December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 182922 : December 14, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RODEL SORIANO :
[G.R. No. 182922 : December 14, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RODEL SORIANO
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 December 2009:
G.R. No. 182922 (People of the Philippines v. Rodel Soriano).
Before this Court is an Appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02507, promulgated on December 13, 2007, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 5th Judicial Region, Branch 32, Pili, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case P-2550, dated July 18, 2006, convicting the accused-appellant of murder as defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Appellant Rodel Soriano (Soriano) was indicted for murder in an information which reads:
Prosecution witness Primo Bolayon (Bolayon) testified that at around 2:00 a.m. of June 1, 1994, when he was on his way home with Rondio Cuebelias (Cuebelias), he saw Romeo Ibarrientos sitting on a waiting shed bench, eating some snacks. He then saw appellant Soriano suddenly stab the victim and then run away. Bolayon and Cuebelias brought Ibarrientos' body to the municipal hall.
Prosecution witness Esmeraldo Alberto (Alberto) testified that at around 2:30 a.m. of June 1, 1994, he was walking along a road in Barangay Poblacion West, Ocampo, Camarines Sur when he saw Ibarrientos sitting on a bench. Appellant Soriano was beside him. Alberto then saw Soriano run away from Ibarrientos, with a bladed instrument in his hand, as Ibarrientos began to fall down. Alberto noticed two other persons, Bolayon and Cuebellas, who also saw the incident.
Dr. Angelina Celzo conducted an autopsy of the body of the victim. She testified that Ibarrientos suffered three wounds: an incised wound at the left forearm, a stab wound at the abdominal area, and another stab wound at the right chest, penetrating the chest cavity and lungs. Ibarrientos died from massive hemorrhage due to the stab wound to the lungs.
After the preliminary investigation, an information was filed and a warrant of arrest was issued against appellant Soriano. Soriano had fled, however, and could not be located. It was only in 2002, some eight years after the incident, that he was brought before the trial court, when it was discovered that he had been detained for some other case.
Appellant Soriano gives a different version of the facts of the case. He testified that in the early morning of June 1, 1994, he was sleeping in the house of a certain Ramon Career, located at Barangay San Miguel, Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Also, he said that he had no reason to harm the victim Ibarrientos.
The RTC found appellant Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of Romeo Ibarrientos P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as nominal damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, hence, this appeal.
Appellant Soriano argues that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, considering that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Particularly, he reffered to Bolayon's testimony that the victim was stabbed while he was having snacks, while Alberto testified that the victim was stabbed while he was asleep, consistent with what the information said. Finally, the testimony of Bolayon that he tried to help the victim allegedly conflicts with the testimony of Alberto that Bolayon and Cuebellas fled the scene of the incident.
With regard to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the CA correctly held that these inconsistencies are not fatal to the prosecution's case. The witnesses' "observations were made from different angles. Different witnesses have different perceptions of a fast and fluid situation."[3] . It is also important to note that while Bolayon saw Soriano stab the victim, Alberto did not claim to have seen the actual stabbing.
Bolayon positively identified Soriano as the person who stabbed the victim while the latter was sitting on a bench having snacks. Alberto's testimony merely corroborated Bolayon's account when he stated that he saw Soriano running away from the victim, carrying a bladed instrument. Corroborative evidence need not coincide on all aspects, as long as they corroborate each other on material' points. In fact, minor inconsistencies in testimonies of different witnesses may even strengthen their" credibility as it negates any suspicion that the testimonies were fabricated or rehearsed.[4]
There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of Bolayon and Alberto. They recognized and identified Soriano as the assailant. Although it was then early morning, the place was sufficiently lighted. Also, Alberto was already familiar with Soriano even before the incident even if they did not know each other personally.[5]
Soriano, on the other hand, could not give any reason for these witnesses to testify falsely against him. Absent any evidence to show a doubtful reason or an improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, his testimony is trustworthy and should be accorded full faith and credit.[6]
Appellant Soriano tries to impute ill motive on Alberto on the basis that Alberto did not report the incident immediately to the authorities, and that he only came forward to testify some nine years after the incident. The CA noted, however, that the length of time between the incident and the trial, when Alberto testified, was due to the fault of Soriano, who had fled and could not be found for several years.
