|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARIANO SAPIGAO, JR., Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 178485
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio MORALES, brion, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
For automatic review is the Decision[1] dated July 19,
2006 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 01018, affirming with
modification the Decision[2] dated July 28, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. U-5035, finding appellant Mariano
Sapigao, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The facts of the case, culled from the records, are as follows:
In an Information[3] dated
That on or about the 22nd day of September
1987, in the afternoon, at Barangay Carosucan Sur, municipality of Asingan,
province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then armed with Cal. .45 and
Cal. .38 Handguns, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other,
with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and
shoot one Alexander Turalba, inflicting upon him, the following injuries: Gunshot wound – ¾ cm. pt. of entrance passing
between the 8th and 9th thorasaic vertebrae, lacerating
the right ventricle of the heart [bullet lodged between the 6th left
and right ribs, at the sternum]; Gunshot wound – ¾ pt. of entrance, left
parietal bone, traversing the brain with 1 inch ill-defined edges pt. of exit,
fracturing the right maxillary bone, which caused the death of said Alexander
Turalba, as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
CONTRARY
to Art. 248, Revised Penal Code.
A Warrant of Arrest[4] was issued against appellant and
Sublingo on
Appellant was arrested on P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.[10] Thereafter, the government prosecutor, Atty.
Monte P. Ignacio, filed a motion for consolidation[11]
of the case which had been docketed as Criminal Case No. U-5035 with another
criminal case docketed as Criminal
Case No. U-4963 for illegal possession of firearms against the appellant and
Sublingo arising out of the same incident. The motion was unacted upon and when called
for arraignment, appellant was absent and out on bail.[12] Warrants of arrest were again issued against
him and he was finally arrested on
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Leonardo Guerrero, Cecilio
Fabro, SPO4 Rodrigo Escaño, and Apolonia Turalba, the victim’s grandmother. For its part, the defense presented the
testimonies of eyewitness Jesus Ballesteros, the appellant himself,
Ballistician and Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Rogelio Munar, and NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr.
Arturo Llavore.
The autopsy of the victim was conducted by Dr. Irenio G. Agapito, Rural
Health Physician of Asingan, Pangasinan.
The autopsy report states the following findings on the victim:
EXTERNAL:
Fairly
developed, fairly nourished, adult male, weighing around 130 lbs., height – 5[’]
4”; Lon[g] black hair, brown complexion and wearing maong long pants, green
t-shirt, white brief[s] soaked with blood.
INTERNAL:
GUNSHOT WOUNDS
1.
¾ cm. Pt. of entrance passing
between the 8th and 9th thorasaic vertebrae lacerating
the right ventricle of the heart and the bullet was lodged between the 6th
left and right ribs, at the sternum.
BLOOD AT THORACIC CAVITY 500 c.c.
2.
¾ pt. of entrance – left parietal
bone traversing the brain with 1 inch ill-defined edges of pt[.] of exit
fracturing the right maxillary bone.
CAUSE
OF DEATH: Fatal gunshot wounds.[15]
Prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro claimed that
on
For the defense, Jesus Ballesteros, a resident of Carosucan Sur, Asingan,
Pangasinan, testified that on
Appellant denied shooting Alexander Turalba. He claimed that it was Melvin Sublingo who
shot Turalba twice, the first shot hitting Turalba in the head and the second
hitting Turalba at the back.[18]
NBI Ballistician Rogelio Munar testified that based on the gunshot wounds
of Turalba described in the autopsy report, the wound was produced by a .32 or
.38 caliber pistol.[19]
Dr. Arturo Llavore testified that after examining the
autopsy report, he concluded that the gunshot wounds were inflicted by a .38
caliber firearm.[20]
On
WHEREFORE,
JUDGMENT of CONVICTION beyond reasonable doubt is rendered against MARIANO
SAPIGAO, JR. of the crime of aggravated Murder (appreciating treachery as qualifying
circumstance) with the use of firearms and the Court sentences Mariano Sapigao,
Jr. to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the
victim the sum of P38,600.00 as actual damages; plus P50,000.00
as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Mariano
Sapigao, Jr. is ACQUITTED in Crim. Case No. U-4963 (Illegal Possession of
Firearm).
