PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, ALIAS “OLIT”, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, AND N…

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch XVI, Isabela in Criminal Case No. IV-781, finding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, with the attendance
of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating
circumstances of taking advantage of public position and evident
premeditation. The trial court
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay to the heirs of the late Jerry Calpito, Sr., the sum of P88,596.00 as
actual or compensatory damages; P30,000.00 as death indemnity; P20,000.00 as
moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the costs.

I

The information in Criminal Case No. IV-781 reads as follows:

“That on or about the 6th day of October, 1979, at Barangay
San Jose, municipality of Roxas, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC
NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO alias Olit, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES,
BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, conspiring and confederating together and
all helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and feloniously, with intent to kill,
attack and shoot Jerry Calpito, with an Armalite rifle SN No. 3267485 Cal. 5.56
duly issued to the accused PC soldier under Memorandum Receipt dated September
17, 1979 by the 118th PC Company, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on the
body of the latter, step and kick (sic) the victim several times, causing his
instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased Jerry Calpito in the amount
of P12,000.00, Philippine Currency.

That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
(1) ignominy, the accused having stepped and kicked the body of the deceased;
(2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) taking advantage of public position,
with respect to the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC soldier”
(Rollo, pp. 35-36).

A warrant for the arrest of all the accused was issued on
December 14, 1980. However, as of
January 10, 1980, only Nicanor Saludares and appellant had been arrested. On January 17, 1980, the trial court granted
the petition for bail of the two accused and fixed the same at P20,000.00
each. Having posted bail, Nicanor
Saludares was ordered released on January 22, 1980. On the other hand, appellant was ordered by the court to remain
in the custody of Capt. Alexander M. Bellen, commanding officer of the 118th
Constabulary Company, in Roxas, Isabela.

On February 4, 1980, Frank, Bel and Amor, all surnamed Saludares,
were arrested. Lorenzo Soriano, alias
Olit, was arrested the following day. They were all allowed to post bail bonds in the amount of P20,000.00
each and thereafter they were released from custody.

On the strength of LOI No. 947, as amended by LOI No. 1011, vesting jurisdiction on the
Military Tribunals of all crimes against persons and property committed with
the use of unlicensed firearms, the provincial fiscal filed a motion praying
that Criminal Case No. IV-781 be transferred to the Military Tribunal and that
the bail bonds posted be cancelled. The
prosecution reiterated the motion in a manifestation dated August 21, 1980.

Accordingly, on August 27, 1980, the trial court ordered: (a) the
cancellation of the bail bonds of the accused; (b) the issuance of the warrants
of arrest for all the accused except for Nicanor Saludares, who was reported to
have died; (c) the turn over of appellant to the Provincial Warden of Isabela
as he was not entitled to technical rearrest under Executive Order No. 106; (d)
the turn over to the said Provincial Warden of all the other accused upon their
rearrest; and (e) thereafter, the turn over of the case and the accused to the
Military Tribunal thru the Provincial Commander of the PC/INP, Ilagan, Isabela
for further proceedings.

Pursuant to the endorsement dated September 19, 1980 of Lt. Col.
Oscar M. Florendo, Isabela Provincial Commander, appellant, together with
Lorenzo Soriano, Amor Saludares and Bel Saludares, was rearrested; while Nick
and Frank Saludares remained at-large. On September 29, 1980, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case
against Nicanor Saludares on account of his death on June 7, 1980.

The accused, however, filed a motion for the reconsideration of
the Order of August 27, 1980 on the grounds that the case was not covered by
LOI No. 947, the crime having been committed on October 6, 1979 or several days
before the issuance of said LOI. The
trial court denied their motion.

By virtue of General Order No. 69 dated January 12, 1981, the
records of the case were transferred back to the trial court from the Military
Tribunal. On April 1, 1981, the
prosecution moved for the recommitment of the accused to the provincial
jail. The defense opposed the motion
fearing retaliation from a provincial jail guard, who was a relative of the
victim. On May 12, 1981, the trial
court denied the motion and set the arraignment of the accused on June 1, 1981.