Also, Alberto stated that it was the mother of the victim who pleaded with him to testify in court. It appears that Alberto did not want to get involved, but acceded to the request because Cuebellas, who would have testified for the prosecution, had already died.[7]
Treachery was also sufficiently proven by the prosecution. Bolayon testified that Soriano, without any warning, stabbed Ibarrientos, who was merely sitting on a bench eating. There was no exchange of words or any untoward incident between Soriano and Ibarrientos. When an attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was not in a position to repel the attack, insuring the commission of the offense without risk to the aggressor, as was the case here, there is treachery.[8]
Appellant Soriano points out that Bolayon's testimony - that Ibarrientos was stabbed while eating - does not coincide with the allegation in the information that he was stabbed while he "was then fast asleep." That the victim was sleeping, however, is not an essential element of the crime of murder. The attendant circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged in the information by the phrase "with intent to kill and qualified by treachery." This is sufficient such that the Court may consider the treachery, which was present in this case, to qualify the killing to murder.
As for Soriano's defense of alibi, it cannot be given any credence. It is self-serving, inherently weak, and was not even corroborated by any other person. It cannot prevail over his positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
All things considered - the eyewitness account of how appellant Soriano stabbed the victim, his flight from the scene carrying a bladed instrument, his subsequent evasion of the warrant of arrest for six years -there is moral certainty of appellant Soriano's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder.
With regard to the damages awarded, however, the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim should be increased to P75,000.00. Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded considering that the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance of treachery. Finally, .considering that there was no evidence to prove the actual damages incurred by the heirs of the victim for funeral and burial expenses, this Court awards temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02507, promulgated on December 13, 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 182922 (People of the Philippines v. Rodel Soriano).
Before this Court is an Appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02507, promulgated on December 13, 2007, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 5th Judicial Region, Branch 32, Pili, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case P-2550, dated July 18, 2006, convicting the accused-appellant of murder as defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Indictment
Appellant Rodel Soriano (Soriano) was indicted for murder in an information which reads:
That on June 1, 1994 in the morning, thereof at Poblacion West, municipality of Ocampo, province of Camarines Sur Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and qualified by treachery, did then and there stab for several times with the use of a bladed instrument one ROMEO IBARRIENTOS who was then fast asleep and as a consequence, trie said victim suffered stabbed [sic] wounds at various parts of his body which were the proximate cause of his death to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
The Facts and the Case
Prosecution witness Primo Bolayon (Bolayon) testified that at around 2:00 a.m. of June 1, 1994, when he was on his way home with Rondio Cuebelias (Cuebelias), he saw Romeo Ibarrientos sitting on a waiting shed bench, eating some snacks. He then saw appellant Soriano suddenly stab the victim and then run away. Bolayon and Cuebelias brought Ibarrientos' body to the municipal hall.
Prosecution witness Esmeraldo Alberto (Alberto) testified that at around 2:30 a.m. of June 1, 1994, he was walking along a road in Barangay Poblacion West, Ocampo, Camarines Sur when he saw Ibarrientos sitting on a bench. Appellant Soriano was beside him. Alberto then saw Soriano run away from Ibarrientos, with a bladed instrument in his hand, as Ibarrientos began to fall down. Alberto noticed two other persons, Bolayon and Cuebellas, who also saw the incident.
Dr. Angelina Celzo conducted an autopsy of the body of the victim. She testified that Ibarrientos suffered three wounds: an incised wound at the left forearm, a stab wound at the abdominal area, and another stab wound at the right chest, penetrating the chest cavity and lungs. Ibarrientos died from massive hemorrhage due to the stab wound to the lungs.
After the preliminary investigation, an information was filed and a warrant of arrest was issued against appellant Soriano. Soriano had fled, however, and could not be located. It was only in 2002, some eight years after the incident, that he was brought before the trial court, when it was discovered that he had been detained for some other case.
Appellant Soriano gives a different version of the facts of the case. He testified that in the early morning of June 1, 1994, he was sleeping in the house of a certain Ramon Career, located at Barangay San Miguel, Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Also, he said that he had no reason to harm the victim Ibarrientos.
The RTC found appellant Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of Romeo Ibarrientos P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as nominal damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, hence, this appeal.