The
Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus.
The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology is hereby ordered to deliver the person of Mariano Sapigao, Jr. to the
National Bilibid Prisons,
SO
ORDERED.[21]
Appellant appealed before this Court.
Pursuant to the decision in People v. Mateo,[22] the case was
transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the [D]ecision
dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00
as moral damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Hence, this appeal where appellant raises the following issues in his
Supplemental Brief:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT APPELLANT SHOT THE VICTIM AND
CAUSED HIS DEATH.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT APPELLANT ACTED IN CONSPIRACY
WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED MELVIN SUBLINGO.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[24]
The primordial issue is: Has appellant’s
guilt for the crime of murder been proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Appellant, in his
Supplemental Brief,[25]
argues the prosecution failed to prove that he shot the victim because: (1) Prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro testified
that the handgun used by him in shooting the victim was a .45 caliber handgun,
but the diameters at the point of entry of the two wounds sustained by the
victim were that of wounds caused by a .38 caliber firearm;[26]
(2) Fabro testified that he shot the
victim at the back while the Autopsy Report stated that the wounds of the
victim were in the thoracic area and the left parietal area;[27]
(3) The expert witnesses, Ballistician
Munar and Dr. Llavore, are impartial witnesses while Fabro had a motive to
falsely testify against him;[28]
(4) The reliance by the Court of Appeals
on the rule that the trial court is in the best position to assess the
credibility of witnesses is not applicable in this case;[29]
(5) Ballistician Munar and Dr. Llavore
are expert and impartial witnesses and their testimonies are based on physical
evidence and scientific fact;[30]
(6) The other accused, Melvin Sublingo,
caused both wounds of the victim;[31]
(7) The path of the bullet wound that caused the wound on the head of
the victim belies the testimony of Fabro that he shot the victim while the
latter was lying face down on the ground;[32] (8) He had no
motive to shoot the victim;[33] (9) For more than
ten years, the authorities did not arrest him;[34] (10) The burden
of proof that he shot the victim with a .45 caliber handgun rests with the
prosecution and he does not have the burden to prove that he did not shoot the
victim.[35]
The prosecution, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, opted not to file a supplemental brief, explaining that
its arguments on the issues invoked had already been discussed in the brief it
had previously filed.[36]
After review, we uphold the ruling of
the Court of Appeals affirming the guilty verdict of the trial court.
Findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
witnesses, its assessment of their credibility and the probative weight of
their testimonies, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings,
are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect,
unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misconstrued facts and
circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a reversal of
the outcome of the case.[37]
In this case, the Court of Appeals and the RTC gave credence to the
testimony of prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro whose testimony directly
contradicts that of defense witness Jesus Ballesteros. We see no reason to deviate from this
finding.
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important
in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth,
especially in the face of conflicting testimonies.[38] For, indeed, the
emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining
the witness’ credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take
advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all
that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in
transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually
said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by
an American court, “There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any
degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading
the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the
words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the
pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on
the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony.
Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the
very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can
never be considered by the appellate court.”[39]
Cecilio Fabro testified:
Q Mr. Witness, at about
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you?
A We were at the basketball court, sir.
Q Where is that basketball court?
A In front of the
Q Where is that school?
A Caros[u]can Sur sir.
Q Why were you there at that precise time
and date in that basketball court at Brgy. Caros[u]can Sur, Asingan,
Pangasinan?
A Because we are going to play basketball
sir.
Q Aside from you who are your companions
or who are present in that basketball court?
A Our [t]eammate and our barangaymate but
Melvin Sublingo arrived and [began shooting], sir.
Q Who are
[those] present at the basketball court?
A Melvin
Sublingo, Mariano Sapigao, Jr. and our teammate, sir.
Q How about Alexander T[u]ralba?
