June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185722 : June 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSE PADILLA:
[G.R. No. 185722 : June 23, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSE PADILLA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 185722* (People of the Philippines v. Jose Padilla).-
This criminal case for murder is about how the defenses of denial and alibi stand against clear, spontaneous, and categorical testimony of an eyewitness on top of evidence that the slugs found in the victim's body matched those fired from the service gun of the accused police officer.
The public prosecutor charged accused-appellant Jose Padilla, a police officer, Cornelio Balanag, and Juan Padilla of murder attended by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength before die Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Union in Criminal Case A-5093.[1] Trial took place only with respect to Jose Padilla (Jose) because Cornelio Balanag (Cornelio) and Juan Padilla (Juan) had remained at large.[2]
The prosecution evidence, culled from the essentially identical narration of the RTC[3] and the Court of Appeals (CA),[4] shows that at around 2 p.m. on June 26, 2004 Juan and his son, the appellant Jose, and Eleuterio Caranta (Eleuterio) went to the Sta. Rita cockpit in Aringay, La Union, on board Jose's motorcycle. They left the cockpit at around 7 p.m., this time with Cornelio and Wilson Mapalo (Wilson) in tow.
Juan, Cornelio, and Wilson left first in a separate tricycle with Cornelio driving. Jose and Eleuterio followed in Jose's motorcycle. On reaching Sitio Pidpid, Barangay Sta. Cecilia, also in Aringay, Jose and Eleuterio stopped behind Cornelio's tricycle, which was already parked on the shoulder of the road. Jose and Eleuterio alighted. While Eleuterio stood by the motorcycle, Jose approached the passenger side of Cornelio's tricycle and pulled Wilson out of it. Jose dragged Wilson in front of the tricycle and wrapped his left arm around him as in an embrace. He then shot him in the abdomen, using a gun tucked on his waist.
As soon as Wilson dropped to the ground, Cornelio and Juan carried his body and threw it into a nearby ravine. Jose approached Eleuterio and told him not to tell anyone what he had seen or else Jose will kill him and his family. Jose then told Juan and Cornelio to bring Eleuterio home. The three left on board Cornelio's tricycle.
Wilson's body was found two days later at the ravine in Sitio Pidpid. His body bore four gunshot wounds, three entry wounds and one re-entry wound. The medico-legal officer testified that severe hemorrhage from his wounds caused Wilson's death.
Jose denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time Wilson was killed. He had a drinking spree with friends and went directly home after it. He also claimed surrendering his service firearm three days prior to the day Wilson was killed.[5] He added that Eleuterio's sworn statement did not point to any fact or circumstance that qualified the killing into murder. Neither evident premeditation nor treachery attended it. At most the charge against him should have been for homicide.[6]
On May 12, 2006 the RTC found Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to death.[7] The RTC found that evident premeditation and treachery attended the killing. The assailants also chose to commit the crime in an uninhabited and remote place in Sitio Pidpid so they could drop the victim's body into a ravine and avoid detection. The RTC regarded Jose's act of embracing the victim, an act of treachery. The embrace prevented Wilson from detecting Jose's attack and defending himself. The RTC hinted that Jose killed Wilson because of a deal involving large cattle.
The prosecution presented Police Chief Inspector Mariano Tugguin, Jr., who testified that a slug recovered from Wilson's body was fired from Jose's service gun. The defense tried to show that Jose no longer had possession of his service firearm on the day in question. But the police officer who received Jose's service gun, SPO3 Benefredo Camacho, testified having made a clerical error in his certification covering the suirender of the gun. Instead of typing June 23, 2004, he typed June 27, 2004 on it, thus, making it appear that Jose surrendered his service gun before the killing, when in truth he surrendered it on the day after the killing.
