PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL M. CATAPANG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On August 10, 1994,
Provincial Prosecutor Dante H. Diamante of Quezon filed with the Regional Trial
Court, Quezon an information charging accused Rafael M. Catapang with murder,
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 2nd day of July 1994, at Poblacion,
Municipality of Candelaria, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a .45
caliber handgun, with intent to kill, with treachery and taking advantage of
nighttime to facilitate the commission of an offense, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and repeatedly shoot with
said firearm one Rictorino Aventurado, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wounds on different parts of his body, which directly caused his death.

“That the accused attacked, assaulted and shot with said firearm
said Rictorino Aventurado suddenly and unexpectedly without giving him any opportunity
to defend himself or to escape.”[2]

At the arraignment on
August 24, 1994, accused pleaded not guilty.[3] Trial ensued.

At around 9:30 in the
evening of July 2, 1994, Rictorino Aventurado boarded a tricycle parked along
Cabunyag Street, Candelaria, Quezon. 
The tricycle driver, Jonathan Garcia, started revving the motor of the
tricycle.  Suddenly, Garcia heard
gunshots coming from the passenger side of the tricycle.  He turned his head and saw a person pointing
a .45 caliber gun at his passenger, Rictorino Aventurado.  Frightened, Garcia sprang from his tricycle
and ran towards the other side of the street, near a restaurant.  When he was around six (6) meters from the
tricycle, he looked back and saw the gunman shoot successively at Rictorino
Aventurado.  The area was sufficiently
illuminated by a Meralco post located about one (1) meter from the tricycle.[4]

After shooting at least
seven times, the assailant left the scene, still holding his gun.  Garcia cautiously returned to his tricycle
and noticed that Aventurado was seriously wounded.  Thus, Garcia lost no time in bringing the victim to Bolanos
Hospital.  However, the victim was
pronounced dead on arrival.[5]

At around 9:30 in the
evening of the same day, security guard Joselito Conyado was on duty at
Shoeland Complex and Department Store, together with fellow guard, Pedrito
Mandigma.  Suddenly, they heard
successive gunshots coming from Narra Restaurant, about forty (40) meters away.  They rushed to the street corner and saw a
person carrying a handgun from a distance of more or less seven (7)
meters.  The person with the gun was
running.  He passed a 40-watt
fluorescent light.  Then, he accelerated
his speed and disappeared.

That same night,
policemen conducted an investigation and asked accused Catapang to walk in the
light in front of the police station to see if witnesses Conyado and Mandigma,
who were hidden, could recognize him. 
The two security guards saw accused Catapang and identified him as the
person they saw earlier with a gun.

On July 3, 1994, the
tricycle driver, Jonathan Garcia, went to the police station to give his
statement.  From a line-up, he
identified accused Rafael Catapang as the person who shot his tricycle
passenger.

Dr. Felix Encanto, in his
post-mortem examination of Rictorino Aventurado, found that the deceased
sustained 11 entry wounds and 9 exit wounds. 
From the location of the wounds and the powder burns, the assailant was
higher or at the right side of the victim and was just an arm stretch away.[6] The cause of death was cardio respiratory
arrest due to multiple gunshot wounds.[7]

Artemio Bermido, Chief of
Police of Candelaria, Quezon brought accused Catapang to the PNP Crime
Laboratory Service for paraffin test on July 3, 1994.  Accused Catapang was found positive for gun powder residue.[8]

Riza Aventurado, wife of
the deceased, expressed sadness over the death of her husband, stating that her
loss cannot be compensated in monetary terms. 
The death resulted in lost earnings and three orphaned children.  She enumerated her expenses for the burial
of her husband.[9] However, she merely presented the receipt
for the coffin she bought in the amount of twenty-five thousand (P25,000.00)
pesos.[10]

Accused Rafael Catapang
denied the charge against him.  He
alleged that at the time of the killing, he was sleeping at home.  He admitted testing positive for paraffin
but explained that it was because he fired the gun of one of the guests at a
baptismal party he attended that morning.[11]

Apparently, on July 2,
1994, the grandson of Domingo Vidar was baptized.  Accused Rafael Catapang, a friend of Domingo Vidar, attended the
baptism.  At the lunch party that
followed, accused Catapang drank a few alcoholic drinks.  He met Ruben Carandang and started taking an
interest in the .38 caliber firearm tucked under his waist.  Accused Catapang asked if he could fire the
gun.  Carandang agreed and handed over
the gun to accused Catapang.  The latter
held the gun for a few seconds and then fired 4 shots upward.  Then, he returned the gun to Carandang and
continued drinking until he went home.[12]

Accused Catapang came
home at 7:00 in the evening, slightly drunk. 
He then went to sleep.  His wife,
Daisy Catapang, later fell asleep beside him. 
At around 11:00 in the evening, Daisy heard someone knocking on the door.  She awakened her husband.  Accused Catapang left her side and opened
the door.  The person at the door asked
him to go to the municipal hall, upon invitation of the Chief of Police.  Accused Catapang proceeded to the municipal
hall and returned to his house after a few minutes.  He then went back to sleep.[13]

The next day, at around
10:00 in the morning, several policemen arrived at the house of accused
Catapang and took him to the police station. 
He stated that his house was merely two blocks or 150 meters from the
place where the killing occurred.[14]

On December 27, 1995, the
trial court rendered a decision convicting accused Catapang of the crime
charged.[15] The dispositive portion of the decision
states, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court finds accused
Rafael M. Catapang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and with no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, hereby sentences him to reclusion
perpetua and to pay the costs.

