PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GALILEE ROCERO Y TASOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Rocero

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Galilee Rocero y Tasoy, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The accused was charged with shooting one Ruben Baclayo Jr., known as Junjun, with a homemade shotgun in the early hours of a May morning in the Parola Compound in Tondo, Manila. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the qualifying circumstance of treachery when the attack is sudden and unexpected, and it shows the Court correcting a trial court that forgot to award moral and exemplary damages.

Procedural History

An Information dated May 9, 2002 charged the accused with murder. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial was held in November 2002, where the defense admitted the fact of the victim's death and the identity of the accused. Trial on the merits followed, and the prosecution presented four witnesses: the victim's mother, an eyewitness, the medico-legal officer whose testimony was dispensed with after stipulations, and the police investigator. The defense presented the accused himself, who denied the charge.

The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, rendered its decision in April 2004, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed, assigning three errors: that the trial court gave weight to incredible and inconsistent testimony, that it erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that, assuming guilt, it erred in appreciating treachery. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On May 5, 2002, at about half past midnight, Orcino Esidera Jr. and his friends, among them Ruben Baclayo Jr., left a dance in Area C of the Parola Compound in Binondo, Manila. They were walking along the road, intending to escort some companions to Gate 1. Near Gate 52, the group of a man known as Bambo suddenly met them. Without warning, Bambo fired a homemade shotgun at them, and Junjun was hit on the head and fell to the ground, bloodied. The friends ran, and barangay tanods chased Bambo's group.

Junjun was brought to the Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital, where he died that same night. Bambo was taken to the same hospital, having himself been shot in the buttock by a barangay tanod. At the hospital, Esidera pointed to Bambo as the one who shot Junjun, and Bambo gave his name as Galilee Rocero y Tasoy. The victim's mother testified to funeral expenses of 40,980 pesos, inclusive of 18,500 pesos paid to the Sanctuary Chapel, and a further 1,500 pesos for a marble slab, flower vases, and a candle stand.

At trial, Esidera testified that he stood only about one arm's length away when Bambo fired, that the place was lit by lamp posts, and that he actually saw Bambo shoot Junjun. The accused denied the charge, claiming that as he and his companions were about to alight from a truck, someone fired a gun, a commotion followed, and he was himself shot by a friend of Jaymart and lost consciousness.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution's principal eyewitness, which the accused claims was incredible and inconsistent with his sworn statement.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, defines and punishes murder:

Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or infanticide provided that any of the following circumstances is present: 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. x x x 5. With evident premeditation.

This is the provision under which the killing was qualified as murder, and the Court measured the evidence of treachery against its terms.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code, cited by the Court, is the basis for exemplary damages:

Article 2230 of the Civil Code allows the award of exemplary damages as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

This provision supports the award of exemplary damages, which the Court reads as covering treachery in its generic sense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the eyewitness testimony was credible. The accused argued that Esidera's sworn statement said "sinumpak kami nina Bambo," suggesting many persons fired, but the Court examined the actual statement and found it read "sinumpak kami ni Bambo" — Bambo alone fired. The phrase meant the shot was directed at Esidera's group, which included Junjun, and since Junjun stood only an arm's length away, the intent to hit him was beyond doubt. The Court also found no contradiction in Esidera's claim that he did not notice the group's approach but heard Bambo say "Hey, Jaymart" just before the gunshot; this merely showed the appearance was sudden and unexpected.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of murder were established: the victim's death by the death certificate, the accused as the killer by the eyewitness testimony and written statement, and the killing attended by a qualifying circumstance. The Court rejected the denial of the accused.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was properly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with no provocation, no quarrel, and no warning that gave the victim any chance to defend himself. The Court quoted its own doctrine:

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

The Court added that the accused's possession of a shotgun showed the attack was deliberate. Finally, although the trial court had awarded civil indemnity and burial expenses, it had awarded no moral or exemplary damages. The Court held that current jurisprudence requires 50,000 pesos as moral damages for the violent death, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages given the presence of treachery.

Doctrine

Treachery, or alevosia, qualifies a killing to murder when the aggressor makes a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, ensuring the crime without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. The essence is the unexpectedness of the attack and the helplessness of the victim, not the mere use of a weapon. A verbal warning that does not give the victim a real opportunity to defend himself does not negate treachery. Where treachery qualifies the killing to murder, it is an aggravating circumstance in the generic sense for purposes of Article 2230 of the Civil Code, so exemplary damages may be awarded. Moral damages of 50,000 pesos are warranted for the emotional pain and anguish suffered by the victim's family from a violent death.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but modified the judgment to order the accused to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, in addition to the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity and 60,960 pesos for burial expenses.

Remember This

Memorize the line that treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim who is deprived of any real chance to defend himself. Examiners use this case to test the elements of treachery and the rule that qualifying circumstances support an award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.