THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AUGUSTO F. GALLANOSA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GONZALES-SISON, M., J:
Briefly, the facts of the case, are as follows:
On 12 March 2003, two (2) separate Informations for murder were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon against appellant. The accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No.1631
“That on or about 6th day of November, 2002 at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon at Barangay Banogao, Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and treachery and abuse of superior strength accused Augusto Gallanosa, Sr. armed with stones and accused Augusto Gallanosa, Jr. armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Nonilon Frencillo, Jr. hitting and inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[2]
Criminal Case No. 1632
“That on or about 6th day of November, 2002 at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon at Barangay Banogao, Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and treachery and abuse of superior strength; Accused Augusto Gallanosa, Sr., Nonito Gallanosa, Minda Gallanosa and Gina Gallanosa, all armed with stones and accused Augusto Gallanosa, Jr. armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Dante L. Frencillo, hitting and inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[3]
Upon being arraigned, appellant assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.[4]
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that, at about 3:00 p.m. on 6 November 2002 the victim, Dante Frencillo (Dante), together with his wife, Maricel Frencillo were on their way to a wedding when they passed by the house of appellant in Banogao, Matnog, Sorsogon. All of a sudden, Dante was stoned by the relatives of appellant namely; Luzviminda alias Minda, Augusto Sr., alias Onto, Nonito alias Larot and Gina, all surnamed Gallanosa. After Dante was hit by the stones thrown to him, appellant appeared and stabbed Dante on the latter’s left abdomen. Immediately, Dante fell on the ground and died on the spot.[5]
Thereafter, the second victim, Nonilon Frencillo (Nonilon) appeared to assist his brother, Dante, but was likewise stoned by Augusto Sr.. As a result, Nonilon ran but was chased by appellant who caught up with the former who slipped. Nonilon, in a kneeling position then raised his hands and uttered “I will not fight you”. Nonetheless, his hands were hacked by appellant which was followed with a stab on Nonilon’s chest. Not yet done, appellant encircled Nonilon several times, each time stabbing the latter on his front.[6]
The defense recounted a different version of the facts.
On same date, Dante went to the house of Medel Gallanosa challenging the latter to come out of his house. At that time, however, Medel Gallanosa was not around and as such, Dante started throwing rocks at the house of the former. Medel Gallanosa’s common-law-wife, Annie Grace Ramirez, out of fear, went outside of their house and ran towards the house of Augusto Gallanosa, Sr., Medel Gallanosa’s uncle. After Augusto Gallanosa, Sr., opened the door of his house to let Annie Grace Ramirez in, Dante suddenly rushed towards Augusto Gallanosa, Sr..[7] Dante then tried to stab Augusto Gallanosa, Sr., but was unsuccessful. At that point, appellant appeared and was met by a lunging knife attack from Dante. Appellant, however, evaded the attack of Dante and was able to stab the latter with his own knife.[8]
Thereafter, the siblings of Dante namely; Bigo and Nonilon appeared, the first one holding a bamboo stick. Nonilon then punched appellant who scampered away. At that instance, Nonilon Frencillo started throwing rocks at the fleeing appellant. Nonilon then ran after appellant and along the way the former was also able to pick up a piece of wood. When Nonilon caught up with appellant, the former tried to strike the latter with the piece of wood.[9] However, appellant was able to stab Nonilon first using his knife.[10] Subsequently, appellant surrendered to a barangay tanod, Emilio Castedades, who brought appellant to the barangay captain of Pawa where appellant was whisked away by the police.[11]
Finding then the pieces of evidence of the prosecution worthy of credence and weight as against the plea of self-defense invoked by appellant, the trial court, as alluded to earlier, convicted appellant for two (2) counts of murder and at the same time, acquitted fellow accused Luzviminda Gallanosa for lack of evidence. The fallo of the said decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused Augusto Gallanosa, Jr. beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 1631 for the Murder of Nonilon Frencillo is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. To pay the heirs of the victim(,) loss of earning capacity in the amount of P5,878,800.00, P51,000.00 as supported by receipts as actual compensatory damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Likewise the accused Augusto Gallanosa, Jr. in Crim. Case no. 1632, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. To pay the heirs of Dante Frencillo the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
The period of detention of Augusto Gallanosa, Jr. is credited in his favor in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
In Crim. Case No. 1632, Luzviminda Gallanosa is hereby ACQUITTED and the case against her is ordered DISMISSED.
