired.
The victim�s cause of death was later found to be traumatic shock due to lacerated wounds on the head. She was also found to have multiple contusions on the neck, indicating strangulation.[1]
On December 4, 2001, an Information for Murder was filed against accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
Accused-appellant defended himself by testifying that from June 10, 2000 until September 17, 2001, he was living in Quezon City with a certain Salvador Tanael. He only came back to Camarines Norte on April 15, 2002. he further testified that in 2002, his wife and children stayed with him in Manila and helped sell vegetables.
The RTC found evidence for the prosecution more credible. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
(1) The civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 75,000 were reduced to PhP 50,00 each in line with current jurisprudence;[3] (2) the award of exemplary damages was reduced from PhP 30,000 to PhP 25,000, also in line with current jurisprudence;[4] and (3) PhP 25,000 as temperate damages was awarded to the heirs of the victim in view wake and burial.[5]
In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for conviction, citing the testimony of the victim�s neighbor and the threat on the victim�s life made by accused-appellant to his wife.
The CA likewise dismissed accused-appellant�s excuse that he was in Manila when the victim was killed and noted that he offered only his own statements to prove his alibi.
In sustaining the trial�s finding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, the CA took note of the considerable disparity in age and physical condition of accused-appellant and his elderly mother-in-law.
The CA, however, did not agree with the RTC that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation had been sufficiently established. It observed that aside from abuse of superior strength which qualified the crime to murder, no other modifying circumstances attended the commission of the offense that would merit the imposition of the death penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The appellate court disposed of the case as follows:
On March 24, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.
Accused-appellant assigns the following errors in this appeal:
Accused-appellant also dismisses as conjecture the threat he supposedly made to his wife that he would kill her mother as this was not supported by any evidence. All in all, he claims that the circumstantial evidence presented did not prove beyond moral certainty that he was the culprit. He then argues that since the circumstances shown are capable of several interpretations, the prosecution�s evidence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty, making it sufficient to victim him.
Assuming arguendo that he is guilty, accused-appellant asserts that the aggregating circumstances of superior strength cannot be appreciated in the instant case as there was no direct evidence on how the killing was actually done. He should thus only be held liable for homicide.
We sustain the findings of the appellate court.
There was no direct evidence of the victim�s actual killing. However, direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix whereby the court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt.[7] Jurisprudence holds that a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[8] We so hold that the requisites in this case as to witnesses testified hearing accused-appellant threaten to kill Soledad on two separate occasions. Even more crucial, accused-appellant was positively identified as entering and leaving Soledad�s home with a bolo and a knife hours before she was discovered lying in her own blood. The combination of circumstances shown is sufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present where there is proof of gross physical disparity between the protagonists or when the force used by the assailant is out of proportion to the means available to the victim.[9] In the instant case, we note that the medico-legal expert who claimed the victim testified that there was very remote possibility that she was able to defend herself from her attack as she was able to defend herself from her attacker as she was thin and already 80 years old. In contrast, accused-appellant was more than three decades younger than the victim.[10] We are one with the appellate court in saying that there was a substantial disparity in their age and physical condition; thus, abuse of superior strength as aq qualifying circumstance was properly appreciated.
We likewise sustain the finding of the CA that evident premeditation was not proven during trial. To properly appreciate evident premeditation, there n=must be a showing that there was a period sufficient to afford the accused full opportunity for meditation and reflection and a time adequate to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.[11] the lower court based it findings of evident premeditation on the testimony of the prosecution witness, Felicito, who said he heard accused-appellant threaten to kill the victim three days before the incident., it is also relied of the testimony of accused-appellant�s wife, who testified that the accused-appellant threatened to kill the victim, her mother, if she left him. These statements, however, are insufficient to justify a finding of evident premeditation.
Lastly, we affirm the appellate court�s modification on the award of damages in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 for the death of Soledad is awarded without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[12] the modification of moral damages is also proper as current jurisprudence pegs the amount of moral damages at PhP 50,000 in cases of murder and homicide.[13] the modification of the award of exemplary damages from PhP 30,000 to PhP 25,000 is correct and in line with our current decisions.[14] the award of PhP 25,000 representing temperate damages is likewise in order since the victim�s heirs were not able to provide sufficient evidence of the expenses incurred for the victim�s wake and burial.[15]
WHEREFORE, the August 24, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02189 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. Tinga, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designed additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 512.
G.R. No. 181468 (People of the Philippines v. Domingo Abines)
This is an appeal from the August 24, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02189 entitled People of the Philippines v. Domingo Abines, which affirmed the February 22, 2006. Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Labo, Camarines Norte in Criminal Case No. 02-0892 finding accused-appellant Domingo Abines guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
The facts follow.
On September 17, 2001 at around 2:00 a.m., Felicito Odiana saw accused-appellant entering the house of the latter�s mother-in-law, Soledad Villagomez, in Labo, Camarines Norte. Accused-appellant was armed with a bolo and a knife. While accused-appellant was inside her house, Felicito heard a loud thud followed by a female voice which cried �Aray ko po!(Ouch!)� He later saw accused-appellant leave the house. Hours later, Felicito peeped through a small hole in Soledad�s house and saw her lying in a pool of blood. The police were called in and found her already expired.
The victim�s cause of death was later found to be traumatic shock due to lacerated wounds on the head. She was also found to have multiple contusions on the neck, indicating strangulation.[1]
On December 4, 2001, an Information for Murder was filed against accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
Accused-appellant defended himself by testifying that from June 10, 2000 until September 17, 2001, he was living in Quezon City with a certain Salvador Tanael. He only came back to Camarines Norte on April 15, 2002. he further testified that in 2002, his wife and children stayed with him in Manila and helped sell vegetables.