Eleuterio's eyewitness testimony served as the principal basis for Jose's conviction. As the RTC found, Eleuterio testified with clarity and logic and remained unshaken during cross-examination. Between Eleuterio's positive testimony and Jose's alibi, the trial court found the former testimony more credible especially since the defense was unable to prove that it would have been impossible for Jose to be at the scene of the crime when it took place. As the RTC pointed out, Jose owned a motorcycle that enabled him to move with facility around Aringay.
On appeal to the CA, the latter court affirmed the RTC decision with modification.[8] But the CA reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua as mandated by Republic Act 9346[9] and directed the accused to pay Wilson's heirs P15,304.00 in actual damages. The CA found no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the RTC; it regarded Eleuterio as a credible a witness.
The accused appealed the CA decision to this Court.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA. erred in finding sufficient evidence that Jose and the others with him killed Wilson with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
Jose assails Eleuterio's credibility. First, Eleuterio had a motive to he. He was the last person seen with the victim. Indeed, the police initially picked him up for questioning as a possible suspect. He thus had to point to Jose and the others to remove the suspicion from him.[10] Second, Eleuterio was prone to forget things. Indeed, he was unable to remember whether the police picked him up after the killing or on June 26, 2004.[11] Third, Eleuterio could not have seen the actual killing jpecause his testimony did not jibe with the autopsy report. He said that Jose shot Wilson once but the autopsy report showed that the assailant shot Wilson at least three times.[12] And, fourth, Jose surrendered his service gun before the killing because his superiors were transferring him from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Tubao to PNP Aringay both in La Union.[13]
The Court is not persuaded. It was but natural and logical for the police authorities to pick up for questioning at the police station persons who could lend assistance in establishing the truth regarding the commission of a crime. Still such persons do not automatically become suspects. In Eleuterio's case, the police did not, after looking into the circumstances of the case, regard him as suspect. They did not detain and charge him for Wilson's death.
Moreover, Jose did not develop the defense that it was Eleuterio who committed the crime. Jose had the right to compel witnesses to testify on his behalf or take resort to modes of discovery for the purpose of looking for evidence in the direction he wanted. Jose centered his defense only on denial and alibi and these simply crumbled in the face of Eleuterio's testimony and the circumstance that the fatal shots were made from his service gun.
It is not true that Eleuterio could not be relied on as a witness because he tended to forget things. His story appeared detailed, spontaneous, straightforward, and clear. The Court respects the observations of the RTC on the witnesses' demeanor. That Eleuterio claimed to have heard only one gunshot when the medico-legal officer found that Wilson had been shot not less than three times had been explained. After Cornelio and Juan threw Wilson's body into a nearby ravine, they left the place with Eleuterio in tow. Jose stayed behind.[14] Thus, it was possible for Jose to check out the victim's body and make sure he was dead by firing two more shots into him.
Finally, the testimony of the supply officer of PNP Tubao, La Union, SPO3 Camacho dashed all of Jose's reliance on a certification issued to him that he had turned over possession of his service gun to Camacho prior to the killing of Wilson. Camacho testified that he made a clerical error regarding the date of his receipt of Jose's service gun. The date of his actual receipt of it was June 27, 2004, not June 23, 2004. This means that Jose still had possession of the fatal gun when it was fired at Wilson. The slug found in Wilson's body matched those fired from that gun. Jose's claims of denial and alibi put these defenses in disrepute.
The CA correctly upheld the conviction of Jose for murder qualified by treachery. Although the Information alleged the presence not only of treachery but of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength as well, the Office of the Solicitor General insists that treachery absorbed abuse of superior strength. Evident premeditation, on the other hand, had not been proved.[15] The Court agrees.