Issue a Warrant of Arrest for the other remaining accused who are still at large, namely Augusto Gallanosa, Sr. in Crim. Case No. 1631 and the other accused in Crim Case No. 1632, namely: Augusto Gallanosa, Sr. @ Onto; Nonito Gallanosa @ Larot and Gina Gallanosa.
Considering that the accused Luzviminda Gallanosa is a detention prisoner, she is hereby ordered released from legal custody. The Provincial Warded of Sorsogon Provincial Jail is hereby ordered to release the person of the accused unless there is a case for which she may be further detained.
SO ORDERED.”[12]
With the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the above decision,[13] appellant now comes to this Court for relief and in support thereof assigns this lone error for consideration, viz.:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER AND IN IMPOSING CIVIL LIABILITIES, DESPITE PROOF OF LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF SELF-DEFENSE.
In essence, appellant argues that he was justified in the killing of Dante and Nonilon as they both tried to kill him first. According to appellant, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely: Lolita Frencillo Espinar and Medina Frencillo narrating how Dante was ambushed by appellant and appellant’s relatives do not deserve credence as they contain inconsistencies and contrary to the medical certificates of the victims. On this score, appellant insists that there is no treachery involved as it was Dante who instigated the incident. Also, appellant claims that his voluntary surrender to the authorities should have been appreciated by the trial court in reducing his penalty. Lastly, appellant asserts that since no crime was committed, no civil liability should have been imposed upon him. At the very least, appellant points that even if he is civilly liable, the award given should have been supported by adequate documentary proof.
After sifting through the facts of case, as guided by the applicable laws and jurisprudence, this Court finds the instant appeal partially meritorious.
At the outset, a review of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the law on murder, is in order, thus:
“ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
xxxx.”
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[14]
Without question the first element is present as both victims were shown to have been killed by stab wounds. The medico-legal certificate of Dante reveals that he received a stab wound in his chest and that the probable cause of his death was “Hypovolemic Shock from Cardiac Tamponade secondary to Stab Wound on Left Chest Wall”.[15] The medico-legal certificate of Nonilon Frencillo, on the other hand, manifests that he received four (4) stab wounds in his chest and one (1) hacking wound on his left forearm and that the probable cause of his death was “Hypovolemic shock from Massive Hemorrhage secondary to Multiple Stab Wounds”.[16]
The second element likewise is not in dispute considering that appellant invokes self-defense in the case at bar. It is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the accused admits the commission of the act of killing.[17]
According then to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, “any person who acts in defense of his person or rights” do not incur any criminal liability provided that the following requisites concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Conversely, the appellant must be able to establish that all three circumstances concur in order for the appellant’s act to be justified under the law.[18]
It is then incumbent upon the appellant to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter was weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[19]
However, it is clear from the records of the case that appellant, right off the bat, failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victims to justify his acquittal. Worthy to note that unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.[20] Consequently, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense to be appreciated. Without unlawful aggression, the appellant has nothing to prevent or repel, and there is then no basis for appreciating the other two requisites.[21]
As between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Dante suffered an ambuscade and the testimonies of the defense witnesses that Dante attacked first, the former should be given more credit. Notably, the testimonies of the defense witnesses including that of appellant’s are full of glaring improbabilities and gaping loopholes that create a serious of cloud of doubt as to the merit of the defense’s position.
First, we find it highly unbelievable the testimony of appellant that Dante Frencillo at the time of his death was carrying a knife used in butchering a pig for a wedding celebration.[22] It is well to point that the wedding celebration occurred at 11:00 a.m.[23] and the pig has already been butchered before that time.[24] Certainly, there was no more need for Dante Frencillo to be carrying a knife at 3:00 p.m. when the incident occurred.
Second, appellant claimed that the knife used by Dante Frencillo was recovered by a certain Junior Garduque.[25] However, said bare claim is betrayed by the failure of appellant to subpoena said Junior Garduque to testify on this case despite knowledge of the latter’s address.
Third, appellant attested that when he first heard someone yelling for help, he thought that his mother fell unconscious as the latter already suffered a stroke before.[26] However, we find it highly illogical that appellant would rush outside of his house carrying with him a bolo knife if his first instinct was to assist his mother considering that the bolo knife would further impede his mobility.
