December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > December 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173486 : December 12, 2007] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOEL FERNANDEZ Y VILLEZA:
[G.R. No. 173486 : December 12, 2007]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOEL FERNANDEZ Y VILLEZA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information,is a resolution of this Court dated 12 December 2007:
G.R. No. 173486 (People of the Philippines v. Joel Fernandez y Villeza)
This is an automatic review of the March 31, 2006 Decision[1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01201 entitled People of the Philippines v. Joel Fernandez y Villeza which affirmed the January 30, 2002 Decision[2] of the Malolos, Bulacan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78 in Criminal Case No. 1570-M-2000. The RTC found accused-appellant Joel Fernandez guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In the morning of March 8, 2000, Irwin Garcera saw Magno Royo reprimand the children of accused-appellant for polluting the water in the well at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan. Later, at around 9:30 in the evening, while Garcera and Royo were walking towards the house of Royo's sister, Garcera saw accused-appellant hiding behind a post. The two.did not mind accused-appellant and continued walking. Thereafter, Garcera heard two gunshots and noticed that Royo was hit.[3] Garcera then looked back, saw accused-appellant holding a .38 caliber gun, and heard him say, Kung kaya mong bumangon, humabol ka sa akin"[4] Accused-appellant then ran away.
Meanwhile, Nelson Legaspi, who was inside his house, also heard two gunshots. He immediately went outside and saw accused-appellant running. He noticed that accused-appellant was carrying a gun. Legaspi was about to run after accused-appellant but decided instead to attend to Royo, who was lying on the ground. He then asked help from his neighbors to bring Royo to the hospital.On the way to the hospital, he asked Royo who shot him, and Royo replied that it was accused-appellant.[5]
Royo was brought to the Provincial Hospital of Bulacan for treatment. Dr. Leoncio del Castillo, the attending physician, reported that Royo sustained a fatal gunshot wound on the epigastric area. An examination of the internal organs revealed that Royo's liver was seriously injured causing massive bleeding. Royo died due to multiple organ failure on March 11, 2000.[6]
On May 31, 2000, an Information for murder was filed against accused-appellant, which reads;
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.
For his part, accused-appellant admitted the killing but interposed self-defense as a justifying circumstance. He claimed that, while having dinner at home, he heard a gunshot and someone shouting, "Putang ina ninyo" Wanting to find out what the commotion was all about, he opened the door and saw a man holding a gun. He did not recognize who the man was. Suddenly, the man approached and struck him with the gun. He parried the attack by grabbing the gun and twisting the man's arm. However, the gun went off during the struggle and hit the man.[8]
Thereafter, accused-appellant' went to his godfather's house in Caloocan City and told him what had happened. He did not report the incident to the barangay officials or the police because he got confused and frantic. He was arrested in Caloocan City. He learned that the man was Royo only after he (accused-appellant) was arrested.[9]
On January 30, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Due to the penalty imposed, the case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review and was originally docketed as G.R. No. 153300. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[11] this Court, in its December 1, 2004 Resolution, transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
On March 31, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.[12]
On September 13, 2006, this Court required the parties to submit, within 30 days, supplemental briefs, if they so desired. On November 13,2006, accused-appellant manifested that he would no longer file a supplemental brief. On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, to this date and despite several extensions of time to submit a supplemental brief, has not yet complied with the Court's directive. Thus, for failure to act in accordance with the September 13, 2006 Resolution, the Court deems as waived the filing of plaintiff-appellee's supplemental brief and considers this case submitted for resolution.
Accused-appellant, in his May 13, 2003 Brief,[13] raised three issues for the appellate court's consideration. These issues are adopted in this present appeal:
We discuss first accused-appellant's plea of self-defense. An accused who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the act complained of. Accordingly, the accused assumes the burden of proof to establish the justifying circumstance by credible, clear, and convincing evidence.[15] In order to prove self-defense, the following requisites must be shown: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.[16]
Accused-appellant maintains that Royo attacked him with a gun and in order to protect himself, he struggled to gain possession of the gun. However, the gun fired in the middle of the tussle and hit Royo. Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, alleges that accused-appellant's claim of self-defense was not sufficiently proven.
