March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 189356 : March 24, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO TUZON Y PANTI :
[G.R. No. 189356 : March 24, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO TUZON Y PANTI
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 March 2010:
G.R. No. 189356 (People of the Philippines v. Luisito Tuzon y Panti). -
On February 9, 2004 the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the accused Luisito Tuzon y Panti (Tuzon) of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, in Criminal Case Q-04-124472.
The prosecution's version has been culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rosalie Suico[1] and Melicia Arcangel.[2]On January 18, 2004, at about 6:30 p.m., Rosalie and Melicia were chatting with each other along Kitanlad Street, Araneta, Tatalon, Quezon City, when they saw accused Tuzon emerge from a nearby alley, with a white cloth wrapped around one of his hands. Tuzon directly approached Romulo Quintinita (Quintinita), who was sitting at the corner of the alley watching an ongoing billiards game. Suddenly, Tuzon stabbed Quintinita on the back with a knife.
Quintinita ran towards the billiard hall but accused Tuzon went after him. In spite of Quintinita's pleas, Tuzon continued stabbing him several times even as he already went down the ground. Tuzon then fled, wrapping the knife he used- with the white cloth he had with him. Some people brought Quintinita to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Quintinita's widow, Emma, testified on the amounts she incurred for her husband's funeral[3] while PO1 Joseph Tayaban testified on how he and fellow police officers arrested Tuzon two weeks after the incident at his brother's house.[4]
Testifying in his defense, Tuzon[5] admitted having stabbed Quintinita but in self-defense. He claimed that on January 18, 2004, at about 5:45 p.m., he confronted Quintinita, who was then drunk, about his illegal distribution of water connection. The latter got mad at this and told Tuzon not to meddle in his affairs. Further, Quintinita hurled invectives at Tuzon, pulled out a knife, and tried to stab the latter several times. They grappled and Tuzon succeeded in wresting the knife but he accidentally stabbed Quintinita in the course of their struggle. Tuzon left the place and stayed at his brother's house for two weeks before the police arrested him there.
Lolita Vergara[6] testified that he knew both Quintinita and Tuzon since they were her neighbors. People knew Quintinita to be an illegal distributor of water connection. According to her, on the date of the incident, she saw Quintinita cursing Tuzon for allegedly questioning his water connection business. She then saw Quintinita attack Tuzon with a knife. Tuzon succeeded in wresting the knife and stabbing Quintinita with it.
On July 2, 2007 the RTC found Tuzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to indemnify Quintinita's heirs with P503000.00 as death indemnity, P20,000.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Accused Tuzon appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02984 but the CA affirmed the same on May 30, 2009[7] with modification that in place of actual damages, it awarded temperate damages to the victim's heirs because of lack of proof of the actual expenses they incurred for the wake and burial of Quintinita. Additionally, it also awarded P25,000.00 to them in exemplary damages. This prompted Tuzon to appeal his conviction to this Court.
Accused Tuzon raises the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in rejecting his plea of self-defense;
2. Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitnesses warrant the rejection of the same; and
3. Whether or not the prosecution succeeded in proving the qualified circumstance of treachery.
One. Accused Tuzon argues that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Quintinita. But by invoking self-defense, Tuzon admits killing Quintinita, shifting on himself the burden of proving (1) that Quintinita was guilty of unlawful aggression, (2) that Tuzon employed means that was reasonably necessary to prevent or repel Quintinita's aggression; and (3) that Tuzon did not provide sufficient provocation.
Here, accused Tuzon failed to prove unlawful aggression on Quintinita's part. Tuzon's claim that it was Quintinita who initially wielded the knife and that he struggled to wrest it from him is rendered doubtful by the fact that he (Tuzon) did not sustain any wound at all. The evidence shows that it was Tuzon who in fact instigated the attack when he swiftly and deliberately stabbed Quintinita while his back was turned to him. Quintinita was then watching a billiards game with absolutely no premonition of the danger lurking from behind him.
What is more, as both the RTC and the CA aptly noted, if accused Tuzon really acted in self-defense, he would have readily presented himself to the authorities to explain his side. Instead, however, he hid at his brother's house for two weeks until the police came for him. And, after his arrest, he did not bother to tell the police that he had merely acted in self-defense. His behavior negates his assertion of self-defense.
Two. Accused Tuzon calls the Court's attention to certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitnesses. He claims that Rosalie and Melicia said in their joint affidavit that Quintinita was on his feet when Tuzon attacked him but when called to testify they said that Quintinita was seated. But this discrepancy does not necessarily discredit their testimonies since it is a minor one and does not affect the substance of what they said in court. Actually, it even enhances their credibility. Variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[9]
Accused Tuzon regarded as suspect Melicia's testimony that his hand held a white cloth which he used to wrap his weapon after the stabbing when Rosalie did not mention such detail in her testimony. But, as the CA correctly explained, it is not unlikely for one witness to notice something that another witness did not. Their angle of sight and attentiveness to details could vary. What is important is that their testimonies did not vary as to the substance of what they saw. Here, the two witnesses were one in saying that Tuzon stabbed Quintinita on the back, chased him into the billiard hall, and continuously stabbed him even while he was pleading for his attacker to stop. These witnesses saw Quintinita fall and Tuzon flee.
The RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who saw the whole thing transpire in their presence, from accused Tuzon's emergence from an alley to the moment he fled the scene. The alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies covered trivial matters. Their stories tallied in all other aspects and were consistent with the circumstances of Quintinita's death. Moreover, the prosecution's witnesses were not shown to have been inspired by any improper motive to incriminate Tuzon.
Three. Tuzon contends that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of treachery.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, giving the unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist his attacker or to escape, and without the slightest provocation on the victim's part. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[10]
In this case, Quintinita was unarmed and was stabbed from behind at close range. The facts, as found by the RTC and reaffirmed by the CA, clearly show that the attack was attended by treachery. Quintinita was just sitting and watching a game of billiards when accused Tuzon suddenly showed up and stabbed him on the back without the least provocation. This sudden and unexpected attack, which Tuzon deliberately adopted, deprived Quintinita of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. He had no foreboding of any danger, threat, or harm on his life at that time, place and occasion. There was treachery not only because of the suddenness of the attack but also because of the absence of an opportunity on Quintinita's part to repel Tuzon.
Since the totality of the evidence presented in this case clearly supports Tuzon's conviction of the crime of murder, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Finally, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[11]
The award of P20,000.00 as actual damages was correctly changed and denominated by the CA as temperate damages as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount of such loss had not been proved and substantiated. We deem it proper, however, to modify the amount of temperate damages to P25,000.00 and exemplary damages to P30,000.00[12] in accord with current jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE., the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02984 dated July 30, 2009, which found Luisito Tuzon y Panti guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Romulo Quintinita in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages with the modification that the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of March, 2010.
G.R. No. 189356 (People of the Philippines v. Luisito Tuzon y Panti). -
On February 9, 2004 the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the accused Luisito Tuzon y Panti (Tuzon) of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, in Criminal Case Q-04-124472.
The Facts and the Case
The prosecution's version has been culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rosalie Suico[1] and Melicia Arcangel.[2]On January 18, 2004, at about 6:30 p.m., Rosalie and Melicia were chatting with each other along Kitanlad Street, Araneta, Tatalon, Quezon City, when they saw accused Tuzon emerge from a nearby alley, with a white cloth wrapped around one of his hands. Tuzon directly approached Romulo Quintinita (Quintinita), who was sitting at the corner of the alley watching an ongoing billiards game. Suddenly, Tuzon stabbed Quintinita on the back with a knife.
Quintinita ran towards the billiard hall but accused Tuzon went after him. In spite of Quintinita's pleas, Tuzon continued stabbing him several times even as he already went down the ground. Tuzon then fled, wrapping the knife he used- with the white cloth he had with him. Some people brought Quintinita to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Quintinita's widow, Emma, testified on the amounts she incurred for her husband's funeral[3] while PO1 Joseph Tayaban testified on how he and fellow police officers arrested Tuzon two weeks after the incident at his brother's house.[4]
Testifying in his defense, Tuzon[5] admitted having stabbed Quintinita but in self-defense. He claimed that on January 18, 2004, at about 5:45 p.m., he confronted Quintinita, who was then drunk, about his illegal distribution of water connection. The latter got mad at this and told Tuzon not to meddle in his affairs. Further, Quintinita hurled invectives at Tuzon, pulled out a knife, and tried to stab the latter several times. They grappled and Tuzon succeeded in wresting the knife but he accidentally stabbed Quintinita in the course of their struggle. Tuzon left the place and stayed at his brother's house for two weeks before the police arrested him there.
Lolita Vergara[6] testified that he knew both Quintinita and Tuzon since they were her neighbors. People knew Quintinita to be an illegal distributor of water connection. According to her, on the date of the incident, she saw Quintinita cursing Tuzon for allegedly questioning his water connection business. She then saw Quintinita attack Tuzon with a knife. Tuzon succeeded in wresting the knife and stabbing Quintinita with it.
On July 2, 2007 the RTC found Tuzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to indemnify Quintinita's heirs with P503000.00 as death indemnity, P20,000.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Accused Tuzon appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02984 but the CA affirmed the same on May 30, 2009[7] with modification that in place of actual damages, it awarded temperate damages to the victim's heirs because of lack of proof of the actual expenses they incurred for the wake and burial of Quintinita. Additionally, it also awarded P25,000.00 to them in exemplary damages. This prompted Tuzon to appeal his conviction to this Court.