WHEREFORE, the Court entirely AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision dated June 23, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02279. Nachura, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Brion, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 16 June 2010. Mendoza, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 7 June 2010.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 185722* (People of the Philippines v. Jose Padilla).-
This criminal case for murder is about how the defenses of denial and alibi stand against clear, spontaneous, and categorical testimony of an eyewitness on top of evidence that the slugs found in the victim's body matched those fired from the service gun of the accused police officer.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor charged accused-appellant Jose Padilla, a police officer, Cornelio Balanag, and Juan Padilla of murder attended by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength before die Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Union in Criminal Case A-5093.[1] Trial took place only with respect to Jose Padilla (Jose) because Cornelio Balanag (Cornelio) and Juan Padilla (Juan) had remained at large.[2]
The prosecution evidence, culled from the essentially identical narration of the RTC[3] and the Court of Appeals (CA),[4] shows that at around 2 p.m. on June 26, 2004 Juan and his son, the appellant Jose, and Eleuterio Caranta (Eleuterio) went to the Sta. Rita cockpit in Aringay, La Union, on board Jose's motorcycle. They left the cockpit at around 7 p.m., this time with Cornelio and Wilson Mapalo (Wilson) in tow.
Juan, Cornelio, and Wilson left first in a separate tricycle with Cornelio driving. Jose and Eleuterio followed in Jose's motorcycle. On reaching Sitio Pidpid, Barangay Sta. Cecilia, also in Aringay, Jose and Eleuterio stopped behind Cornelio's tricycle, which was already parked on the shoulder of the road. Jose and Eleuterio alighted. While Eleuterio stood by the motorcycle, Jose approached the passenger side of Cornelio's tricycle and pulled Wilson out of it. Jose dragged Wilson in front of the tricycle and wrapped his left arm around him as in an embrace. He then shot him in the abdomen, using a gun tucked on his waist.
As soon as Wilson dropped to the ground, Cornelio and Juan carried his body and threw it into a nearby ravine. Jose approached Eleuterio and told him not to tell anyone what he had seen or else Jose will kill him and his family. Jose then told Juan and Cornelio to bring Eleuterio home. The three left on board Cornelio's tricycle.
Wilson's body was found two days later at the ravine in Sitio Pidpid. His body bore four gunshot wounds, three entry wounds and one re-entry wound. The medico-legal officer testified that severe hemorrhage from his wounds caused Wilson's death.
Jose denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time Wilson was killed. He had a drinking spree with friends and went directly home after it. He also claimed surrendering his service firearm three days prior to the day Wilson was killed.[5] He added that Eleuterio's sworn statement did not point to any fact or circumstance that qualified the killing into murder. Neither evident premeditation nor treachery attended it. At most the charge against him should have been for homicide.[6]
On May 12, 2006 the RTC found Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to death.[7] The RTC found that evident premeditation and treachery attended the killing. The assailants also chose to commit the crime in an uninhabited and remote place in Sitio Pidpid so they could drop the victim's body into a ravine and avoid detection. The RTC regarded Jose's act of embracing the victim, an act of treachery. The embrace prevented Wilson from detecting Jose's attack and defending himself. The RTC hinted that Jose killed Wilson because of a deal involving large cattle.
The prosecution presented Police Chief Inspector Mariano Tugguin, Jr., who testified that a slug recovered from Wilson's body was fired from Jose's service gun. The defense tried to show that Jose no longer had possession of his service firearm on the day in question. But the police officer who received Jose's service gun, SPO3 Benefredo Camacho, testified having made a clerical error in his certification covering the suirender of the gun. Instead of typing June 23, 2004, he typed June 27, 2004 on it, thus, making it appear that Jose surrendered his service gun before the killing, when in truth he surrendered it on the day after the killing.
Eleuterio's eyewitness testimony served as the principal basis for Jose's conviction. As the RTC found, Eleuterio testified with clarity and logic and remained unshaken during cross-examination. Between Eleuterio's positive testimony and Jose's alibi, the trial court found the former testimony more credible especially since the defense was unable to prove that it would have been impossible for Jose to be at the scene of the crime when it took place. As the RTC pointed out, Jose owned a motorcycle that enabled him to move with facility around Aringay.
