331 Phil. 491
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
That on or about the 28th day of May, 1991, at about 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon, at Sitio Mainit, Barangay Pulanbato, Municipality of San Juan, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a fan knife (balisong), with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one Randy Pendel y Galang, suddenly and without warning, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following wounds, to wit: 1). 2.5 cm. incised penetrating wound 9th ICS mid-axillary line left directed upward 2). 5 cm. incised wound nipple line perforating the pericardium and left ventricle (6 cm. Length) perforating the left lungs (lower lobe 8 cm. Length), which directly caused his death.[1]The accused filed a petition for bail and reinvestigation.[2] The motion for investigation was denied on 18 November 1991.[3]
On May 28, 1991, at about 5:00 a.m., Danilo Matira and victim Randy Pendel went to the house of Lucy Razon at Sitio Mainit, Barangay Pulangbato, San Juan, Batangas to attend a fiesta. There were many people at that house. At about 12:00 noon, appellant arrived and ate at the house of Lucy (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, pp. 22-25). At about 1:00 p.m., appellant opened his balisong and uttered the words "I will kill him (refering to Randy Pendel)." At that time, appellant was about two (2) arms stretch away from Pendel (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, pp. 26-27). Matira took the balisong away from appellant. Later, Matira returned the balisong to appellant who then left the place (TSN, March 8, 1993, pp. 27-28).Mr. Alejandro Pendel, father of the victim, testified that in connection with the death of his son, he spent P46,000.00[10] for hospital expenses,[11] funeral and burial expenses, and expenses during the nine-day novena, the 40th day, and the one-year anniversary.[12]
At about 4:30 p.m. of the same day (i.e., May 28, 1991), Virgilio Galang was walking along the road at Sitio Mainit. Galang then saw Pendel walking inside the fence of the house of Renato Samarita. Galang called and invited Pendel to walk with him. At that point, Galang suddenly saw appellant coming from behind Pendel with an open balisong (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, pp. 4-6). Pendel happened to turn and thus face appellant ("napaharap") (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, 6, 18). Appellant suddenly stabbed Pendel with his balisong, hitting him (Pendel) on the left side of the chest (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 6). Pendel stepped backwards with his arms raised until he reached a "santol" tree. Appellant again stabbed Pendel with the balisong, hitting Pendel once more on the left side of the chest (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 7). As Pendel fell down near the "santol" tree, appellant tried to stab him for the third time. However, appellant’s balisong hit the "santol" tree instead which cause it to break. Appellant then ran outside the fence of Samarita and fled to the south, taking with him the handle of his balisong the blade or pointed portion of appellant’s balisong was left on the "santol" tree (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 8). The people on the vicinity shouted that help be extended to Pendel. Pendel was brought to San Juan Emergency Hospital for treatment (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 9). He was operated on but died during the operation (TSN, Nov. 16, 1993, p. 22).
Meanwhile, PO2 William Perez who was then in the house of his brother-in-law, which is about six (6) meters away from the place of the incident, heard the shouts of the people and went to the place of the incident (TSN, July 27, 1993, p. 7). When PO2 Perez reached the placed of the incident, the people pointed to appellant who was then running as the one who stabbed the victim (ibid, p. 6). PO2 Perez arrested appellant. Matira arrived and handed to PO2 Perez a balisong (Exh. "C") and told him that "this is the balisong taken at the scene of the incident" (TSN, July 27, 1993, p. 4).
Dr. Marilyn M. Umali-Tejada of San Juan District Hospital, San Juan, Batangas, examined the cadaver of the victim and issued a Post-Mortem Examination, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Findings:
1. 2.5 cm. incised penetrating wound 9th ICS mid-axillary line left
directed upward.
2. 5 cm. incised wound nipple line perforating the pericardium and left
ventricle (6 cm. length) perforating the left lungs (lower lobe 8 cm. length).
3. Hemothorax 4 liters
4. (+) Alcoholic Breath
Cause of Death:
Cardio Respiratory Arrest Secondary to Fatal Stabbed [sic] Wound" (Exh. "H"; Record, p. 25).[9]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, RODOLFO CABODOC y ESTRADA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and sentenced [sic] him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and its accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of Randy Pendel in the amount of P50,000.00 for his death and to pay the amount of P46,00.00 as actual damages and the costs.The trial court held that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the victim was unarmed and the attack was sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without provocation. It disregarded the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, which was also alleged in the information, because the prosecution "failed to show that the accused ha[d] a prior plan to kill Pendel."[14]
[T]he defense waived the presentation of its evidence. It did not even bother to present and/or offer the exhibits it had marked during the trial and merely submitted its case for decision (page 4, Decision).These so-called exhibits which the defense had caused to be marked as Exhibits "1," "2," "3," and "4" were Exhibits "A," "B," "E," and "F," respectively,[15] of the prosecution, which the trial court admitted. The defense had them marked as its own during the cross-examination of the witnesses who testified thereon. Therefore, their offer in evidence by the defense was not even necessary. No substantial right of the accused was affected thereby. Presumably, his counsel had deliberately decided not to offer them in evidence as a matter of strategy to avoid being bound by all the contents therein which were in fact unfavorable to the accused, especially Exhibits "A" and "B," which were the sworn statements of witnesses Virgilio Galang and Danilo Matira, respectively, positively identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.