The Issues Presented
Accused Tuzon raises the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in rejecting his plea of self-defense;
2. Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitnesses warrant the rejection of the same; and
3. Whether or not the prosecution succeeded in proving the qualified circumstance of treachery.
The Court's Rulings
One. Accused Tuzon argues that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Quintinita. But by invoking self-defense, Tuzon admits killing Quintinita, shifting on himself the burden of proving (1) that Quintinita was guilty of unlawful aggression, (2) that Tuzon employed means that was reasonably necessary to prevent or repel Quintinita's aggression; and (3) that Tuzon did not provide sufficient provocation.
Here, accused Tuzon failed to prove unlawful aggression on Quintinita's part. Tuzon's claim that it was Quintinita who initially wielded the knife and that he struggled to wrest it from him is rendered doubtful by the fact that he (Tuzon) did not sustain any wound at all. The evidence shows that it was Tuzon who in fact instigated the attack when he swiftly and deliberately stabbed Quintinita while his back was turned to him. Quintinita was then watching a billiards game with absolutely no premonition of the danger lurking from behind him.
What is more, as both the RTC and the CA aptly noted, if accused Tuzon really acted in self-defense, he would have readily presented himself to the authorities to explain his side. Instead, however, he hid at his brother's house for two weeks until the police came for him. And, after his arrest, he did not bother to tell the police that he had merely acted in self-defense. His behavior negates his assertion of self-defense.
Two. Accused Tuzon calls the Court's attention to certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitnesses. He claims that Rosalie and Melicia said in their joint affidavit that Quintinita was on his feet when Tuzon attacked him but when called to testify they said that Quintinita was seated. But this discrepancy does not necessarily discredit their testimonies since it is a minor one and does not affect the substance of what they said in court. Actually, it even enhances their credibility. Variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[9]
Accused Tuzon regarded as suspect Melicia's testimony that his hand held a white cloth which he used to wrap his weapon after the stabbing when Rosalie did not mention such detail in her testimony. But, as the CA correctly explained, it is not unlikely for one witness to notice something that another witness did not. Their angle of sight and attentiveness to details could vary. What is important is that their testimonies did not vary as to the substance of what they saw. Here, the two witnesses were one in saying that Tuzon stabbed Quintinita on the back, chased him into the billiard hall, and continuously stabbed him even while he was pleading for his attacker to stop. These witnesses saw Quintinita fall and Tuzon flee.
The RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who saw the whole thing transpire in their presence, from accused Tuzon's emergence from an alley to the moment he fled the scene. The alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies covered trivial matters. Their stories tallied in all other aspects and were consistent with the circumstances of Quintinita's death. Moreover, the prosecution's witnesses were not shown to have been inspired by any improper motive to incriminate Tuzon.
Three. Tuzon contends that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of treachery.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, giving the unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist his attacker or to escape, and without the slightest provocation on the victim's part. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[10]
In this case, Quintinita was unarmed and was stabbed from behind at close range. The facts, as found by the RTC and reaffirmed by the CA, clearly show that the attack was attended by treachery. Quintinita was just sitting and watching a game of billiards when accused Tuzon suddenly showed up and stabbed him on the back without the least provocation. This sudden and unexpected attack, which Tuzon deliberately adopted, deprived Quintinita of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. He had no foreboding of any danger, threat, or harm on his life at that time, place and occasion. There was treachery not only because of the suddenness of the attack but also because of the absence of an opportunity on Quintinita's part to repel Tuzon.
Since the totality of the evidence presented in this case clearly supports Tuzon's conviction of the crime of murder, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Finally, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[11]
The award of P20,000.00 as actual damages was correctly changed and denominated by the CA as temperate damages as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount of such loss had not been proved and substantiated. We deem it proper, however, to modify the amount of temperate damages to P25,000.00 and exemplary damages to P30,000.00[12] in accord with current jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE., the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02984 dated July 30, 2009, which found Luisito Tuzon y Panti guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Romulo Quintinita in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages with the modification that the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of March, 2010.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN? September 13, 2004, pp. 241.
[2] Id. at 11-20.
[3] TSN, June 29,2004, pp. 2-4.
[4] TSN, Aprii 20, 2004, pp. 2-6.
[5] TSN, June 7, 2005, pp. 2-10.
[6] TSN, March 27, 2006, pp. 2-8.
[7] Rollo,pp. 2-16.
[8] People v. More, 378 Phil. 1153, 1158(1999).
[9] People v. Salvatierra, 342 Phil. 22, 34 (1997); People v. Herbias, 333 Phil. 422, 428-429 (1996); People v. Sumaoy, 331 Phil. 763, 772 (1996); Arceno v. People, 326 Phil. 576, 588 (1996); People v. Espa�ol, 326 Phil. 147,153-154(1996).
[10] People v. Ronato, 374 Phil. 785, 795 (1999).
[11] People v, Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 740.
[12] People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233, October 2, 2009; People v. Arbalante, G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009.
