PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PONCIANO ESPINA Y BALASANTOS ALIAS “JUN ESPINA AND JR”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J.:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused PONCIANO ESPINA Y BALASANTOS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which carries with it the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which he shall suffer even though pardoned unless the same shall have been expressly remitted therein.
Accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Ernando Reyes the amount of P25,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; P40,000.00 as moral damages; and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The City Jail Warden of Taguig City is hereby ordered to transfer said accused to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.”
The antecedent facts of the case as borne-out by the record are as follows:
Accused-appellant Ponciano Espina alias “Jun Espina” and “JR” was charged of Murder in an Amended Information[3] which reads as follows:
“That on or about the 26th day of May, 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ERNANDO REYES, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wound on the trunk, which eventually caused his death, the said killing having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, which qualify such killing to murder and aggravated by night time and use of a firearm, which is a deadly weapon, that is, all to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of ERNANDO REYES.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged against him.[4] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
To establish the guilt of accused-appellant, the prosecution presented Russel Michael and Evelyn Reyes. Their testimonies established the following facts:
At around 8:30 o’clock in the evening of May 26, 2005, accused-appellant Ponciano Espina, Ernando Reyes, Russel Michael, a certain Dante and Pio Manjares were having a drinking spree at the latter’s house at Ibayo, Tipas, Taguig. While they were drinking, accused-appellant left for a while to go home. When he returned, he carried with him a .45 caliber gun. He showed this to his companions and asked them to hold it, which they did. Thereafter, he took possession of the gun and placed it on his waist. After a few minutes, accused-appellant suddenly pulled the gun out and pointed it closely to Ernando’s chest while uttering – “Ano gusto? Patay-buhay?”. He then pulled the trigger and shot Ernando at his upper right chest for no reason at all and even without any provocation coming from Ernando or from the rest of the group. None of his companions attempted to stop accused-appellant from shooting Ernando. They simply scampered away. Russel, however, returned to help in rushing Ernando to the Rizal Medical Center where he eventually died. By reason of Ernando’s death, his wife and family incurred funeral expenses amounting to P30,000.00. For the hurt and anger they experienced, payment for damages in the amount of P200,000.00 was also sought by them in the criminal case for murder filed against accused-appellant before the RTC of Taguig City.
To rebut the prosecution’s theory, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness.
Accused-appellant in his testimony denied all the allegations of the prosecution. He asserted that he does not know the late Ernando Reyes or his wife Evelyn, Russel Micheal and Pio. As a tricycle driver, he was just plying the route Tramo-Zapote and Zapote-Tramo from 2003 to May 26, 2005. He never passed by Taguig en route to Pasig between May 26, 2005 and September 14, 2006. From the year 2003 to August 26, 2006, he was residing at Sampaloc St., Admiral Village, Las Piñas City. It was only on August 27, 2006 that he started living in his cousin’s house at DC Clamp Compound, Ibayo, Tipas, Taguig City and that he started to drive the tricycle owned by his cousin John John Espina in Pasig only on September 14, 2006.
Accused-appellant claimed that on the fateful night of September 14, 2006 at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he was at Dolmar Subdivision in Pasig City. He was driving a tricycle plying the route Kalawaan-San Joaquin when three (3) men flagged down his tricycle and asked him to bring them to a certain place. Since he was not familiar with the said place, he refused to bring them there. They ganged up on him and boxed him. He suddenly took his screw driver and stabbed one of them and ran towards the Kalawaan Barangay Hall in Pasig. He surrendered himself at the barangay hall and reported the incident. He was turned over to the police and a case was filed against him before Branch 67 of the Pasig City RTC. He was acquitted in the said case.
During his re-cross examination, however, accused-appellant testified that he was jobless from August 17, 2006 to September 14, 2006. In the morining of September 14, 2006, he worked as a carpenter in Makati City from 8:00 o’clock in the morning to 8:00 o’clock in the evening. At around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he started driving his tricycle and was arrested at 10:30 o’clock in the evening at Dolmar Subdivision contrary to what was stated in the Booking and Information Sheet that he was arrested on September 18, 2006. He learned about the charge against him four (4) days after he was detained.
After the prosecution and the defense rested their respective cases, the court a quo rendered its assailed Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
Dissatisfied, accused-appellant filed this appeal challenging the said Decision and assigning a lone error for resolution of this Court, to wit:
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[5]
Accused-appellant asserts that the fact and cause of death of Ernando Reyes, Jr. were not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The “medico-legal certificate” stating that the victim died of “Gunshot wound, trunk” was not identified by the doctor who prepared it or by the one who treated the victim. Thus, it has no evidentiary weight. Likewise, the death certificate of the victim carries no probative value as the same constitutes hearsay evidence. It was not authenticated by any expert witness. Its genuineness and due execution were not also established.
