PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO M. JUDAVAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Judavar

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Francisco Judavar, a criminal case on automatic review of a conviction for murder. The accused was charged with stabbing to death Arnel Dato, a young man who was his rival for the affection of Margie Malazarte, at a Valentine dance in Caranday, Baao, Camarines Sur. The trial court convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty. The case matters for the bar because the Supreme Court, while affirming the conviction, corrects the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, reduces the penalty to reclusion perpetua, and restates the strict requirements for evident premeditation, for the credibility of related witnesses, and for a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Iriga City. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court on automatic review. While the review was pending, the accused filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which the Supreme Court denied for lack of merit. The case then proceeded on the accused's appeal, assigning errors against the conviction, the finding of treachery and evident premeditation, and the awards of damages.

Facts

In the evening of February 14, 1995, a public dance in celebration of Valentine's Day was held at the market site of Caranday, Baao, Camarines Sur. Sweethearts Arnel Dato and Margie Malazarte attended and enjoyed the evening together. At about two o'clock in the early morning of February 15, Margie momentarily left Arnel. As he waited, Arnel stood on one side of the hall and watched the people dancing.

The accused appeared and approached Arnel from behind. Suddenly, he swung his right hand and, with a ten inch knife, stabbed Arnel, hitting his right chest. Arnel fell to the ground bleeding. Margie ran to him, crying and shouting the accused's name as the attacker. The accused fled clutching the knife. A barangay tanod who saw the stabbing ran toward the victim and was himself stabbed in the back twice by a friend of the accused, and the chief barangay tanod sprayed tear gas and chased the accused but could not catch him. Arnel was brought to the hospital but was declared dead from hemorrhagic shock secondary to the stab wound.

The killing was traced to jealousy. Two years earlier, the victim and the accused had been rivals for Margie's love. On two occasions before the killing, the accused had punched Arnel and once warned that he would kill him if he did not part from Margie. The accused set up denial and alibi, claiming that an unidentified man with an icepick did the stabbing and that he left the hall when a commotion began. He was arrested in Iriga City in August 1997, more than two years after the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder despite his claim that the killing occurred in a tumultuous affray.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by evident premeditation.
• Whether or not the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages were proper.
• Whether or not the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should be granted.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes murder, provides:

Article 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 temporal in its maximum period 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.

This provision supplies the penalty range and the qualifying circumstance of treachery on which the conviction rests.

Rule 121, Section 2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, on new trial, provides:

Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: (b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

This provision governs the accused's belated request to present new witnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the killing was not made in the course of a tumultuous affray. Three witnesses positively identified the accused as the one who approached the victim from behind and stabbed him in the right chest, and their testimonies were credible, candid, and free from material inconsistency. The Court held that the fact that two of them were uncles of the deceased did not ipso facto render their testimonies biased, absent evidence of ill motive, and that they were corroborated by a witness who was not a relative. The stabbing caused the commotion, not the other way around.

On the claim of left-handedness, the Court held that being left-handed does not rule out being right-handed as well, since some people are ambidextrous, and that the accused presented no proof that he could not use his right hand. In any event, he was positively identified by three credible witnesses regardless of which hand he used.

On treachery, the Court agreed with the trial court. The victim was standing alone, watching the dancers, when the accused came upon him from behind and, without warning, stabbed him. There was no opportunity for the victim to defend himself or retaliate, and the suddenness of the attack ensured his death without risk to the accused. Treachery qualified the killing to murder.

On evident premeditation, the Court ruled that it was not established. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment, and it must be clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt by external facts. The prior punching and the threat were not sufficient, as they may have been made in a blind fit of jealousy by a spurned lover. Absent clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation are insufficient.

On damages, the Court affirmed the civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos as in keeping with existing jurisprudence, and affirmed the moral damages. It reduced the actual damages, however, because only four of the nine receipts were official, and the proven expenses for funeral services and for food and drink at the wake totalled 39,933.30 pesos, not 60,358.30 pesos.

On the motion for new trial, the Court held that the evidence did not qualify as newly discovered. The accused supposedly knew the identity of the alleged real culprit because he claimed to have seen the stabbing, so the fact was not discovered after trial. His detention was not a sufficient excuse for failing to locate witnesses, and the proposed testimonies were merely cumulative and corroborative of his defense at trial.

Doctrine

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected and the victim is given no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, as where he is stabbed from behind without warning. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time the offender conceived the crime, an overt act showing he clung to his determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences; it must be clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest on mere presumption or inference. Relationship of a witness to the victim does not by itself render the testimony biased where there is no showing of ill motive. A motion for new trial under Rule 121, Section 2 requires that the evidence be discovered after trial, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, is material and not merely cumulative, and would probably change the judgment.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction for murder but reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and reduced the actual damages to 39,933.30 pesos while affirming the civil indemnity, moral damages, and costs.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that evident premeditation demands cool thought and reflection over sufficient time, proven by clear external facts, and cannot be inferred from a prior threat made in a fit of jealousy. Examiners use this case to test the elements of evident premeditation, the qualifying nature of treachery, and the requisites of newly discovered evidence for new trial.