PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO CLAUDIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This case was certified and elevated to this Court by the Court of
Appeals pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court after it had
reviewed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115,
which convicted the appellant of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, but with
modifications increasing the penalty imposed and the amount of indemnity. However, pursuant to paragraph 3. Section 13 of Rule 124, which provides:

“Whenever a Criminal
Cases Division should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life
imprisonment should be imposed in a case,
the said Division after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall
render judgment imposing the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua
as the circumstances warrant, refrain from enter­ing judgment and
forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review.”

the Court of Appeals certified to Us the
instant case for final determination.

The facts of the case as found by the trial court and the Court
of Appeals, are as follows:

“The evidence revealed that the victim Freddie Flores was the son of Leonida Flores; that
the accused and the victim were friends; that Leonida Flores had known the
accused for seven years; that on December 2, 1986, about 10 in the evening the
accused, accompanied by Atoy Silvestre and one alias Dodong dropped by the
place at 199 Kalayaan Compound in Malibay, Pasay and invited the victim for a stroll,
at the Plaza in Malibay. Leonida Flores
did not know where they would
go; she did not easily give her consent to the invitation. That shortly, after her son left with the
accused and his companions, Leonida
Flores asked her nephew, Gerardo Unawa, to follow Freddie Flores. Evelyn Flores whom her mother had also
asked, left and followed Freddie Flores to the Plaza. That it did not take long after she left, Evelyn returned to the
house and informed her mother, that something bad happened to her Freddie
Flores. She saw at the Plaza Gerardo
Unawa holding her brother lying on the ground with head injuries. At the Plaza Leonida Flores found her son,
lying on the ground and bleeding. They
rushed him to the Philippine General Hospital in a taxi where he was treated. At the Hospital Leoni­da Flores, was able to
talk with Freddie. When she asked him
who hit him on the head. Freddie Flores
told her that it was Leonardo Claudio. That she asked her son how he feels and the victim answered; that (he] may not survive. Evelyn Flores was present and she heard Freddie Flores told [sic]
that to her mother. Freddie Flores died
on December 9, .1986 (Exh. A). That as
per the Autopsy Report rendered by Dr. Maximo Reyes, who conducted the Autopsy,
the victim suffered:

‘Cyanosis, lips and fingernailbeds.

‘Tracheostomy, 2.0 cm. anterior aspect of the neck.

‘Surgical incision, right fronto-temporo parieto-occipital region
33.0 cm. sutured with some chip bones missing.

‘Lungs, heavy, voluminous, soggy and violaceous, mottled in
appearance, particularly it’s surfaces: cut sec­tions showed severe congestion with areas of atelectic and emphysema­tous
changes and oozes purulent materials partic­ularly consolidations.

‘Hemorrhage, menin­geal; epidural, subdural and subarachnoidal, con­sisting
of fluid and clotted blood over the right cerebral hemisphere and basal
portion.

‘Heart, covered with moderate amount of adipose tissues and
chambers filled with minimal amount of dark fluid blood.

‘Other visceral organs are congested.

‘Stomach, 1/4 filled with brownish fluid mate­rials.’

“The evidence also disclosed that Gerardo Unawa, who followed
the victim to the Plaza, saw Leonardo Claudio the accused hit Freddie Flores on
the head [with] a lead pipe from behind; that at the time Atoy Silvestre was
talking with Freddie Flores when he was hit with the lead pipe, measuring 3/4
inch thick and about half meter long. Gerardo Unawa was 10 – 15 meters away at the time when he shouted to the
accused, Nardo, he run together with his companions Atoy Silvestre and alias
Dodong (TSN, Oct. 20/87). (Records, pp. 164-165).” (p. 68, Rollo:
pp. 3-4, Decision.)

The following information for Murder was filed against
defendant-appellant Leonardo Claudio in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 115:

“That on or about the 2nd day of December, 1986, in Pasay
City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, Leonardo Claudio, with intent to kill and by
means of treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
suddenly, unexpectedly and without warning, and to insure that there would not
be any risk to himself, attack, assault and hit Freddie Flores with a pipe said
accused was then provided with, inflicting upon said Freddie Flores fatal injuries in the head which caused his death.” (p. 4, Rollo.)

When arraigned on July 23, 1987, appellant entered a plea of not
guilty. Trial ensued thereafter, and on
December 29, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the
accused. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:

“All the premises considered and finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, the Court sentences Accused
LEONARDO CLAUDIO to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Temporal maximum to
Reclusion Perpetua (the death penalty having been abolished in the 1987
Constitution). Consid­ering the absence
of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty in its medium
period or from 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years. For pur­poses of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period or from 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months, to indemnify the heirs of Eddie Flores for his death the amount of
P20.000.00 and to reimburse them for hospitaliza­tion and burial expenses of
P7,469.46 and to pay the cost of the proceedings.” (pp. 167-168, Records.)

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that the
trial court erred:

1. in giving full and
total credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses;

2. in failing to
appreciate the evidence in favor of the ac­cused-appellant; and

3. in convicting the
accused appellant when his guilt has not been duly proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

The Court of Appeals found no cogent reason to disturb the
judgment of the trial court, but it in­creased the penalty meted to the accused
from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, and likewise increased his civil liability
from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. However,
pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124, it did not enter judgment but certified sua
sponte the case to us for
final determination.