We agree with plaintiff-appellee. Aside from accused-appellant's bare allegation, no other evidence was presented to support his claim that Royo attacked him just before the shooting happened. As aptly observed by the appellate court, it was unlikely that Royo, who allegedly had been shouting invectives and had already fired his gun before accused-appellant came out of his house, would attack accused-appellant simply by hitting him with the gun. Moreover, accused-appellant did not even present his wife, who was with him inside the house, to corroborate his claims. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated, especially when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself[17]
Likewise, flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates a plea of self defense.[18] In this case, accused-appellant fled and hid from the authorities after the incident. Had he been truly innocent, he would have immediately reported Royo's attack and declared that he killed him in the course of defending himself.
As regards the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, it is a settled doctrine that the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying.[19] In the present case, accused-appellant has not shown that the prosecution witnesses were tainted with an ill-motive to implicate him with a serious charge. Hence, there is no reason for us to disregard the assessments of the RTC and CA.
Finally, we determine whether treachery aggravated the killing. In order to establish treachery, the following requisites must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to retaliate; and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.[20] These elements were proven in this case.
As found by the trial court, accused-appellant was hidden behind a post, apparently waiting for the right moment to make his attack on the unsuspecting victim. When that opportunity came, accused-appellant positioned himself on the side of the road and instantaneously shot the victim. At that position, accused-appellant ensured that the victim would have no opportunity to ward off his attack and at the same time, lessened the chance of exposing himself to a possible retaliation from the victim.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the March 31, 2006 Decision in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01201, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, J., on leave.
G.R. No. 173486 (People of the Philippines v. Joel Fernandez y Villeza)
This is an automatic review of the March 31, 2006 Decision[1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01201 entitled People of the Philippines v. Joel Fernandez y Villeza which affirmed the January 30, 2002 Decision[2] of the Malolos, Bulacan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78 in Criminal Case No. 1570-M-2000. The RTC found accused-appellant Joel Fernandez guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In the morning of March 8, 2000, Irwin Garcera saw Magno Royo reprimand the children of accused-appellant for polluting the water in the well at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan. Later, at around 9:30 in the evening, while Garcera and Royo were walking towards the house of Royo's sister, Garcera saw accused-appellant hiding behind a post. The two.did not mind accused-appellant and continued walking. Thereafter, Garcera heard two gunshots and noticed that Royo was hit.[3] Garcera then looked back, saw accused-appellant holding a .38 caliber gun, and heard him say, Kung kaya mong bumangon, humabol ka sa akin"[4] Accused-appellant then ran away.
Meanwhile, Nelson Legaspi, who was inside his house, also heard two gunshots. He immediately went outside and saw accused-appellant running. He noticed that accused-appellant was carrying a gun. Legaspi was about to run after accused-appellant but decided instead to attend to Royo, who was lying on the ground. He then asked help from his neighbors to bring Royo to the hospital.On the way to the hospital, he asked Royo who shot him, and Royo replied that it was accused-appellant.[5]
Royo was brought to the Provincial Hospital of Bulacan for treatment. Dr. Leoncio del Castillo, the attending physician, reported that Royo sustained a fatal gunshot wound on the epigastric area. An examination of the internal organs revealed that Royo's liver was seriously injured causing massive bleeding. Royo died due to multiple organ failure on March 11, 2000.[6]
On May 31, 2000, an Information for murder was filed against accused-appellant, which reads;
That on or about the 9th day of March, 2000, in the municipality of Norzagaray, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a handgun and with intent to kill one Magno Royo y Bandal, with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the handgun said Magno Royo y Bandal, hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting thereon mortal wounds which directly caused his death.[7]
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.
