THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANIEL COLIS Y MINGUELA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BARZA, J.:
The Information[2] reads:
“That on or about the 7th day of April 2003, at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Biga, City of Calapan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with a decided purpose to kill and while armed with a fan knife (balisong) did then and there willfully and unlawfully stab one EVANGELINE RAYRAY-DRIS, who was then unaware, unarmed and defenseless, inflicting upon the latter wounds on the different parts of her body which wounds were necessarily mortal thereby causing the instantaneous and untimely demise of the said EVANGELINE RAYRAY-DRIS.
That in the commission of the aforecited offense, the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation are attendant.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Accused-appellant was arraigned on July 2, 2003 and with the assistance of counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
During pre-trial, accused-appellant manifested that his defense is purely denial. The Government Prosecutor, on the other hand, manifested that he has nothing to stipulate and the markings of the exhibits will be made during trial on the merits. Pre-trial was then terminated.
The prosecution presented as its first witness, Yolanda G. Franco, who testified that the victim, Evangeline Ray-Ray-Dris is her agent-collector at Kelly Ellis. The victim and the accused-appellant were renting one of the rooms in the witness’ house as they were live-in partners. Witness narrated that at around 8 o’clock in the evening of April 7, 2003, she was with her two daughters inside her house in Sitio Bagong Pook, Barangay Biga, Calapan City, when the victim arrived on board a motorcycle. The victim just entered her house when she noticed accused-appellant walking towards the direction of her house holding an open fan knife (balisong). Witness immediately told the victim “Nandiyan si Daniel. Bukas ang balisong,” after which, the victim ran towards the witness’ room. Once inside her house, accused-appellant proceeded to the room where the victim was and stabbed the latter several times. She is not certain the number of times that the victim was stabbed but she saw that accused-appellant stabbed the victim in the nape while the latter was in a stooping position. At that time, the victim was holding a plastic drawer dura box cover which she used to protect herself to parry the stabbing blows by accused-appellant. When witness saw the victim fell down, she ran outside the house because of fear. While witness was proceeding towards the house of her sister, Nery Beredo which was about 30 meters away from her house, accused-appellant followed her and was holding a bolo. Upon reaching the house of her sister, the latter closed the gate and accused-appellant tried to enter the gate but her neighbors, Gilbert Erodias, Supremo Caranzo, Noel Gutierrez, Romeo Gutierrez and Dondon Cruzat and their respective wives got angry, blocked the way of the accused-appellant and drove him away. The police was called and witness only went back to her house when PO3 Paquito Villanueva and SPO1 Arnel Espiritu arrived. The barangay chairman and several barangay tanods also arrived at the scene of the crime. They found the victim already dead and lying face down bathing in her own blood at the very place she fell down. The police officers took pictures of the victim and her cadaver was taken by the funeral parlor.
On cross-examination, witness testified that when she warned the victim about the presence of the accused inside her house, the victim tried to get the drawer of a dura box in order to defend herself but it was unfortunate that the latter was killed. On re-direct, witness testified that when the victim and the accused-appellant were still living together, the victim used to tell her that the accused-appellant was jealous and he did not allow her to ride the motorcycle which was usually used by the witness’ collector.[4]
Also testifying for the prosecution is Leonida Rayray, the mother of the victim, who testified that she came to know about the incident because a police officer went to the house of her son. She went to the funeral parlor but was not able to see the cadaver of her daughter so she proceeded to Calero, Calapan City, where she saw the accused-appellant. She immediately informed the police officers and he was soon arrested and detained in the early morning of April 8, 2003. Witness testified that accused-appellant and her daughter have been living together for about three years prior to the incident and it was her daughter who was earning for the family. According to witness, accused-appellant killed her daughter because of jealousy as accused-appellant was unemployed while her daughter was the one earning.
The last witness for the prosecution is Dr. Ronald Jeffrey Gines, Rural Health Physician of Calapan City Health and Sanitation Department, Calapan City, who testified that upon written request of SPO1 Eric Espiritu of the Calapan City Police Station, he conducted an autopsy examination of the cadaver of the victim Evangeline Rayray-Dris at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of April 8, 2003, and prepared a Necropsy Report in relation to his examination as well as a Certificate of Death. Said witness confirmed that the victim sustained the following injuries: (1) 3.5 cm. stab wound on the left armpit which could have been caused by a sharp-pointed instrument like a fan knife or balisong; said wound is fatal considering that it was a through and through injury on the chest cavity and probably caused the death of the victim; the assailant could have been positioned in front of the victim and the accused was holding the weapon by his right hand and delivered a thrust towards the left side of the victim; it is also possible that the assailant was positioned on the left side of the victim at the time said injury was inflicted; (2) 4 cm. stab wound on the nape which was possibly inflicted while the assailant was behind the victim; said injury is also considered fatal because of the damaged vessels which caused severe hemorrhage; (3) 4 cm. stab wound on the left upper arm which could be hemorrhagic; (4) 3 cm. stab wound on the left side or back portion of the armpit which is considered fatal because of its proximity to the heart and lungs; the assailant was possibly in front of or behind the victim at the time said injury was inflicted; and, (5) 10 cm. incised wound on the upper front portion of the left thigh which was probably caused by a sharp-edged and bladed instrument like a bolo or fan knife that could also produce massive hemorrhage; if said wound produced massive hemorrhage, it is possible that it contributed to the death of the victim; the victim died of Cardio Respiratory Arrest Secondary To Hypovolemic Shock Secondary to Multiple Stab Wounds.