A He was there sir.
Q While you [were] forming that
basketball team in the afternoon of
A Melvin Sublingo drew a gun and shot
Alexander T[u]ralba sir.
Q How far were you then at that time when
Melvin Sublingo [shot] Alexander T[u]ralba?
A Three (3) meters sir.
Q [What] part of Alexander T[u]ralba’s
body was hit?
A [The] heart sir.
Q Do you know what firearm was used by
Melvin Sublingo?
A .38 Calibre sir.
Q What happened to Alexander T[u]ralba
when he was hit with a .38 Calibre?
A He died sir.
Q [After] Alexander T[u]ralba was hit,
what happened to Alexander T[u]ralba?
A He fell down on the ground, sir,
facing down.
Q You mean when Alexander T[u]ralba fell
down, his face [was] facing down?
A Yes sir.
Q How about Melvin Sublingo, what did he
do when Alexander T[u]ralba was shot?
A He again fired his gun, sir.
Q Who fired that gun?
A Melvin Sublingo sir.
Q Was Alexander T[u]ralba hit?
A No more because the place where he
fired the gun is the place where he ran and Osias was hit, sir.
Q You said the first time that Melvin
Sublingo shot Alexander T[u]ralba, [the latter] fell down and was hit, what did
Melvin Sublingo do after that?
A Melvin Sublingo ran sir.
Q To what direction did Melvin Sublingo
run?
A [Towards] the eastern direction sir.
Q When Melvin Sublingo ran and you saw
Alexander T[u]ralba [fall] down, what happened after that?
A I saw Mariano Sapigao, Jr. [shoot]
Alexander T[u]ralba while [the latter was] lying down facing the ground sir.
Q You mean Mariano Sapigao, Jr. shot
Alexander T[u]ralba while the latter was lying down?
A Yes sir.
Q [What part of Alexander Turalba’s
body] was hit when Mariano Sapigao, Jr. shot him?
A Head sir.
Q How many times?
A Once only sir.
Q How far were you [from] the accused
Mariano Sapigao, Jr. when the latter fired towards Alexander T[u]ralba?
A Five (5) meters sir.
Q What kind of gun was used by Mariano
Sapigao, Jr.?
A .45 Caliber sir.
Q How do you know that it was .45
caliber?
A Because I can identify guns sir.[40] (Emphasis supplied.)
The RTC correctly ascertained that moved by common design and unity of
purpose, Melvin Sublingo first shot Alexander Turalba at the back, and as a
result thereof, Turalba fell to the ground, face down. While Turalba was lying face
down, wounded, and in order to ensure that Turalba was dead, the appellant
fired at him once using a .45 caliber firearm and hit Turalba’s head. The autopsy report conformed with the
testimony of Fabro. The RTC noted that Fabro
is credible since he narrated in details and without hesitation. It was not inclined to take seriously the defense’s
assertion that Melvin Sublingo alone, without the participation of the appellant,
shot Turalba, after finding that the testimony of Fabro is more credible than
the testimonies of Ballesteros and the appellant who are first cousins. We affirm this finding. Ballesteros’ testimony that Sublingo first
shot the victim on the head and then afterwards on the back appears illogical
since the first shot on the head already ensured the death of the victim. Fabro’s testimony that the victim was first
shot on the back and then afterwards on the head to ensure his demise, appears
more accurate.
The Court of Appeals, after carefully and assiduously examining the records
of the case, supported the conclusion reached by the RTC. It ruled that although the accused sought to
denigrate the testimony of Fabro by alleging that they were previous rivals
over the love of the same woman, the defense failed to present compelling
evidence to support the imputation of ill motive. It further ruled that although the defense capitalized
on the testimony of Dr. Leonardo Guerrero, who testified on the possibility
that only one kind of firearm was used since the wounds are of similar diameter,
and the testimonies of NBI Ballistics Expert Rogelio G. Munar and NBI Medico-Legal
Officer Dr. Arturo G. Llavore to prove
that the diameter of the gunshot wounds sustained by the victim, which is ¾ or
.75 centimeter, could not have been produced by a .45 caliber pistol, the
appellate court held that the gun allegedly seen as held and used by the
appellant was never presented as evidence and no expert witness was able to
physically examine the same. Hence, there was no way of knowing the size of the
wound it would have produced. The
appellate court also found that even the testimonies of the expert witnesses of
the defense were inconclusive. The NBI ballistics
expert, Munar, although admitting that he is not well versed on sizes of
wounds, testified that the difference in size of gunshot wounds produced by .38
and .45 caliber guns is negligible. Dr.