Petitioner asserts, and correctly so, that the authority of respondent appellate court over an appealed case is broad and ample enough to embrace situations as the instant case where the court may grant a new trial or a retrial for reasons other than that provided in Section 13 of [] Rule [124], or Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court. While Section 13, Rule 124, and Section 2, Rule 121, provide for specific grounds for a new trial, i.e., newly discovered evidence, and errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, Section 11, Rule 124 quoted above does not so specify, thereby leaving to the sound discretion of the court the determination, on a case to case basis, of what would constitute meritorious circumstances warranting a new trial or retrial.
Surely, the Rules of Court were conceived and promulgate[d] to aid and not to obstruct the proper administration of justice, to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hand that dispense justice, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion.
Thus, admittedly, courts may suspend its own rules or except a case from them for the purposes of justice, or, in a proper case, disregard them. In this jurisdiction, in not a few instances, this Court ordered a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness, negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident plea of guilty, disqualification of an attorney de officio to represent the accused in the trial court, and where a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts entered into by both the prosecution and the defense.
Characteristically, a new trial has been described as a new invention to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.
While the accused has correctly restated the elements of corpus delicti, he entirely forgot that the prosecution need not even produce the weapon used in the commission of the crime to prove corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is the body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e.g., the corpse of the murdered man or the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, it means the substantial fact that a crime was committed. It is made up of two elements: (a) that a certain result has been proved, for example, a man has died or a building has been burned, and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for the act.[22]
ADDITIONAL DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTOR Q You said during your direct examination that [the] third stab blow delivered by the accused Rodolfo Cabodoc landed on the santol tree which caused the cutting of the said balisong, after the accused Rodolfo Cabodoc delivered stab blows which the same landed to the santol tree what happened next? A The balisong was thrown away, tumalsik. x x x Q You stated that the knife you saw that it was thrown away, how far was the knife from the body of the victim when you said it was thrown away? A More or less two arms stretches. Q When you saw that this knife was thrown away what did you do? A I pick[ed] up the balisong. Q Then what did you do? A Then I gave the balisong to William Perez. Q Who is this William Perez? A The policeman, ma’am. x x x Prosecutor We would like to make it of record that PO2 William Perez is present in Court. We would like to request for the order of this Court that the said fan knife in his possession be delivered to this representation. Court Do you have with you the fan knife? Prosecutor PO2 William Perez delivered and gave the said fan knife to this representation. We would also want to make it of record that the said fan knife be given to the trial prosecutor, it is wrapped in a white paper properly stapled with the writing suspect Rodolfo Cabodoc; victim Randy Pendel on or about 281630, May 1991 at Sitio Mainit, Brgy. Pulang Bato, San Juan, Batangas. May we be allowed to open this knife, -- We would like to make it of record that the trial prosecutor is already opening the white paper wrapping the fan knife. Atty. Maiquez We would like to manifest nothing has been said in his affidavit regarding the fan knife that he was the one who picked up. Q If this fan knife which you said you pick[ed] up and gave to PO2 William Perez will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize the same? A Yes ma’am. Q I am showing to you a fan knife, what relation has this to the fan knife you said you pick[ed] up to [sic] the scene of the incident and immediately delivered to PO2 William Perez? A This is the balisong ma’am. Prosecutor We would like to make it of record also your Honor, that the fan knife, part of the fan knife has been cut, your Honor. Q What relation has this to the fan knife you said you delivered to PO2 William Perez? A I gave the balisong because he is a policeman. Q Is this the fan knife that you delivered to PO2 William Perez which you pick[ed] up at the scene of the incident? A I pick[ed] that up after it was thrown away. Prosecutor For Purpose of identification we would like to request that this fan knife that a tag be put and the same be marked as Exhibit C, and the blade itself, you Honor, be marked also as Exhibit C-1. Court Mark it.[21]
First. It was established that at about 1:00 p.m. of May 28, 1991, at the house of Lucy Razon, appellant opened his balisong and uttered the words "I will kill him (referring to the victim)"; at that time, appellant was about (2) arms stretch away from the victim; appellant’s attack on the victim was avoided because of Matira’s intervention (TSN, Mar. 8, 1993, pp. 26-28). At that point in time, it was manifest that appellant was determined to kill the victim. Second. At about 4:30 p.m. of the same date (i.e., May 28, 1991), at the vicinity of the house of Renato Samarita, appellant stabbed the victim to death (TSN, May 8, 1993, pp. 4-8; 18). The stabbing of the victim by appellant is an act manifestly indicating that appellant had clung to his determination to kill the victim. Finally, there was sufficient lapse of time (3 ½ hours) between the determination (1:00 p.m. of May 28, 1991) and execution (4:30 p.m. of May 28, 1991) to allow appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act (People vs. Mostoles, 85 Phil. 883). In fine, the circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against appellant.[27]We agree. There was, at the very least, three and a half (3 ½) hours that had lapsed from the moment the accused had indubitably demonstrated his determination to kill the victim, thereby manifesting a decision which could have been earlier or just then made. The sudden attack at 4:30 p.m. proved beyond cavil that the accused had clung to his decision to kill the victim. The 3 ½-hour period was sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. in People vs. Mojica,[28] we ruled that the lapse of one hour and forty-five minutes (from 4:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) from the inception of the plan to the execution of the crime satisfied the last requisite of evident premeditation.