PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SOTERO CRUZ Y SAN ANDRES, ACCUSED.

The accused-appellant, Sotero Cruz y San Andres, was charged before
the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region at Pasig, Metro Manila,
Branch 164, with the crime of murder committed as follows:

“That, on or about the 12th day of May, 1989, in the municipality
of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, with intent to
kill, treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior
strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot with the said handgun one Gerardo Lim y Escanilla @ Gerry on
the left eyebrow, as a result of which said Gerardo Lim y Escanilla sustained
mortal wounds which caused his immediate death.

“Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 10)

Upon arraignment, the accused entered the plea of not guilty to
the offense charged. After trial on the
merits, the lower court rendered its judgment on June 22, 1990, the dispositive
portion of which states:

“ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds the accused SOTERO CRUZ y SAN ANDRES
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as charged for the
killing of Gerardo Lim; and therefore, hereby imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, there being no mitigating or generic aggravating circumstances
(People vs. Millora, G.R. Nos. 38968-70, February 9, 1989) present; and to pay
the amount of P30,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as compensatory damages as
well as to pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 18)

Thus, this present recourse with the following assignment of
errors:

“ARGUMENTS

First Assignment of Error

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE KILLING OF GERARDO
LIM WAS ACCIDENTAL (WITH NO INTENT TO KILL) WHEN THE GUN, THAT THE ACCUSED WAS
HANDING WENT OFF.

Second Assignment of
Error

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT TREACHERY WAS IN
ATTENDANCE IN THE KILLING OF GERARDO LIM.” (Rollo, pp. 38 and 52)

The antecedent facts of this case are
narrated by the Solicitor General in his brief, to wit:

“Aside from being ‘compadres’ for having stood as sponsors in the
baptism of the son of a certain Nestor Lacuestas, appellant was also a driver
of one of the two tricycles of victim Gerardo Lim. Every time appellant had financial problems, he would ask the
help of the victim and would get angry if the latter could not help him. When the victim sold the tricycle he was
driving, appellant resented it and bore a grudge against the former (pp. 3-4,
8-9, tsn, May 3, 1991; pp. 2-3, tsn, June 5, 1990).

“At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 12, 1989, the victim
and a co-tricycle driver were conversing along Banaag Street, Pineda, Pasig,
Metro Manila waiting for passengers. Suddenly, appellant appeared and approached the victim. Upon nearing the victim, appellant angrily
uttered, “Pare, walang presidente-presidente sa akin,’ as he simultaneously
drew out a gun from the front portion of his waist and shot the victim with it
point blank, hitting the upper left eyebrow of the latter which caused him to
fall on the ground (pp. 3-5, 8, tsn, May 9, 1990; pp. 3-4, tsn, May 23, 1990).

“Thereafter, appellant, who was still holding the gun, boarded one
of the parked tricycles and directed its driver to conduct him to the place
where people wait for ‘bancas’ to ferry
them across the Pasig river (p. 4, tsn, May 23, 1990).

“Meanwhile, the victim was brought to the Rizal Medical Center
where he expired from the gunshot wounds he sustained (Exhibits ‘A’ and
‘B’). Dr. Dario L. Gajardo of the
PC-INP Crime Laboratory Services, upon request from the Eastern Police District
of the Metropolitan Police Force (Exhibit ‘E’), conducted an autopsy on the
victim’s cadaver. Dr. Gajardo issued
Medico-Legal Report No. 0375-89 (Exhibit ‘G’), wherein he recorded his
findings, stating therein the cause of death of the victim as
cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to gunshot
wound in the head (pp. 4-5, tsn; May 3, 1990; pp. 11-13, tsn, May 9, 1990).

“Dr. Gajardo also prepared a human body sketch (Exhibit ‘H’),
indicating the injuries sustained by the victim. He explained that the presence of tattooing on wound No. 3 was
caused by unburned gun powder residue – meaning that the distance between the
tip of the gun from the skin of the victim could only be about seven (7) to
nine (9) inches. He also identified a
plastic bag (Exhibit ‘J’) containing a slug (Exhibit ‘K’), which was allegedly
found lodged in the victim’s brain (pp. 13-19, tsn, May 9, 1990).” (Rollo, pp.
6-8 [Brief for Plaintiff-Appelle, pp. 3-­6]).