On May 18, 1981, Col. Florendo informed the trial court that Bel
and Amor Saludares have escaped from the Rehabilitation Center of the
Provincial Command on April 10, 1981.

On May 29, 1981, the provincial fiscal moved for the
reconsideration of the Order of May 12, 1981, alleging that the accused were
not actually detained at the PC Headquarters and that, except for appellant,
the accused have absconded. Hence, to
prevent a miscarriage of justice, the provincial fiscal prayed for the
recommitment of accused Soriano and appellant at the provincial jail and for
the issuance of the warrants of arrest for Amor, Bel and Frank Saludares.

The trial court granted the motion and issued warrants of
arrest. Despite diligent efforts,
however, the other accused were not rearrested and hence, trial proceeded
against accused Soriano and appellant only. On June 1, 1981, they both pleaded not guilty.

Two years later, on June 1, 1983, the trial court denied
appellant’s application for bail but granted that of accused Soriano, whose
bail bond was fixed at P30,000.00. Being so persistent, appellant filed a second motion for bail, which was
denied by the trial court on June
1, 1984. He filed a third motion to fix
bail, which was likewise denied.

Relying on the provisions of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1850,
appellant filed an urgent motion praying that he be transferred to the custody
of Col. Alfonso M. Mesa, then
Provincial Commander of Isabela. The
trial court denied the motion. His
motion for reconsideration having been denied, appellant filed a petition for certiorari
before the then Intermediate Appellate Court, alleging that the trial court
acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to apply Section 4 of P.D. No.
1850. The appellate court granted the
petition and ordered the immediate transfer of appellant to the custody of his
military commander.

Meanwhile, accused Frank Saludares was arrested and he entered a
plea of not guilty at his arraignment. He was later allowed to post bail. Since Soriano and Frank Saludares were both out on bail, the defense
opted to present evidence on behalf of
appellant only and to submit the case for decision as soon as possible. Thus, after almost six years, trial on the
case ensued.

II

According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo
Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 P.M. of October 6, 1979
after attending the “pamisa” for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the barangay
road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant fired
more shots at him. Thereafter, accused
Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran
to succor her fallen husband.

Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while
accused Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who
would come near him. Faustina and the
other relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares’ group chased
them.

The body of Calpito was autopsied by Dr. Bernardo Layugan, who
found that the victim sustained four bullet wounds: (1) on the right lateral
side of the arm fracturing the humerus; (2) on the right lateral side of the
thorax between the 7th and 8th ribs with exit wound at the sternum; (3) on the
left side of the thorax, anterior, between the 5th and 6th ribs; and (4) on the
right fronto?parietal portion of the head “severing the skull and
brain tissues” (Exh. “F”). Dr. Layugan opined that the victim was in a standing position when he
was shot by someone positioned at his right.

Appellant invoked self-defense. He testified that he was issued a mission order on September 23, 1979 to
investigate a report regarding the presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio
San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. The following
day, he was instructed by Sgt. Dominador Ignacio to get in touch with Nicanor
Saludares who may be able to give him information on the identities of the
persons with unlicensed firearms in the place. When appellant met Nicanor Saludares on September 29, 1979, he was
informed that Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed firearm.

On October 5, 1979, Nicanor Saludares went to the P.C.
Headquarters in Roxas and told appellant that it would be best for him to see
Jerry Calpito the following day as a relative of the latter would be
buried. The next day, appellant went to
Barangay San Jose, arriving there at 12 noon. Instead of going to the cemetery, he went to the house of Nicanor
Saludares. From there, they went to the
house of Enteng Teppang to attend the “pamisa.” While they were
having lunch, Nick Saludares advised appellant against confronting Calpito
because it would create a disturbance at the “pamisa.” He also told
appellant that Calpito would surely pass his (Saludares) house on his way home.

Appellant and Nicanor Saludares positioned themselves inside the
yard of the latter. When appellant saw
Calpito, he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When Calpito was about three meters away
from him, appellant asked him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of answering, Calpito took a step
backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired twice at appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the
ground simultaneously firing his armalite.