For his part, accused-appellant admitted the killing but interposed self-defense as a justifying circumstance. He claimed that, while having dinner at home, he heard a gunshot and someone shouting, "Putang ina ninyo" Wanting to find out what the commotion was all about, he opened the door and saw a man holding a gun. He did not recognize who the man was. Suddenly, the man approached and struck him with the gun. He parried the attack by grabbing the gun and twisting the man's arm. However, the gun went off during the struggle and hit the man.[8]
Thereafter, accused-appellant' went to his godfather's house in Caloocan City and told him what had happened. He did not report the incident to the barangay officials or the police because he got confused and frantic. He was arrested in Caloocan City. He learned that the man was Royo only after he (accused-appellant) was arrested.[9]
On January 30, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused JOEL FERNANDEZ y VILLEZA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties and to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of [PhP] 50,000.00 for the death of Magno Royo and another [PhP] 50,000.00 as moral damages. With costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Due to the penalty imposed, the case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review and was originally docketed as G.R. No. 153300. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[11] this Court, in its December 1, 2004 Resolution, transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
On March 31, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.[12]
On September 13, 2006, this Court required the parties to submit, within 30 days, supplemental briefs, if they so desired. On November 13,2006, accused-appellant manifested that he would no longer file a supplemental brief. On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, to this date and despite several extensions of time to submit a supplemental brief, has not yet complied with the Court's directive. Thus, for failure to act in accordance with the September 13, 2006 Resolution, the Court deems as waived the filing of plaintiff-appellee's supplemental brief and considers this case submitted for resolution.
Accused-appellant, in his May 13, 2003 Brief,[13] raised three issues for the appellate court's consideration. These issues are adopted in this present appeal:
I
The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
II
The trial court gravely erred in not appreciating [accused-appellant's] self defense.
Ill
The trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible testimony of the prosecution witness Irwin Garcera.[14]
The appeal has no merit.
We discuss first accused-appellant's plea of self-defense. An accused who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the act complained of. Accordingly, the accused assumes the burden of proof to establish the justifying circumstance by credible, clear, and convincing evidence.[15] In order to prove self-defense, the following requisites must be shown: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.[16]
Accused-appellant maintains that Royo attacked him with a gun and in order to protect himself, he struggled to gain possession of the gun. However, the gun fired in the middle of the tussle and hit Royo. Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, alleges that accused-appellant's claim of self-defense was not sufficiently proven.
We agree with plaintiff-appellee. Aside from accused-appellant's bare allegation, no other evidence was presented to support his claim that Royo attacked him just before the shooting happened. As aptly observed by the appellate court, it was unlikely that Royo, who allegedly had been shouting invectives and had already fired his gun before accused-appellant came out of his house, would attack accused-appellant simply by hitting him with the gun. Moreover, accused-appellant did not even present his wife, who was with him inside the house, to corroborate his claims. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated, especially when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself[17]
Likewise, flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates a plea of self defense.[18] In this case, accused-appellant fled and hid from the authorities after the incident. Had he been truly innocent, he would have immediately reported Royo's attack and declared that he killed him in the course of defending himself.
As regards the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, it is a settled doctrine that the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying.[19] In the present case, accused-appellant has not shown that the prosecution witnesses were tainted with an ill-motive to implicate him with a serious charge. Hence, there is no reason for us to disregard the assessments of the RTC and CA.
Finally, we determine whether treachery aggravated the killing. In order to establish treachery, the following requisites must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to retaliate; and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.[20] These elements were proven in this case.
As found by the trial court, accused-appellant was hidden behind a post, apparently waiting for the right moment to make his attack on the unsuspecting victim. When that opportunity came, accused-appellant positioned himself on the side of the road and instantaneously shot the victim. At that position, accused-appellant ensured that the victim would have no opportunity to ward off his attack and at the same time, lessened the chance of exposing himself to a possible retaliation from the victim.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the March 31, 2006 Decision in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01201, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, J., on leave.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-10. Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate Justices Aurora Santiago-Lagman and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 13-19. Permed by Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga.
[3] Rollo, p.
[4] CA rollo, p. 14.
[5] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[6] Id. at 5.
[7] Id. at 4.
[8] Id. at 6.
[9] CA rollo, pp. 17-18.
[10] Id. at 19.
[11] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[12] Supra note 1, at 10.
[13] CA rollo, pp. 37-48.
[14] Id. at 39. Original in capital letters.
[15] Sullon v. People, G.R. No. 139369, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 248, 255.
[16] REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 11(1).
[17] Marzonia v. People, G.R. No. 153794, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 627, 634.
[18] People v. Castillano, Sr., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003, 400 SCRA 401, 412.
[19] People v. Olivar, G.R. No. 138725, September 23, 2003, 411 SCRA 489, 497-498.
[20] People v. Alajay, G.R. Nos. 133796-97, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 629,636.