We affirm.

The accused-appellant maintains that the shooting of the victim was
accidental. He claims that he was
having a drinking spree in his house; that upon being informed of the illness
of his son, he wanted to borrow money from his drinking companions but they did
not have any; that instead, one of his drinking companions handed him a gun in
order that he could pawn it; that he went to the “paradahan” (queue) of
tricycles because he wanted to pawn the handgun to his fellow tricycle drivers
to buy medicine for his sick and convulsing child; that he saw the victim, his
compadre, whom he always approached whenever he has problems, financially or
otherwise; that he approached the victim and handed the handgun to the latter
to pawn the same; that as he was handing the gun, the gun went off and hit the
victim; and that as it fired, he blacked out because of shock and could not
remember what happened next (TSN, June 5, 1990, pp. 44-47).

We are not persuaded. The
established rule is that the appellate courts will generally not disturb the
factual findings of the trial court as the latter is in a better position to
decide the same, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial (People v. De Mesa,
No. 87216, July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 48, 52). In the case at bar, the records clearly reveal that the killing of the
victim was no accident. The prosecution
witnesses, who were at the crime scene, positively declared that the appellant
shot the victim, thus:

Teodulo Nacion

Fiscal:

“Q.  Mr.
Witness, do you know a person by the name of Gerardo Lim?

“A.   Yes,
Sir.

“Q.  How
did you come to know him?

“A.   Because
he is also a co-tricycle driver of mine, Sir.

“Q.  How
about a person by the name of Sotero Cruz. Do you know a person by that name?

“A.   Yes,
Sir.

“Q.  How
did you come to know a person by that name Sotero Cruz?

“A.   He
is also a tricycle driver, Sir, like us.

“Q.  If
you will again see this Sotero Cruz, would you be able to identify him?

“A.   Yes,
Sir.

“Q.  Please,
look around the courtroom and point to the person of the accused Sotero Cruz?

“A.   He
is the third person seated on the extreme end of the bench. (Witness pointing to a person in white
t-shirt and denim pants and who when asked gave his name as Sotero Cruz,
accused in this case).

“Q.  Can
you tell the Honorable Court where were you on May 12, 1989?

“A.   At
the time, Sir, I was plying my route.

“Q.  And
at around 4:00 p.m. of May 12, 1989 on what place were you?

“A.   At
the time, Sir, I was in a queue among these tricycles.

“Q.  Where
is this place were you usually ply your tricycle route to get passengers?

“A.   Along
Banaag Street, Sir, in Pineda.

“COURT:

“Q.  Where
is Pineda?

“A.   Pasig,
Sir.

“FISCAL:

“Q.  Do
you know where Gerardo Lim at the time?

“A.   At
the time, Sir, Gerardo Lim approached me and talked with me.

“Q.  While
you were talking with Gerardo Lim, do you know where Sotero Cruz is?

“A.   At
the time that we were conversing and that refers to Gerardo Lim, Sotero Cruz
suddenly arrived.

“Q.  When
Sotero Cruz suddenly arrived, what happened next if there be any?

“A.   The
two of them talked first, Sir.

“Q.  When
they talked to each other, to whom are you referring to that Sotero Cruz talked
to?

“A.   I
was referring to Gerry, Sir. That at the
time Gerry Lim and I were conversing, he arrived and afterwards he talked with
Gerardo Lim.

“Q.  Where
were you when they were talking with each other?

“A.   I
was right there at the place, Sir. The
three of us were there in the place.

“Q.  What
happened when you have seen Gerardo and the accused here talking with each
other?

“A.   After
that, Sir, I saw Bong Cruz suddenly
drew out a gun and I heard a
shot.

“Q.  What
happened next after you have heard the shots were fired?