After fifteen minutes, the police arrived and took the body of
the victim to the morgue. Appellant was
brought to the P.C. Headquarters in Roxas, where he was investigated.

III

The appeal hinges primarily on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. Appellant claims that the
prosecution witnesses, all of them being relatives of the victim, were
naturally biased against him.

This Court has time and again reiterated the principle that it
will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the issue of
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies unless the trial court has plainly
overlooked undisputed facts of substance and value which would have altered the
result of the case (People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992]). Findings of the trial court are generally
accorded great respect by an appellate tribunal for the latter can only read in
cold print the testimonies of the witnesses.

In the trial before the lower court, the eye-witnesses testified
in their local dialect and their testimonies had to be translated to
English. In the process of converting
into written form the testimonies of the witnesses, not only the fine nuances
but a world of meaning apparent only to the trial judge, may escape the reader
of the translated words (People v. Baslot, 209 SCRA 537 [1992]).

The fact that the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the
victim does not necessarily indicate that they were biased as to impair their
credibility. In the absence of proof of
ill motive on the part of witnesses, relationship between them and the victim
does not undermine their credibility. On the contrary, it would be unnatural for persons such as the relatives
of the victim who themselves seek justice to commit the injustice by imputing
the crime on persons other than those who are actually responsible (People v.
De Paz, 212 SCRA 56 [1992]).

Appellant’s claim of self-defense is belied by the finding of the
trial court that the victim was shot by someone who was standing on his right
side. Appellant’s version that he was
in front of the victim when the latter fired a shot at him and that he
retaliated while dropping on the ground, crumbles in the face of the physical
evidence that the victim sustained two gunshot wounds which entered the right
side of his body and a gunshot wound on the right side of his head. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by
the appellant disprove the plea of self-defense (People v. Bigcas, 211 SCRA 631
[1992]).

Had appellant and Nicanor Saludares, Sr. not intended to harm the
victim, they could have simply apprehended him. Or, having verified that Calpito possessed an unlicensed firearm,
appellant could have reported the matter to his superiors so that warrants for
Calpito’s arrest and the seizure of his unlicensed firearm could have been
obtained.

Appellant contended that the crime committed is homicide. The trial court correctly ruled that the
crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was indeed
committed. Treachery attended the
commission of the crime. The two
conditions to constitute treachery were present in the case at bench, to wit:
(a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person who is attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted (People v. Narit, 197 SCRA
334 [1991]).

Appellant deliberately executed the act in such a way that his
quarry was unaware and helpless. This
can be gleaned from his act of waiting for the victim behind the hollow-block
fence of Nicanor Saludares and shooting the victim from his right side.

Evident premeditation was indubitably proven by the evidence
showing that the execution of the criminal case was preceded by cool thought
and reflection. Appellant’s resolution
to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive
at a clear judgment was shown (People v. Castor, 216 SCRA 410 [1992]).

In view of the presence of treachery which qualified the killing
as murder, the evident premeditation should be considered only as a generic
aggravating circumstance (People v. Fabros, 214 SCRA 694 [1992]).

The information alleged three other generic aggravating
circumstances: ignominy, abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of
public position. The trial court
correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of the autopsy conducted by the
doctor who failed to find any other injuries
such as bruises and contusions which may indicate that the victim was kicked by
his assailants. It also correctly held
that treachery absorbed abuse of superior strength (People v. Moral, 132 SCRA
474 [1984]).

The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public
position as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime
with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order
(People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951]).

Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant’s favor but
this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
position. Therefore, only the generic
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against
appellant. As such, the correct penalty
would have been death in accordance with Articles 248 and 64(3) of the Revised
Penal Code were it not for the fact that such penalty is constitutionally
abhorrent. Hence, the proper penalty is
reclusion perpetua.

The trial court correctly exercised its discretion in imposing
moral, compensatory and exemplary damages (People v. Rabanes, 208 SCRA 768
[1992]; People v. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 [1992]).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.