PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS @ “JAYMART,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Zapuiz

The Case

People versus Zapuiz is a criminal appeal in which the State, as plaintiff, prosecuted Mark Joseph Zapuiz y Ramos, known as Jaymart, for the killing of Emmanuel Ramirez y Arellano. The accused was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, for shooting the victim once at the back of the head. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the classic battlegrounds of criminal review: the credibility of a lone eyewitness, the supposed conflict between testimonial and physical evidence, the weakness of alibi, the nature of treachery, and the damages and interest that follow a conviction.

Procedural History

The Information for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, on March 23, 2006. When arraigned on April 17, 2006, Jaymart pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated June 3, 2009, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, to pay 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 42,600 pesos as actual damages, with costs against the accused.

Jaymart appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated March 31, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, increasing the civil indemnity to 75,000 pesos and awarding exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal. Neither the accused nor the People filed a supplemental brief, and the accused raised the same assignment of errors already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On the evening of October 10, 2005, at around seven o'clock, Emmanuel Ramirez was at his house in Parola, Tondo, Manila, sitting before a table and writing something. The place was well lighted because Avon products were being sold there. Edwin Patente, an eyewitness, was standing on the street about five steps away when he noticed a man, later identified as Jaymart, walk past him. Jaymart positioned himself behind Emmanuel and fired a gun at the back of the victim's head. Emmanuel fell from where he was sitting, and Jaymart walked away still holding the gun. Edwin brought the victim to the hospital, where Emmanuel was pronounced dead on arrival.

The next day, Edwin executed a sworn statement before a police officer, naming the gunman as Jaymart and saying he would recognize him again. On March 16, 2006, police operatives brought Edwin to the Ospital ng Maynila, where Jaymart was confined for a gunshot wound, and Edwin positively identified him. The police then arrested Jaymart after informing him of his constitutional rights. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Romeo Salen showed a gunshot wound that entered at the back of the head and exited above the right eye, with the bullet directed anteriorwards, upwards, and medialwards, and the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head.

For his defense, Jaymart claimed that he was selling hairpins and combs with his parents in Divisoria from seven in the morning until about nine in the evening on the day of the killing. He denied any knowledge of the shooting and said he was arrested while confined in the hospital after being shot by a friend of the victim. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that Divisoria was only a five-minute tricycle ride away from Parola, where Emmanuel was shot.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the testimony of the eyewitness, Edwin Patente.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 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 perpetua to death if committed with any of the following 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 is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and it supplies the qualifying circumstance of treachery that raised the killing to murder.

On the meaning of treachery, the decision quotes the law in these words:

commits any of the crimes against a person, 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.

This definition is the test the Court applied in deciding whether the killing of Emmanuel was attended by treachery.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of murder were established beyond reasonable doubt: a person was killed; the accused killed him; the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance under Article 248; and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. The victim's death from the gunshot wound was undisputed, and the accused was positively identified as the gunman.

On the second issue, the Court refused to disturb the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the credibility of Edwin. Factual findings on credibility are accorded respect where no glaring errors or arbitrary conclusions appear, all the more where the Court of Appeals has sustained them. Edwin was positive and steadfast, the scene was well lighted, and he stood only a few steps away and had a good look at the accused as he passed by. The Court also held that the testimony did not conflict with the autopsy report. Because the victim was seated and writing, his head was naturally bowed, and that posture explained the upward trajectory of the bullet. As for the alibi, the Court held that it deserved little weight against a categorical identification made without any showing of ill motive, and that alibi must fail where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the scene. The accused himself admitted that Divisoria was only a five-minute tricycle ride from Parola, and his alibi was uncorroborated.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. The attack against an unarmed victim was so sudden that he had no inkling of what was about to happen. Emmanuel was sitting and writing when the accused came up behind him and, without warning, shot him at the back of the head, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself.

On the damages, the Court affirmed the awards of 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and 42,600 pesos as actual damages, and further imposed interest on all these amounts at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid, considering the delay in recovery.

Doctrine

First, factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent glaring errors or arbitrary conclusions. Second, a positive identification by an eyewitness who had no ill motive to testify falsely prevails over the accused's uncorroborated alibi, which must fail unless it is physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene. Third, there is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make, as when an unarmed and unaware victim is shot from behind without warning. Fourth, in crimes, interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum may be imposed on the damages awarded from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with the modification that the accused was further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim interest on all amounts awarded as damages at the legal rate of six percent per annum from finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that treachery exists when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the unarmed victim had no opportunity to defend himself, as in a shooting from behind while the victim sat writing. Examiners like to use this case on the primacy of eyewitness identification over alibi, on reconciling testimonial evidence with an autopsy report, and on the imposition of legal interest on damages in criminal cases.