Fourth, defense witness, Annie Grace Ramirez, testified that Nonilon, before he got stabbed by appellant, tried to hit the latter with a piece of wood which he picked up while going after appellant, thus:
Appellant, on the other hand, asserted that Nonilon was holding a knife which he tried to thrust upon appellant, hence:
Last, Annie Grace Ramirez testified that after Dante Frencillo was stabbed, she saw the latter’s two siblings, Nonilon and Bigo Frencillo, the latter holding a bamboo stick. Immediately, Nonilon approached appellant and boxed the latter, thus:
In appellant’s version of facts, however, there was no mention of Bigo Frencillo or any bamboo stick and that Nonilon first ran after appellant’s brother, Nonito Gallanosa, before turning his attention to appellant.[30]
All told, material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the testimonies of the defense witnesses convinced us that they were merely concocted to justify the killing of the victims.
At the other side of the coin, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were in unison in stating that Dante was merely on his way to the wedding celebration when he was attacked by appellant and the latter’s family. The sudden and unexpected attack on Dante likewise proves that it was deliberately done to insure its success as Dante did not have time to offer an effective defense. The relevant portion of the testimony of Lolita Erencillo Espinar reads:
The relevant portion of the testimony of Maricel Frencillo, meanwhile states:
As to the death of Nonilon, though he was aware that he would be plunging himself into harm’s way by rushing towards the aid of his brother, Dante, the manner by which Nonilon was killed nonetheless, shows that it happened in a treacherous manner.
As testified to by the prosecution witnesses Nonilon was already on his knees, arms raised up and pleading to appellant that he would no longer fight him, yet his entreaty was only met by a merciless swish of appellant’s bolo knife, hitting Nonilon’s arms. Unsatisfied, appellant jabbed Nonilon’s chest several times more with same bolo knife, resulting into a total of four (4) stab wounds. The relevant testimony of Lolita Frencillo Espinar describes Nonilon’s grisly death as follows:
It has been held that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[34] Thus, it has been ruled that treachery is present where the victim was shot while his hands were raised pleading for his life as the victim poses no risk to the assailant.[35] In another case, the victim had his hands up, either to show that he would not fight, in fright, or to try toward off the shots that were to come. Consequently, the ruling was that there was treachery as the victim was in a defenseless position when shot.[36]
As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the same are superficial to overturn appellant’s conviction. Suffice to state, whether Dante was killed in front of appellant’s house or Augusto Gallanosa Sr.’s house is not significant considering that their respective houses are just four (4) to six (6) meters away.[37]
At any rate, well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. This doctrine is based on the time-honored rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh the testimony in the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[38] The findings of the trial court on such matters then are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, which is not true in the present case.[39]
As to the averred absence of injury resulting from stoning, the same should have been properly threshed out when the medico-legal officer, Dr. Rossana Galeria, testified. Unfortunately, none of the parties inquired about the stoning injuries nor asked whether the medico-legal certificates issued were comprehensive or restricted only as to the knife wounds. It is also possible that there were no stone injuries because they were not thrown with sufficient force or that the stones are not hard enough to cause any noticeable damage. Nonetheless, what is significant in this case is that it was proven that when appellant entered the scene he swiftly plunged his bolo to Dante’s chest without any warning.
As to the last element of murder, it is beyond dubiety that the victims were not in any way related to appellant.
Anent the penalty imposed, the trial court should have appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as appellant immediately surrendered to a barangay tanod, Emilio Castedades on the same date of the incident.[40] However, there would be no change in the penalty considering that murder prescribes two (2) indivisible penalties[41] and the lesser penalty would be imposed if there exists a mitigating circumstance.[42] In this case, the lesser penalty is still reclusion perpetua for each count, the same penalty imposed by the trial court.