Accused-appellant further insists that the element of intent to kill was not duly proven arguing that the lone gunshot wound sustained by Ernando was not proven to be fatal enough to cause his death. Therefore, he should be acquitted for the prosecution’s failure to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded him by the Constitution.
In its Appellee’s Brief, the People refutes every argument raised by accused-appellant and recommends the affirmation of the challenged decision.
After a careful scrutiny of the records and evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, WE find the appeal to be absolutely without merit.
It is glaring from the records that the prosecution was able to clearly establish that Ernando was killed and that it was accused-appellant who killed him.
The following testimony of prosecution eyewitness Russel Michael shows beyond cavil that accused-appellant shot Ernando with a .45 caliber gun, to wit:
On cross examination, Russel maintained and never waned in his account of the incident, viz –
In your affidavit, Mr. witness, you mentioned that “umuwi sa bahay nila itong si JR”, so he left the area, is that correct, Mr. witness? Yes, sir. Then he returned? Yes, sir. And in fact when he returned, that was the time that he showed the gun, is that correct, Mr. witness? He even asked us to hold the gun, sir. When he returned to the drinking area, did the accused already have the gun in his possession? Yes, sir. And he showed it to you, is that correct? Yes, sir. Individually, Mr. witness, to the four (4) of you? Yes, sir. Did anyone of you hold the gun? Yes, sir. And after all of you held the gun, the accused took it and put it back in his waist, is that correct, Mr. witness? Yes, sir. So, now, Mr. witness, after a few moments, from the time that he put back his gun to his waist and to the time that he pulled it again, how many minutes transpired? About three (3) minutes, sir. And when he took the gun again from his waist, that was the time he mentioned the words, “Ano gusto? Patay-buhay?”, is that correct? Yes, sir. To whom did the accused address these words? Ernando Reyes, sir. Was Ernando Reyes beside the accused? Yes, sir? xxxxx Now, Mr. witness, when the accused uttered “Ano gusto? Patay-buhay?” what was your reaction? None, sir. How about from the time the accused pulled his gun and pointed to the chest of the deceased, what was your reaction? None, sir. Now, Mr. witness, when the accused pulled the gun and pointed to the chest of the deceased, how far was the barrel of the .45 from the chest of the accused? Almost touching the chest, sir. Now, when you saw that, you did not do anything? We scampered away, sir. Including your three (3) companions? Yes, sir. Did they not attempt to stop the accused from doing that? No, sir, we just scampered away, sir. xxxxx Now, in the length of time, Mr. witness, when you saw the deceased with a gun on his chest, you did not even try to help him? No, sir. You did not care for him, Mr. witness? I helped in bringing him to the hospital, sir.”[7]
The testimony of Ernando’s wife confirmed that the victim died as a result of the gunshot wound he sustained after he was brought to the hospital, thus –
From the foregoing direct, clear, and candid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it was clearly shown that accused-appellant killed the unsuspecting victim by shooting him at close range with a .45 caliber gun on the chest while they were having a drinking spree in the house of Pio at Ibayo, Tipas, Taguig without any provocation coming from the victim. Accused-appellant’s bare denial and alibi are not convincing enough to exculpate him of the crime charged. They cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witness, Russel Michael, that he was the one who shot Ernando which resulted in the latter’s death. Besides, positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[9]
Treachery was also correctly appreciated by the trial court. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense, which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.[10]
In the extant case, the suddenness of the attack against the unsuspecting and unarmed Ernando while they were having a drinking session without any provocation coming from the latter glaringly constituted treachery. The fact that Ernando did not immediately die after he was shot with a .45 caliber gun by the accused does not negate the fact that the latter adopted such approach to ensure the execution of the crime and prevent any defense on the part of the victim.
Clearly, all the elements of murder – namely: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide[11] – are present in this case.
In a further attempt to weaken the case for the prosecution, accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed to establish the fact and cause of Ernando’s death because of the non-presentation of the doctor who prepared the medico-legal report and of an expert witness to authenticate the death certificate of Ernando. He claims that the medico-legal report and death certificate of the victim are both hearsay evidence.
WE are not swayed.