Bereft of merit is appellant’s contention that the trial court
erred in giving full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who
were relatives of the victim: Leonida Flores being his mother, Evelyn Flores,
his sister, and Gerardo Unawa, a first cousin. We have already ruled in the case of People vs. Mision, 194 SCRA 432,
that the relationship of the witnesses to the victim per se does
not affect their credibility. Relatives
are not necessarily partial to each other. Some relatives fight among themselves. The factual observation of the Court of Appeals that even if the
prosecution witnesses were relatives of the victim, there was no credible evidence of bias and
prejudice on their part, is conclusive on us.

Appellant correctly argues that the testimonies of Leonida and
Evelyn that Freddie told them that it was the appellant who hit him with an
iron pipe should not have been considered by the trial court as part of the res
qestae, because the statement was made one day after the incident. It was, however, a dying declaration for it was
made by the victim under consciousness of impending death, as he did in fact
die.

The Court of Appeals appropriately did not give any credit to the
appellant’s alibi, an alibi being the weakest of all defenses. More so, when it is pitted against the testimony
of the eye-witness. Gerardo Unawa, who
positively identified the appellant as the person who struck the back of the
victim’s head with a lead pipe, and
the deceased’s dying declaration to his mother and sister that it was Nardo
(appellant) who attacked him. Leonida
and Evelyn had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the accused for, as far as they knew, he and Freddie
were friends. The clear and positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution wit­nesses is, as a general rule, entitled to more
weight than the accused’s alibi (People vs. Arenas. 198 SCRA

“Q – Were you able to reach the Plaza?

“A
– Yes, sir.

“Q – When you reached the Plaza
what happened?

“A – I saw Atoy Silvestre talking
with Freddie Flores.

“Q – How were they talking with
each other?

“A – I saw Atoy Silvestre put his
hand on top of the shoulder of Freddie Flores.

“Q – Will you please show to the
Court how Atoy Silvestre put his hand on top of the shoulder of Freddie Flores,
I reform my question. Will you please
demonstrate how this handling [sic] of Atoy Silvestre being on top of the
shoulder of Freddie Flores?

“FISCAL ABRAZALDO:

“Make it of
record that the right hand is on top of the shoulder of Freddie Flores.

“Q – When Atoy Silvestre talking
with Freddie Flores and his hand on top of the shoulder of Freddie Flores how
far were you then?

“A – 10 to 15 meters away from
them.

“Q – The relation to the position
of Freddie Flores could you please show that to the Court if where was this
Leonardo Claudio?

“A
– He was at the back.

“Q – Of whom?

“A – Back of Freddie Flores.

“Q – How far was Leonardo Claudio
from Freddie Flores while he was standing at the back of Freddie Flores?

“A
– Less than one meter behind.

“Q – While Freddie Flores was in
that position conversing with Atoy Silvestre and accused Leonardo Claudio was
at the back was there anything (sic) unusual incident that happened?

“A
– Yes, sir.

“Q – Will you please tell the Court
if what was that unusual inci­dent?

“A – Leonardo Claudio hit Freddie
Flores.

“Q – How, what instrument did he
use if you know?

“A
– Iron pipe.

“Q – Will you demonstrate (sic)
that iron pipe?

“A – A lead pipe, which is less
than half a meter in long [sic].

“Q – You said Reynaldo Claudio hit
Freddie Flores with a lead pipe?

“A – Yes, sir.

“Q – What part of his body was hit?

“A – At the head.

“Q – What happened to Freddie
Flores when he was hit by Leonardo Claudio?

“A – He fell down and my cousin
Evelyn Flores arrived.

“Q – When you saw accused Leonardo
Claudio hitting Freddie Flores with a lead pipe what did you say, if any?

“A
– I said, ‘NARDO.’

“Q – What else?

“A – No more, sir.

“Q – When you uttered this word
what did Leonardo Claudio do if any?

“A – They ran away. (tsn, pp. 5-9,
October 20, 1987.)” (pp. 8-11, Court of Appeal’s Decision.)

The Court of Appeals correctly convicted the accused of murder
for the killing was attended by treachery. The victim was attacked from behind without warning while he was engaged
in conversation with Atoy Silverstre. The Court properly increased the imposable penalty for the crime:

“But while we are four square with the findings of the trial
court, including its appreciation of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery we disagree however with the court a quo when it sentenced
appellant to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of only ten (10) years and one
(1) day to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months. In line with the
ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Munoz, 170 SCRA
107, the penalty should be reclusion
perpetua. Indeed, and as
correctly observed by the Solicitor General: ‘Under Article 248, Re­vised Penal
Code, the prescribed penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal, in
its maximum period to death,
which is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day
to death. There being no aggravating or
mitigating circum­stances, the prescribed penalty should be imposed in its
medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. The imposable penalty being reclu­sion
perpetua, the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law do not
apply. (People’s Brief. p. 14.)

“Similarly, the award      of
P30.000.00 by way of civil indemnity should be. as is hereby increased to
P50,000.00 conformably with the prevailing ruling of the Supreme Court on the
matter (People vs. Sazon (sic), G.R. No. 75814. Septem­ber 24, 1990; People vs.
Tesarra, G.R. No. 85531. December 10, 1990: People vs. Peralta. G.R. No. 67702, January 18, 1991.)” (pp.
15-16, CA Decision.)

WHEREFORE, we find the accused, Leonardo Claudio, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby sentence him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties
provided by law and to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased, Freddie
Flores, in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), plus the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.