“A.   I
saw Gerry already in the act of falling.

“Q.  How
many shots were actually fired?

“A.   Only
one, Sir.

“Q.  And
what happened next after you have seen Gerry actually falling down?

“A.   After
I saw Gerry fall on the street, I was stunned and I stood there motionless.

“Q.  With
regards to this Bong Cruz and the accused Sotero Cruz how are they related to
each other?

“A.   They
are one and the same person, Sir. That
is only his alias.

“Q.  When
you testified a while ago you are always referring to Gerry. With regards to Gerry and the victim here Gerardo
Lim how are they related to each other?

“A.   I
have known this person as Gerardo Lim during all the time that we were driving
our tricycles. He was also a driver of
a tricycle like me. It was only from
his wife that I came to know that his real name was Gerardo Lim.

“Q.  By
the way, you saw Gerry or Gerardo fall to the ground. Can you tell the Honorable Court what was the cause why he fell
to the ground?

“A.   Because
he was shot, Sir.

“Q.  And
who shot Gerry or Gerardo Lim?

“A.   Bong
Cruz, Sir.

“Q.  To
what part of the body was shot at by Bong Cruz or Sotero Cruz?

“A.   Gerry
or Gerardo Lim was hit here, Sir.

(Witness pointing to an
upper portion of his eyebrow).

“Q.  What
is the relative position of Gerry and Sotero when the shot was fired. Where they facing with each other?

“A.   Yes,
Sir, they were facing each other.

“Q.  How
far were you when the shot was fired?

“A.   The
three of us were almost side by side, Sir.

“Q.  To
what direction were you facing before the shot was fired?

“A.   At
the time, Sir, I was right there in front of them. I was counting off some money (at this juncture witness glanced
up and said) then I heard the shot.

“Q.  Did
you happen to see the type of the gun used by Bong on that date?

“A.   A
short gun, Sir. ‘Debola’.

“Q.  After
the shot was fired and Gerry slumped or fall to the ground, do you know what
Bong or Sotero did after the fire was shot?

“A.   He
left, Sir.

“Q.  And
what did you do after Sotero Cruz left the place?

“A.   You
see, Sir, because of this incident, the shooting incident that happened and
which I witnessed as I mentioned earlier, I stood there motionless. I was in state of shock. As a matter of fact, I was trembling all over.

“Q.  Mr.
Witness, you said you were around when Sotero Cruz and Gerry were conversing
with each other. Did you happen to hear
what they were conversing at the time prior to the firing of the gun by Sotero?

“A.   I
did not know, Sir, the details of their conversation. All that I heard was that after Bong got angry he uttered these
words: ‘Walang presidente-presidente sa
akin.’ I don’t care whether you are a president or not.

“x x x.” (TSN, May 9, 1990, pp. 13-17).

Antonio Eusebio

Fiscal:

“Q.  And
while you were at that place on May 12, 1989, do you recall if anything unusual
occurred?

“A.   There
was, Sir.

“Q.  What
was this unusual incident all about?

“A.   About
the shooting of Gerardo Lim, Sir.

“Q.  Where
were you when Gerry Lim was shot at?

“A.   At
the time, Sir, I was in a queue of tricycles waiting for passengers.

“Q.  And
who shot Gerardo Lim?

“A.   Sotero
Cruz, Sir.

“Q.  If
you will again see this Sotero Cruz, could you still identify him?

“A.   Yes,
Sir.

“Q.  If
he is in the courtroom, please kindly point to the person of Sotero Cruz?

“A.   He
is the man, Sir, in white t-shirt with the word ‘Honda’. (Witness pointing to a man seated on the
second bench of the courtroom and who when asked gave his name as Sotero Cruz,
accused in this case).

“Q.  Can
you tell the Honorable Court how Sotero Cruz shot Gerry Lim?

“A.   I
saw Teodulo Nacion and Gerry Lim talking
to each other, Sir. Then Sotero Cruz suddenly approached
him, meaning Gerardo Lim (and at this
juncture witness raised his right arm
as if holding to something) and then
shot Gerardo Lim. Gerardo
Lim was hit on a portion of his
forehead near his left side and I
saw Gerardo Lim fall on the ground.