Appellant Soriano argues that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, considering that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Particularly, he reffered to Bolayon's testimony that the victim was stabbed while he was having snacks, while Alberto testified that the victim was stabbed while he was asleep, consistent with what the information said. Finally, the testimony of Bolayon that he tried to help the victim allegedly conflicts with the testimony of Alberto that Bolayon and Cuebellas fled the scene of the incident.
With regard to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the CA correctly held that these inconsistencies are not fatal to the prosecution's case. The witnesses' "observations were made from different angles. Different witnesses have different perceptions of a fast and fluid situation."[3] . It is also important to note that while Bolayon saw Soriano stab the victim, Alberto did not claim to have seen the actual stabbing.
Bolayon positively identified Soriano as the person who stabbed the victim while the latter was sitting on a bench having snacks. Alberto's testimony merely corroborated Bolayon's account when he stated that he saw Soriano running away from the victim, carrying a bladed instrument. Corroborative evidence need not coincide on all aspects, as long as they corroborate each other on material' points. In fact, minor inconsistencies in testimonies of different witnesses may even strengthen their" credibility as it negates any suspicion that the testimonies were fabricated or rehearsed.[4]
There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of Bolayon and Alberto. They recognized and identified Soriano as the assailant. Although it was then early morning, the place was sufficiently lighted. Also, Alberto was already familiar with Soriano even before the incident even if they did not know each other personally.[5]
Soriano, on the other hand, could not give any reason for these witnesses to testify falsely against him. Absent any evidence to show a doubtful reason or an improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, his testimony is trustworthy and should be accorded full faith and credit.[6]
Appellant Soriano tries to impute ill motive on Alberto on the basis that Alberto did not report the incident immediately to the authorities, and that he only came forward to testify some nine years after the incident. The CA noted, however, that the length of time between the incident and the trial, when Alberto testified, was due to the fault of Soriano, who had fled and could not be found for several years.
Also, Alberto stated that it was the mother of the victim who pleaded with him to testify in court. It appears that Alberto did not want to get involved, but acceded to the request because Cuebellas, who would have testified for the prosecution, had already died.[7]
Treachery was also sufficiently proven by the prosecution. Bolayon testified that Soriano, without any warning, stabbed Ibarrientos, who was merely sitting on a bench eating. There was no exchange of words or any untoward incident between Soriano and Ibarrientos. When an attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was not in a position to repel the attack, insuring the commission of the offense without risk to the aggressor, as was the case here, there is treachery.[8]
Appellant Soriano points out that Bolayon's testimony - that Ibarrientos was stabbed while eating - does not coincide with the allegation in the information that he was stabbed while he "was then fast asleep." That the victim was sleeping, however, is not an essential element of the crime of murder. The attendant circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged in the information by the phrase "with intent to kill and qualified by treachery." This is sufficient such that the Court may consider the treachery, which was present in this case, to qualify the killing to murder.
As for Soriano's defense of alibi, it cannot be given any credence. It is self-serving, inherently weak, and was not even corroborated by any other person. It cannot prevail over his positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
All things considered - the eyewitness account of how appellant Soriano stabbed the victim, his flight from the scene carrying a bladed instrument, his subsequent evasion of the warrant of arrest for six years -there is moral certainty of appellant Soriano's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder.
With regard to the damages awarded, however, the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim should be increased to P75,000.00. Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded considering that the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance of treachery. Finally, .considering that there was no evidence to prove the actual damages incurred by the heirs of the victim for funeral and burial expenses, this Court awards temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02507, promulgated on December 13, 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1.) The award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Romel Ibarrientos should be INCREASED to �75,000.00.
2.) Appellant Rodel Soriano is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Romel Ibarrientos P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
3.) Appellant Rodel Soriano is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Romel Ibarrientos P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] CA rollo, p. 77.
[4] People of the Philippines v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 170137, August 27, 2009.
[5] TSN, April 23, 2004, pp. 6, 12-14.
[6] People of the Philippines v. Villanueva, Jr., G.R. No. 187152, July 22, 2009.
[7] TSN, April 23, 2004, pp. 15-17.
[8] People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, March 13, 2009.