On appeal to the CA, the latter court affirmed the RTC decision with modification.[8] But the CA reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua as mandated by Republic Act 9346[9] and directed the accused to pay Wilson's heirs P15,304.00 in actual damages. The CA found no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the RTC; it regarded Eleuterio as a credible a witness.
The accused appealed the CA decision to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA. erred in finding sufficient evidence that Jose and the others with him killed Wilson with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
The Court's Ruling
Jose assails Eleuterio's credibility. First, Eleuterio had a motive to he. He was the last person seen with the victim. Indeed, the police initially picked him up for questioning as a possible suspect. He thus had to point to Jose and the others to remove the suspicion from him.[10] Second, Eleuterio was prone to forget things. Indeed, he was unable to remember whether the police picked him up after the killing or on June 26, 2004.[11] Third, Eleuterio could not have seen the actual killing jpecause his testimony did not jibe with the autopsy report. He said that Jose shot Wilson once but the autopsy report showed that the assailant shot Wilson at least three times.[12] And, fourth, Jose surrendered his service gun before the killing because his superiors were transferring him from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Tubao to PNP Aringay both in La Union.[13]
The Court is not persuaded. It was but natural and logical for the police authorities to pick up for questioning at the police station persons who could lend assistance in establishing the truth regarding the commission of a crime. Still such persons do not automatically become suspects. In Eleuterio's case, the police did not, after looking into the circumstances of the case, regard him as suspect. They did not detain and charge him for Wilson's death.
Moreover, Jose did not develop the defense that it was Eleuterio who committed the crime. Jose had the right to compel witnesses to testify on his behalf or take resort to modes of discovery for the purpose of looking for evidence in the direction he wanted. Jose centered his defense only on denial and alibi and these simply crumbled in the face of Eleuterio's testimony and the circumstance that the fatal shots were made from his service gun.
It is not true that Eleuterio could not be relied on as a witness because he tended to forget things. His story appeared detailed, spontaneous, straightforward, and clear. The Court respects the observations of the RTC on the witnesses' demeanor. That Eleuterio claimed to have heard only one gunshot when the medico-legal officer found that Wilson had been shot not less than three times had been explained. After Cornelio and Juan threw Wilson's body into a nearby ravine, they left the place with Eleuterio in tow. Jose stayed behind.[14] Thus, it was possible for Jose to check out the victim's body and make sure he was dead by firing two more shots into him.
Finally, the testimony of the supply officer of PNP Tubao, La Union, SPO3 Camacho dashed all of Jose's reliance on a certification issued to him that he had turned over possession of his service gun to Camacho prior to the killing of Wilson. Camacho testified that he made a clerical error regarding the date of his receipt of Jose's service gun. The date of his actual receipt of it was June 27, 2004, not June 23, 2004. This means that Jose still had possession of the fatal gun when it was fired at Wilson. The slug found in Wilson's body matched those fired from that gun. Jose's claims of denial and alibi put these defenses in disrepute.
The CA correctly upheld the conviction of Jose for murder qualified by treachery. Although the Information alleged the presence not only of treachery but of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength as well, the Office of the Solicitor General insists that treachery absorbed abuse of superior strength. Evident premeditation, on the other hand, had not been proved.[15] The Court agrees.
WHEREFORE, the Court entirely AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision dated June 23, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02279. Nachura, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Brion, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 16 June 2010. Mendoza, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 7 June 2010.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Mendoza, no part. J. Leonardo-De Castro, additional member, per raffle dated June 7, 2010.
[1] Records, p. 84.
[2] Id. at 31, 31-a, 34, 35, 36, 36-a.
[3] Id. at 314-352.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 147-163, penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court).
[5] TSN, Part 2, April 28, 2006, pp. 3-9.
[6] Records, Exhibit "4," p. 55.
[7] Id. at 314-352.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 147-163.
[9] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
[11] Id. at 71.
[12] Id. at 69-71.
[13] Id. at 71-72.
[14] Id. at 132-133.
[15] Id. at 135-137.