Llavore, the NBI medico-legal expert, testified that the entrance of the wound
caused by a caliber .45 handgun is similar to that of a wound caused by a .38
caliber handgun, except in the cross-diameter thereof where the wound is
smaller in case of a .38 caliber gun and larger in case of a .45 caliber.
To put to rest the question of whether the .45 caliber handgun allegedly
used by the appellant in shooting the victim on the head could produce an
entrance wound with a ¾ or .75 centimeter diameter, we have held that the
diameter of the entrance of gunshot wounds could be smaller or larger,
depending on certain factors. The
factors which could make the wound of entrance bigger than the caliber include:
(1) shooting in contact or near fire; (2) deformity of the bullet which
entered; (3) a bullet which might have entered the skin sidewise; and (4) an
acute angular approach of the bullet. Where
the wound of entrance is smaller than the firearm’s caliber, the same may be
attributed to the fragmentation of the bullet before entering the skin or to a
contraction of the elastic tissues of the skin.[41] Thus, it is not impossible for a .45 caliber
handgun to produce an entrance wound smaller than expected. The appellant’s defense of denial therefore
crumbles. In the face of the positive testimony of prosecution witness Fabro,
as corroborated by the autopsy report, there is no doubt that appellant is
guilty of the crime charged. Truly, what stands out from the evidence on record
is the fact that to ensure the death of the victim, the appellant shot him on
the head while the victim was already lying down.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution has
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt the criminal culpability of the appellant.
As for the penalty and civil liability, the Court of Appeals correctly
held:
Under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of murder are:
(1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and
(4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. All the elements of murder, as alleged in the
Information, have been sufficiently established by the prosecution in the
present case.
The
offense in the present case was committed on
Civil Liability
The
trial court awarded the heirs of the victim Alexander Turalba the sum of
P38,600.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
We
delete the award of actual damages. To
seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of
loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable. Since the
prosecution did not present receipts to prove the actual losses suffered, such
actual damages cannot be awarded.
However,
while no actual damages may be awarded because no competent evidence in the
form of receipts was presented, temperate damages may be recovered under
Article 2224 of the Civil Code as the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Consistent with current jurisprudence, the
amount of P25,000.00 is awarded to the victim’s heirs as temperate damages
considering that it is not disputed that the family incurred expenses for the
wake and burial of the victim.
Consistent
with prevailing jurisprudence, We award P50,000.00 by way of indemnity ex
delicto to the heirs of Alexander Turalba.
When death occurs as a result of the crime, the heirs of the deceased
are entitled to such amount as civil indemnity for death without need of any
evidence or proof of damages.
The
award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is sustained, being consistent with recent
cases. Moral damages are awarded without
further proof other than the death of the victim.
The
victim’s heirs are likewise entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00, given the presence of treachery which qualified the killing to
murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil
Code which allows the award of exemplary damages as part of the civil liability
when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, the
term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed in its generic
sense since it did not specify otherwise.[42]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 01018 affirming with modification the judgment of conviction
of the P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000
as moral damages, P25,000 as temperate damages, and P25,000 as
exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda
[2] Records, pp.171-179. Penned by Judge
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] Records, p. 179.
[22] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[23] Rollo, p. 17.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos.
138931-32,
[38] Maandal v. People, G.R. No. 144113,
[39]
[40] TSN,
[41] People v. Abriol, G.R. No. 123137,
[42] Rollo, pp. 15-17.