The non-presentation by the prosecution of the doctor who prepared the medico-legal report and of an expert witness who would authenticate the death certificate of Ernando as witnesses during the trial is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The High Court consistently held that the number of such witnesses who should be called to testify at the trial of a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the prosecuting officer.[12]
It should be noted that the medico-legal report submitted by the prosecution was not admitted in evidence by the trial court for being hearsay as it was not identified and testified into by the medico-legal officer. It was only the death certificate that was admitted as proof of Ernando’s death for the same was presented in court and identified by his wife.[13]
WE see no error on the part of the trial court in admitting the said death certificate and in giving it weight and credence. A duly-registered death certificate is considered a public document and the entries found therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce positive evidence establishing otherwise.[14]
In GSIS vs. Jean E. Raoet,[15] the Supreme Court explicitly stated that:
“We disagree with this position, as we find that the respondent submitted sufficient proof of the cause of her husband’s death when she presented his death certificate. In Philippine American Life Insurance Company v. CA, we held that death certificates and the notes by a municipal health officer prepared in the regular performance of his duties are prima facie evidence of facts therein stated. A duly-registered death certificate is considered a public document and the entries found therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce positive evidence establishing a contrary conclusion. We also ruled in People v. Datun that a death certificate establishes the fact of death and its immediate, antecedent, and underlying causes.” (Emphasis supplied).
In the extant case, the death certificate presented by the victim’s wife to prove her husband’s death is a certified true copy of the original as certified to by the Asst. Registration Officer of Taguig City, thus, is considered a public document. While it is true that the cause of the death does not appear in the section stating “Causes of Death”, the same could be found at the dorsal portion of the said death certificate in the section “Postmortem Certification of Death” where the Medico-Legal Officer certified that the cause of death was “Gunshot wound, trunk”.[16] Hence, in the absence of any evidence to destroy the correctness of the entries found therein, the same is admissible in evidence to prove the fact as well as the cause of death of Ernando.
Further, Ernando’s death certificate is not the only proof of the fact and cause of his death. As already pointed-out, prosecution witness Russel Michael in his testimony categorically stated and positively identified accused-appellant as the person who shot Ernando. On the other hand, the victim’s wife, Evelyn Reyes, in her testimony affirmed that her husband died as a result of the gunshot wound he sustained. It is axiomatic that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[17]
Treachery qualified the killing to murder. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the same is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty, only reclusion perpetua may be imposed under Republic Act No. 9346 subject to the qualification that the convicted person shall not be eligible for parole.
As to damages, the award of actual damages in the amount of P25,500.00 as established by the prosecution is proper. However, following prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of Ernando Reyes, Jr. is increased to P75,000.00 without need of allegations and proof other than the death of the victim.[18] On the award of P40,000.00 moral damages, the same is increased to P50,000.00 to be consistent with current jurisprudence.[19]
As to exemplary damages, existing jurisprudence has pegged its award at P30,000.00 despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The reason is to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example for public good.[20] Hence, the amount of P20,000.00 exemplary damages is modified to P30,000.00.
As explained by the Supreme Court in People vs. Jose Pepito D. Combate,[21] interest of 6% per annum should also be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, thus –
“When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v. Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.”
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision appealed from finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole and shall be liable to pay to the heirs of Ernando Reyes, Jr. the following: the amount of P25,500.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam, (Chairperson), and Reyes-Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Record, p. 229.
[2] Ibid, pp. 222-226.
[3] Ibid, p. 46.
[4] Ibid, p. 49
[5] Rollo, p. 28.
[6] TSN dated November 19, 2008, pp. 5-11
[7] TSN dated November 19, 2008, pp. 19-25.
[8] TSN dated February 11, 2009, pp. 6-7 & 10.
[9] See People vs. Marcos Asuela, et al., G.R. Nos. 140393-94, February 04, 2002; People vs. Andres Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998.
[10] See People vs. Esperidion Balais, G.R. No. 173242, September 17, 2008; People vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999.
[11] See People vs. Fernando Sameniano, G.R. No. 183703, January 20, 2009.
[12] See People vs. Efren Cabebe, G.R. No. 125910, May 21, 1998.
[13] See Order dated January 19, 2011, Record, p. 171.
[14] See Felipa Delfin, et al. vs. Presentacion D. Billones, et al., G.R. NO. 146550, March 17, 2006.
[15] G.R. No. 157038, December 23, 2009.
[16] See Exhibit “G” of the prosecution, Record, p. 165.
[17] See People vs. Esperidion Balais, G.R. No. 173242, September 17, 2008.
[18] People vs. Dante Dulay, G.R. No. 194629, April 21, 2014; People vs. Restituto Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July 06, 2011; People vs. Mitsuel L. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010.
[19] See People vs. Agripino Guevarra, G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008;
[20] See People vs. Jose Pepito D. Combate’, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010; People vs. Reynaldo Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010.
[21] G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010.