We now focus on the award of civil indemnity and other damages in favor of the heirs of Dante and Nonilon. We sustain the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of each of the victims which is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission of the crime which caused the victims’ death. As to moral damages, the same should be decreased to P50,000.00 in keeping with the latest jurisprudence. This amount is awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims’ heirs as a violent death necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims’ family. As to exemplary damages, it should be increased to P30,000.00 per victim.[43]
Referring now to funeral and burial expenses amounting to P51,000.00 for Nonilon, the same were adequately proven by the receipts[44] offered by the prosecution which were not objected to by the defense.[45] The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[46]
With respect to the award of loss of earning capacity of Nonilon, who was a seaman, it is axiomatic that there must be unbiased proof of his average income.[47] However, the prosecution only submitted allotment slips pertaining to the period of March-June 2009 which amounts range from as low as P10,800.00 to as high as P29,720.00.[48] Moreover, the said allotment slips are clearly outdated as these were issued almost three (3) years prior to Nonilon’s death. On this score, there was no basis for the trial court to peg the annual salary at P360,000.00 in computing this award, hence must be deleted. In its stead, we award a temperate damage amounting to P500,000.00. It is given that temperate damages maybe awarded in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where the earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured party’s actual income.[49]
Finally, and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this decision until fully paid.[50]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED, such that the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Irosin, Sorsogon, Branch 55 dated 21 November 2011 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, appellant Augusto Gallanosa, Jr., is ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victims as follows:
Criminal Case No. 1631
1. loss of earning capacity in the amount of P500,000.00;
2. actual compensatory damages in the amount of P51,000.00;
3. civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00;
4. moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
5. exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00;
6. to pay the cost; and
7. interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the amounts awarded shall be imposed, computed from the time of finality of this decision until full payment thereof.
Criminal Case No. 1632
8. civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00;
9. moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
10. exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and
11. to pay the cost; and
12. interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the amounts awarded shall be imposed, computed from the time of finality of this decision until full payment thereof.
The rest of the decision are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carandang, and Sorongon, JJ., concur.
[1] Notice of Appeal, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 387-388.
[2] Records, Vol. 1, p. 1.
[3] Records, Vol. 2, p. 1.
[4] Certificate of Arraignment, Records, Vol. I, p. 33.
[5] TSN, 11 July 2007, pp. 3-5.
[6] TSN, 4 May 2005, pp. 7-9.
[7] TSN, 14 January 2009, pp. 4-10.
[8] TSN,1 March 2011, p. 6.
[9] TSN, 19 August 2009, pp. 6-7.
[10] TSN, 1 March 2011, p.7.
[11] TSN, 16 June 2010, pp. 3-5.
[12] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 369-370.
[13] Order dated 9 March 2012, Records, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[14] People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, 16 April 2012.
[15] Exhibit “1”, Records, Vol. 2, p. 10.
[16] Exhibit “B”, Records, Vol. 1, p. 10.
[17] People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, 14 September 2011.
[18] Ibid.
[19] People v. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, 7 December 2001.
[20] People v. Catbagan, G.R. No. 149430-32, 23 February 2004.
[21] Sombol v. People, G.R. No. 194564, 10 April 2013.
[22] TSN 1 March 2011, p. 13.
[23] TSN, 1 September 2010, p. 11.
[24] TSN, 1 March 2011, p. 14.
[25] Ibid.
[26] TSN, 1 March 2011, pp. 4-5.
[27] TSN, 19 August 2009, pp. 6-7.
[28] TSN, 1 March 2011, pp. 15-17.
[29] TSN, 19 August 2009, p. 6.
[30] TSN, 1 March 2011, p. 8.
[31] TSN, 4 May 2005, pp. 4-6.
[32] TSN, 11 July 2007, pp. 2-4, 14-15.
[33] TSN, 4 May 2005, pp. 8-9.
[34] People v. Tanoy, G.R. No. 115692, 12 May 2000.
[35] People v. Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, 31 March 1989.
[36] People v. Castro, G.R. Nos. L-20555 and L-21449, 30 June 1969.
[37] TSN, 1 March 2011, pp. 5-6.
[38] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 171085, 17 March 2009.
[39] Sumbillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167464, 21 January 2010.
[40] TSN, 16 June 2010, p. 4.
[41] Reclusion Perpetua to Death.
[42] Article 63, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
[43] People v. Villarmea, G.R. No. 200029, 13 November 2013.
[44] Exhibits “D-D4”, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 190-191.
[45] No Comment to the Formal Offer of Evidence was filed by the defense despite the Order of the trial court dated 23 July 2008.
[46] People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 188902, 16 February 2011.
[47] People v. Ibanez, G.R. No. 197813, 25 September 2013.
[48] Exhibits “E-E4”, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 192-196.
[49] Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521, 12 January 2011.
[50] People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 177763, 3 July 2013.