“The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Rictorino
Aventurado the following amounts: P50,000.00 as unrealized income due to his
death, P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P65,000.00 as actual expenses in
connection with Aventurado’s burial and other expenses and P20,000.00 for moral
damages.

“SO ORDERED.

“Lucena City, December 27, 1995.

(sgd.)
Guillermo R. Andaya

Judge.”[16]

Hence, this appeal.[17]

Accused-appellant
contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of
prosecution witness Jonathan Garcia. 
The entire incident happened swiftly that the witness could not have
taken a good look at the gunman.

We disagree.  The witness recognized the assailant because
of the light from an electric post that illuminated the area. Moreover, there
was no evidence of ill-motive on the part of the witness to falsely impute a
serious charge against accused-appellant. 
Where there is nothing to indicate that the witness for the prosecution
was actuated by any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so
actuated and his testimony is given full faith and credit.[18]

Further, the trial court
considered the witness to be credible. 
Having had the distinct opportunity of directly observing the demeanor
of the witnesses, the trial court is in a better position to ascertain whether
or not he or she is telling the truth.[19] Thus, the trial court’s appreciation of
credibility of a witness is given great weight.[20] The eyewitness testified in a candid,
straightforward manner in relating the event that occurred on the night in
question.  We find no reason to overturn
the findings of the trial court.

The medico-legal
findings, which revealed the position of the gunman through the location of the
wounds, likewise supported the testimony of the eyewitness.

Accused-appellant,
however, insists that he was sleeping at his residence on the night of the
incident and was not near the area of the killing.  For alibi to prosper, he must not only prove that he was
not at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident, but also that it was
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[21] In this case, accused-appellant admitted
that his house was only about one hundred fifty (150) meters away from the
scene of the crime.  Also, his wife fell
asleep and could not be certain whether her husband remained at home during the
time the crime occurred.  In light of
the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the
crime, his defense of alibi cannot be sustained.[22]

Considering the positive
identification and other evidence against accused-appellant, there is no doubt
that he was the killer of Rictorino Aventurada.

The trial court convicted
accused-appellant of murder, qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime.

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.[23] The essence of treachery is swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim.[24] In this case, the accused-appellant shot the
unsuspecting victim while the latter was on board a tricycle.  While inside the tricycle, the victim could
not put up any defense against the unexpected attack on his person.  Undoubtedly, treachery attended the
commission of the offense.

The aggravating
circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated separately as it is absorbed in
treachery.  Nighttime was evidently an
integral part of the peculiarly treacherous means and manner adopted to ensure
the execution of the crime, or that it facilitated the treacherous character of
the attack.[25]

The existence of
treachery qualifies the killing to murder. 
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
Considering the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the offense, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be applied.[26]

As to damages, the award
of P65,000.00 as actual damages must be reduced for lack of sufficient
proof.  The Court can only give credence
to actual expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been
genuinely expended in connection with the victim’s death.[27] The wife of the deceased presented only the
receipt for the coffin in the amount of twenty five thousand (P25,000.00)
pesos.  Thus, we consider this amount as
actual damages.

We sustain the trial
court’s award of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as indemnity for the death
of the victim.  No further proof is
necessary other than the fact of death of the victim and the accused’s
responsibility therefor.[28]

However, we increase the
amount of moral damages to fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, considering the
suffering that the heirs of the victim had to undergo because of the unexpected
death of Rictorino Aventurado.

The grant of fifty
thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as unrealized income due to the death of the victim
lacks factual basis.  Such
indemnification partakes of the nature of actual damages, which must be duly
proved.[29] No evidence was presented as proof of the
income earned by the deceased at the time of his death, except for the bare
assertion of his wife.  “For lost income
due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased’s average
income.  Self-serving, hence unreliable
statement, is not enough.”[30] Thus, the amount awarded as unrealized
income must be deleted.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Quezon[31] convicting accused-appellant Rafael Catapang
of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED,
with MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages awarded to the heirs of the
victim, Rictorino Aventurado.  Actual
damages is reduced to twenty-five thousand (P25,000.00) pesos and moral damages
is increased to fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos.  The amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos death indemnity
is sustained.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.

[31] In Criminal Case No.
94-563.