For the defense, it presented Victor Pallaria and accused-appellant, as witnesses.
Victor Pallaria testified that accused-appellant is his neighbor and he knows the victim as the wife of accused-appellant. When asked why he testified, witness answered that he does not know anything about the case but he testified in favor of accused-appellant out of pity.[5]
When accused-appellant took the witness stand, he denied the charge against him and testified that in the morning of April 7, 2003, he arrived in the house of prosecution witness Yolanda Franco, where he and the victim were renting a room. He was supposed to remit the money to the victim which was his week’s work of harvesting and gathering citrus fruits in Barangay Aurora IV, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, but the victim was not there as she was collecting payments in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. He went back to the house of Yolanda Franco at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same date and proceeded to the room where he and the victim were renting. When he entered the room, he saw the victim and Romeo Gutierrez, the brother of witness Yolanda Franco, kissing each other, totally naked on the bed. The victim was a collector of Kelly Ellis while Romeo Gutierrez was the driver of the said establishment. Accused-appellant got angry and proceeded to the kitchen of the house and got hold of a knife. Thereafter, he went back to the room where he found the victim and Romeo Gutierrez but the latter was already going out of the room. He ran after Romeo Gutierrez but was not able to to catch up with him so he went back to the room and found the victim already putting on her dress. He admitted having stabbed the victim but he could not recall how many times he stabbed her. He proceeded to the house of Ramil, his acquaintance in Barangay Biga, Calapan City, in order to borrow a motorcycle but was not able to borrow it. Instead, Ramil brought him to the house of accused-appellant’s parents in Barangay Aurora, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Once in the house of his parents, accused-appellant told his parents “Nadisgrasya ko si Evangeline.” Accused-appellant was brought to the house of barangay councilman Jurney Rupido, who advised him to hide, so he proceeded to the house of his godfather Fernando Mendoza in Barangay Canubing, Calapan City. His godfather gave him money to go somewhere else. While on his way to Calapan Pier, the police arrested him and was brought to the BJMP where he was detained. Accused-appellant testified that he and the victim have a child and he has known for about a year already that the victim and Romeo Gutierrez were having a relationship.
On June 19, 2012, the trial court rendered its decision disposing thus:
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused DANIEL COLIS y Minguela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punishable under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties as provided by law.
The accused is hereby directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00 and the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages and another Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[6]
Hence, this appeal on the lone error raised by accused-appellant that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHOSE GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[7]
Accused-appellant contends that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of murder because the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the crime particularly treachery. There is nothing in the testimony of the prosecution’s witness which shows that the victim was deprived of any real chance to defend herself. The victim was forewarned of the arrival of the accused-appellant’s allegedly holding a knife and the victim was able to run from accused-appellant, only that the latter was able to overtake the victim in their room. According to the accused-appellant, the victim was able to defend herself against the stabbing blows by using the plastic cover of a dura box container as a shield. Accused-appellant emphasizes that the victim had every opportunity to defend herself and she was very healthy.
The Solicitor General, for the State, on the other hand, posits that the trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder because the identity and the fact of death of the victim were proven by the prosecution and the accused-appellant admitted that he stabbed the victim. The State also argues that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The victim was in a stooping position when accused-appellant stabbed her and although the victim was able to grab a drawer of a dura box to shield herself, there is still treachery because the accused-appellant was able to stab her without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim made.
There is no merit in the appeal.
Accused-appellant admitted having killed the victim. The only dispute is whether the killing was attended by treachery in order to qualify the crime to murder.
For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the offender killed the victim; and (2) the killing was done through treachery, or by any of the five other qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information.[8]
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It takes place when the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[9]
Treachery, which was alleged in the information, was duly proven by the prosecution. The testimony of the witness for the prosecution contain:
Based on the above narrations, the manner by which the victim was killed carried all the indubitable hallmarks of treachery. The victim was unarmed and had no inkling of the impending attack on her person. In fact, she just alighted from the motorcycle and just entered the house when accused-appellant attacked her. Although the victim was able to run to the room and was able to grab a dura box drawer to cover herself, such acts of defense were not sufficient to mitigate the impact of the stabbing blows from accused-appellant. Undoubtedly, accused-appellant was able to employ means, methods and forms which insured the execution of the crime without risk to himself.
The witness testified that accused-appellant stabbed the victim in the nape while the latter was in a stooping position. In such position, accused-appellant then was able to stab the victim multiple times and there was no opportunity for the victim to escape or even offer a feeble resistance. According to the postmortem findings, the victim suffered 5 stab wounds which caused her death. Three of those stab wounds were fatal having been delivered on the left nape, which caused severe hemorrhage, and on the left side or left portion of the armpit due to its proximity to the heart and lungs.
Considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery, accused-appellant was correctly found guilty of murder; there being no aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, both the trial court and the appellate court correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 19, 2012, of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. C-03-7300, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid, (Chairperson), and Cruz, JJ., concur.
[1] pp.175-183, rollo.
[2] Records, p. 1
[3] Certificate of Arraignment, p. 24, record.
[4] TSN, May 31, 2014, p. 9.
[5] TSN, August 10, 2009, p. 3.
[6] p. 183, record.
[7] p. 35, rollo.
[8] People vs. Watamama , G.R. No. 188710, June 2, 2014.
[9] People vs. Wilson Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013.
[10] TSN, October 15, 2003, pp. 8-10; 12-13.