The RTC found evidence for the prosecution more credible. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused DOMINGO ABINES aka �Domeng� is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty DEATH. Accused is also order to pay the heirs of victim Soledad Villagomez the amount of P75, 000.00 by way of civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,00.00 as exemplary damages.On Appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with the following modification on accused-appellant�s civil liability:
Let the complete records of this case be immediately forwarded to the Honorable Court of Appeals for automatic review.
SO ORDERED.[2]
(1) The civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 75,000 were reduced to PhP 50,00 each in line with current jurisprudence;[3] (2) the award of exemplary damages was reduced from PhP 30,000 to PhP 25,000, also in line with current jurisprudence;[4] and (3) PhP 25,000 as temperate damages was awarded to the heirs of the victim in view wake and burial.[5]
In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for conviction, citing the testimony of the victim�s neighbor and the threat on the victim�s life made by accused-appellant to his wife.
The CA likewise dismissed accused-appellant�s excuse that he was in Manila when the victim was killed and noted that he offered only his own statements to prove his alibi.
In sustaining the trial�s finding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, the CA took note of the considerable disparity in age and physical condition of accused-appellant and his elderly mother-in-law.
The CA, however, did not agree with the RTC that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation had been sufficiently established. It observed that aside from abuse of superior strength which qualified the crime to murder, no other modifying circumstances attended the commission of the offense that would merit the imposition of the death penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The appellate court disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The impugned decision of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte is AFFIRMED with modification in that the accused-appellant�s death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua and the accused-appellant is ordered to pay the civil liabilities as stated in the penultimate paragraph of this decision.On September 17, 2007, accused-appellant filed his notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On March 24, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.
Accused-appellant assigns the following errors in this appeal:
In support of his acquittal, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to established the fact that no one else enters the house of the victim from the time he left the place until the time the killing was discovered. He also make use of the medico-legal officer�s statement that the victims injuries could have been caused by two or more persons, male or female, or the victim could have slipped and fell on a hard object.I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPEALANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTII
ASSUIMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPEALANT IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF MURDER.
Accused-appellant also dismisses as conjecture the threat he supposedly made to his wife that he would kill her mother as this was not supported by any evidence. All in all, he claims that the circumstantial evidence presented did not prove beyond moral certainty that he was the culprit. He then argues that since the circumstances shown are capable of several interpretations, the prosecution�s evidence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty, making it sufficient to victim him.
Assuming arguendo that he is guilty, accused-appellant asserts that the aggregating circumstances of superior strength cannot be appreciated in the instant case as there was no direct evidence on how the killing was actually done. He should thus only be held liable for homicide.
We sustain the findings of the appellate court.
There was no direct evidence of the victim�s actual killing. However, direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix whereby the court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt.[7] Jurisprudence holds that a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[8] We so hold that the requisites in this case as to witnesses testified hearing accused-appellant threaten to kill Soledad on two separate occasions. Even more crucial, accused-appellant was positively identified as entering and leaving Soledad�s home with a bolo and a knife hours before she was discovered lying in her own blood. The combination of circumstances shown is sufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present where there is proof of gross physical disparity between the protagonists or when the force used by the assailant is out of proportion to the means available to the victim.[9] In the instant case, we note that the medico-legal expert who claimed the victim testified that there was very remote possibility that she was able to defend herself from her attack as she was able to defend herself from her attacker as she was thin and already 80 years old. In contrast, accused-appellant was more than three decades younger than the victim.[10] We are one with the appellate court in saying that there was a substantial disparity in their age and physical condition; thus, abuse of superior strength as aq qualifying circumstance was properly appreciated.
We likewise sustain the finding of the CA that evident premeditation was not proven during trial. To properly appreciate evident premeditation, there n=must be a showing that there was a period sufficient to afford the accused full opportunity for meditation and reflection and a time adequate to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.[11] the lower court based it findings of evident premeditation on the testimony of the prosecution witness, Felicito, who said he heard accused-appellant threaten to kill the victim three days before the incident., it is also relied of the testimony of accused-appellant�s wife, who testified that the accused-appellant threatened to kill the victim, her mother, if she left him. These statements, however, are insufficient to justify a finding of evident premeditation.
Lastly, we affirm the appellate court�s modification on the award of damages in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 for the death of Soledad is awarded without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[12] the modification of moral damages is also proper as current jurisprudence pegs the amount of moral damages at PhP 50,000 in cases of murder and homicide.[13] the modification of the award of exemplary damages from PhP 30,000 to PhP 25,000 is correct and in line with our current decisions.[14] the award of PhP 25,000 representing temperate damages is likewise in order since the victim�s heirs were not able to provide sufficient evidence of the expenses incurred for the victim�s wake and burial.[15]
WHEREFORE, the August 24, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02189 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. Tinga, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designed additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 512.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, p. 46.
[2] Id. at 54. Penned by Executive-Presiding Judge Franco T. Falcon.
[3] Rollo, p. 10; citing People v. Caballero, G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April 2, 2003, 400 SCRA 424,445.
[4] Id; citing People v. Tinampay G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003, 403 SCRA 255,266.
[5] Id; citing Tinampay, supra at 267.
[6] Id. Penned By Associate Judge Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakin S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag.
[7] People v. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, Novermber 21, 2007, 537 SCRA 746,754.
[8] Id. at 754-755.
[9] People v. Ponce, 395 Phil 563, 575 (2000).
[10]Rollo, p.9
[11] People v. Albao, G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998, 287 SCRA 129,156.
[12] People v. Segobre, G.R. No. 169877, February 14, 2008, 545 SCRA 341, 349.
[13] Id. at 349,350.
[14] Id at. 350.
[15] Tinampay, supra note 4, at 266-267.