“Q.  With
what weapon did Sotero Cruz shot Gerardo, if you know?

“A.   A
small black gun, Sir.

“Q.  And
how many shots were fired?

“A.   I
only heard one shot, Sir.

“Q.  How
far were you from Gerardo Lim and Sotero Cruz when you heard the first shot?

“A.   In
my estimate, Sir, my distance from them could be around three meters, Sir.

“Q.  And
before the shots were fired, do you know what happened between Gerardo Lim and
Sotero Cruz, if there be any?

“A.   I
do not know, Sir.

“Q.  And
after Sotero Cruz fired the gun, what happened next if there be any?

“A.   Nothing
more that I know of, Sir.

“Q.  What
did Sotero Cruz do if there be any after the shots were fired?

“A.   After
that, Sir, he approached me at the place where my tricycle was, boarded it and
directed me to conduct him to the place where people boarding the banca have to
stay or to wait. ‘Sakayan ng banca’.”
(pp. 34-35, TSN, May 23, 1990, underscoring supplied).

The aforequoted categorical declarations
were not rebutted by any contrary convincing evidence. Appellant’s claim of friendship or of being
a “compadre” to the victim will not save the day for him. Friendship or even relationship is not a
deterrent to the commission of a crime (People v. Bilog, G.R. No. 76529, July
19, 1990, 187 SCRA 556, 564). Besides,
We find no evidence that would show that the aforesaid witnesses were prompted
by any improper motives or ill?feelings to testify against the
appellant. Consequently, the trial
court did not err in giving full credence to their testimonies.

We likewise approve of the Solicitor General’s observation that
“if the shooting of the victim were accidental, appellant would have come to
his aid and taken him to a hospital, instead of abandoning him and
escaping. Besides, if appellant’s
version were true, how come none of his drinking companions, or members of his
family for that matter, was presented as a witness to corroborate his testimony?”
Indeed, appellant’s flight from the scene of the crime sealed his fate. In People v. Balansi (G.R. No. 77284, July
19, 1990, 187 SCRA 566, 572-573). We
held that “… flight is a silent admission of guilt. As aptly put: ‘The
righteous is brave as a lion, but the wicked man fleeth.’”

Further, We do not believe that the appellant’s intention to see
the victim was only to pawn the gun so he could buy medicines for his sick
child. The trial court’s ruling in this
regard is in order. We quote:

“Moreover, a handgun is not an ordinary item of commerce. Even the accused knows that it is a
government controlled item and to a certain extent, banned for ordinary
use. No person who owns a handgun
legitimately will offer it to somebody for the latter to pawn or provisionally
dispose of. Much less will a person
accept such a controlled item as guarantee to a loan that he is granting
because he knows that its mere possession without governmental authority would
subject him to criminal prosecution that meets severe punishment.” (p. 17,
Rollo)

Lastly, appellant disclaims the trial court’s finding of
treachery. He avers that if treachery
was in his mind, he would not have approached the victim while talking with
Teodolo Nacion as the latter who was just beside them could have pushed him or
grabbed the gun; and that such frontal attack did not insure the execution of
killing the victim without risk to himself.

Appellant’s argument has no merit. The victim was unarmed. Both the victim and Teodulo Nacion did not have the least suspicion of
the appellant’s design to shoot the former. In contrast, the appellant had a gun. The victim therefore had no chance to defend himself against the
latter’s frontal attack. In People v.
Damo (L-60370, April 17, 1984, 128 SCRA 665, 669), We ruled that treachery is
present in the commission of a crime when executed suddenly and unexpectedly
even if made face to face. The trial
court therefore correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery
to qualify the killing of the victim as murder.

In its judgment of conviction, the trial court ordered an
indemnification of P30,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. Conformably with the recent court rulings,
this amount should now be increased to P50.000.00.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
subject to the modification as above-indicated.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.