Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 192258^[*] (People of the Philippines v. Macario Biay @ "Macook").

The public prosecutor of Pangasinan charged the accused Macario Biay (Biay) of murder in Criminal Case 1999-02714-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City.^[1] After the case was archived for seven years, the prosecution revived it upon the arrest of Biay in 2006.

Leah de Guzman (De Guzman) testified that at around 5:15 p.m. on January 1, 1999, new year's day, she, together with Barangay Captain Salvador Caoile (Caoile) and another person, was in Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan, playing cards at the nipa hut of Precy Biay (Precy), sister of the accused. Suddenly, the cards flew in the air and she saw Caoile with a knife planted on his back. She saw Biay pull the knife out of Caoile's back. She and the others quickly scampered away from the place.

Violeta Milanes (Milanes), who was in front of her store, swore that she saw Caoile running towards his house, holding his bloody chest. Biay was running after him. When Caoile fell to the ground, Biay stabbed him. Caoile later died of massive hemorrhage resulting from the stab wounds on his chest and on his upper back as shown in the certificate of death.^[2]

For his part, Biay attested that he had no knowledge of Caoile's death. He was at that time in Victoria, Tarlac. He left with his brother at about 1:00 p.m. on January 1, 1999 and they arrived there at around 5:00 p.m. They went to Victoria upon their aunt's invitation to visit their sick grandfather who eventually died on January 13, 1999. Biay claimed staying in Victoria with his brother up to when their grandfather died.

On July 7, 2007 the RTC found Biay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered him to pay a total of P287,000.00 as civil damages to Caoile's heirs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02981 dated February 15, 2010, affirming the decision of the RTC but further ordered Biay to pay the heirs of Caoile P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Biay thus appealed to this Court.

The only issue the case presents is whether or not the trial court is correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused Biay mainly assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He points out that when De Guzman looked, she saw the knife already planted on Caoile's back. She did not see Biay stab Caolie. But De Guzman clarified that, although she did not see the actual stabbing because it was all too sudden, she saw Biay withdraw the knife from Caoile's back^[3] and chase the latter when he ran away to escape.^[4]

Biay also contends that the distance from Milanes' store to Precy's house was in fact 70 meters and not 7 to 8 meters, as Milanes claimed. But this discrepancy is trivial considering that it did not go into the core of Milanes' testimony and had nothing to do with the elements of the crime. It cannot be a ground for reversing a conviction.^[5] What matters is that Milanes saw Caoile holding his bloody chest and running towards his house from the direction of Precy's hut with Biay after him.

Biay's alibi is weak in the face of the credible testimonies of the witnesses that it was he who stabbed Caoile to death. Moreover, the prosecution's case is further strengthened by Biay's failure to surrender for more than seven years despite his knowledge that the police was looking for him in connection with the killing of Caoile.^[6] This Court has consistently held that the flight of an accused is competent evidence of guilt and culpability, and when unexplained, as in this case, guilt may be inferred from such behavior.^[7] The lower courts are likewise correct in ruling that treachery qualified the killing to murder. Biay's attack on Caoile was so sudden and unexpected that the latter had no chance to repel the same or defend himself.^[8]

The CA also correctly ordered Biay to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P50,000.00 as moral damages because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the crime.^[9] As to exemplary damages, however, recent jurisprudence allows the amount of P30,000.00 given the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.^[10]

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 0298! dated February 15, 2010 which found Macario Biay alias Macook guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Salvador Caoile, in the amounts of P287,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[*] J. Nachura, on official leave. J. Velasco, Jr., additional member, per Special Order 933 dated January 24. 2011.

^[1] Branch 42. 

^[2] Records, p. 16. 

^[3] TSN, June 8, 2006, p. 5. 

^[4] Records, p. 14. 

^[5] People v. Antonio, 391 Phil. 245, 253 (2000), citing People v. Bato, 382 Phil. 558. 565-566 (2000). 

^[6] People v. Castillo, 389 Phil. 51, 62 (2000). 

^[7] People v. Teves, 321 Phil. 837, 856 (1995). 

^[8] Andrada v. People, 493 Phil. 33, 44 (2005). 

^[9] People v. Albao, 383 Phil. 873, 886 (2000). 

^[10] People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 769, 783.