454 Phil. 176
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
That on or about the 19th day of December 1997, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one ROMEO B. DOMINGO, by shooting the latter with the use of an unlicensed homemade shotgun, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which caused his death.Another Information was filed with the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 7967-AF, charging the appellant with violation of Sec. 1, pars. 2 & 3 of Republic Act No. 8294 (Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm), which reads:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
That on or about the 19th day of December, 1997, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one homemade shotgun, without first securing the necessary license to possess firearm from the Firearms and Explosive Division of the Philippine National Police, and said unlicensed firearm was used in committing the crime of Murder.The trial of the two cases was consolidated in the RTC, Cabanatuan City, Branch 27.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Ht: 165cm in legth ([sic].According to the doctor's testimony, the nature and location of the wounds and the type of slug extracted from the body of the victim points to the possibility that a shotgun was used by the assailant.
(+) Gunshot wounds, multiple, on the (L) supra-scapular area, as point of entry, (7), 5-6 inches away from mid-cervical vertebrae, 3-3cm in dia. with trajectory towards the (R) Ant. chest area, 1-slug through - through the rest non-through-through.
INTERNALLY: (+) Gunshot wounds, multiple, penetrating the (L) lung (apex & middle lobe).
(+) Gunshot wounds, multiple, penetrating the (R) lung
middle & basal). Extracted 4 - rounded materials embedded on it.
(+) Ribs & cervical vertebrae fractures. 2nd-3rd (ribs), (5th, 6th & 7th).
NOTE: Extracted 5 - slugs submitted to the investigator for exhibit.
CAUSED [sic] OF DEATH:
GUNSHOT WOUNDS, MULTIPLE, PENETRATING AT THE BACK.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the absence of any mitigating circumstance and in the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the Court finds and so holds the accused JOSELITO DELA CRUZ y DAMASO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH in Criminal Case No. 7966(AF), and for him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased offended party in the sum of P50,000.00, and the amount of P56,607.00, representing actual damages.On automatic appeal in Criminal Case No. 7966-AF, the appellant assails the decision of the trial court, contending that:
No moral damages are awarded as the same is subsumed in the civil indemnity for death (People vs. R. Daen, G.R. No. 112015, 26 May 1995).
To pay the costs of the suit.
In criminal Case No. 7967-AF, for Violation of Sec. 1, Pars. 1 & 3 of Republic Act 8294 (Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm), for insufficiency of evidence, the Court hereby orders the ACQUITTAL of the accused, without costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF ROMMEL DOMINGO.The appellant avers that Rommel could not have seen him shoot and kill the victim because the boy was inside the room upstairs, while the victim was in the sala watching television. It took Rommel about two minutes to rush down from the room upstairs to the sala where his father was lying prostrate on the floor. By then, the assailant had already gone out of the house and fled to the open fields. For its part, the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to Rommel's testimony that he was only half a meter away from his father when the shooting took place, and that he saw the appellant outside the house immediately after the shooting and even pursued the latter:II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE ALLEGED DYING DECLARATION OF THE DECEASED ROMEO DOMINGO.III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.IV
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[9]
Rommel Domingo had known the accused for quite sometime as he had frequented their place in drinking sessions with his late father. As a matter of fact, the accused himself had admitted that he had frequented the victim's store in search of drinking companionship [sic] and idle banter. Addedly, there was sufficient lighting inside and outside the victim's residence. Inside the house hang a 40-watt electric bulb and the lit TV set provided adequate lighting that helped the son identify his father's attacker. Furthermore, the son pursued immediately the accused after he fired the fatal shot at the decedent. Outside, there was another electric bulb providing illumination that helped the son identify the accused who stumbled to the ground and whose side view of his face was viewed - for the second time - by the young witness.The appellant's contention does not persuade. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of their credibility and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood and misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a reversal of the outcome of the case.[11]
Rommel Domingo is a credible witness for, aside from his youth and yet untarnished perception of truth, he had no ill-motive to ascribe something evil to the accused unless he, truly, was the author thereof.
The testimonies of witnesses Rommel Domingo and Leonora are credible as they are impressed with truth and logic aside from the fact that they have no ill-motive to so give such damning testimony against herein accused were it not, indeed, the truth. Even the accused had admitted that he could not see any ill-motive on the part of the victim's son for his testimony derogatory to him."When there is no evidence indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so moved, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit (People vs. Tidong, 225 SCRA 324.)"[10]
It must be stressed that Rommel had known the appellant for two years before the shooting and had seen the appellant and his father together many times having drinking sprees in their house. Rommel even called the appellant Kuya Lito. Considering Rommel's proximity to the victim and the appellant and the lighting condition in the sala at the time of the shooting, there can be no doubt that Rommel saw his father's assailant. Moreover, when Rommel ran after the appellant, the latter fell to the ground as he fled towards the direction of the open field. It was at this instant when Rommel saw the appellant's face:
COURT Make it [appear] on record that at 10:00 o'clock, the Presiding Judge, the Public Prosecutor, the defense counsel and the accused together with the court personnel are in the house of the victim where the alleged incident happened. Proceed with your cross-examination, counsel.ATTY. DALANGIN Q Will you please tell in what particular place were you able to see the accused immediately after the shot was heard?A He was already outside, sir. COURT Q When the accused actually shot the victim, did you see him? A Yes, sir. Q Where were you? A I was there, sir. ATTY. DALANGIN Q Will you please position yourself in the same position when you saw the accused? A Like this, sir. (witness demonstrated himself that he is seating [sic] at the third step of the stair). Q How about your father, where was he? A There, sir, (witness was about ½ a meter). Q How about the victim when the accused actually shot [by] him, how far was he? A Here, sir, (witness demonstrated a distance of about ½ a meter). Q Taking into consideration you were seated there, how did you see? A I turned my head sidewise, sir. COURT
Make it appear on record that the Court observes that the witness was ½ a meter from the victim and the victim is ½ a meter from the accused and by the demonstration as shown by the witness, the witness is in a position to see the accused.ATTY. DALANGIN Q During the initial direct as well as the partial cross-examination, you stated that the first time that you saw the accused after the shot was heard by you was in the field, is that correct?A Yes, sir. Q A while ago, you also demonstrated and in fact stated that you saw the accused right behind your father while watching the TV?A Yes, sir. Q Will you please reconcile, was it when he was already in the field when you first saw him or while he was here? A I first saw him while he was by the side of my father, sir. ATTY. DALANGIN Q By the time that you saw the accused behind your father, was there any light during that particular time? A Yes, sir. Q Which light was on on that particular time? A The light in the ceiling and the one outside, sir. COURT Make it appear on record that the light is 3 meters away from the victim and the bulb is 40 watts and the victim is about 2½ meters away from the TV.ATTY. DALANGIN Q And that the height of the bamboo post where the light is placed is 6½ meters. After the partial cross-examination, during the last hearing, was there any person [sic] talked to you with regards to your testimony now?A Yes, sir. COURT
Make it appear on record that on the rightside [sic] of the door about 3 meters, there is an electric bulb and from the front portion of the store there is also that light at the acacia tree.ATTY. DALANGIN Let it be placed on record that the wall, the highest portion is about 5 feet, Your Honor. Q Mr. Witness, at the time of that alleged shooting incident, will you tell the court if the acacia is at that present state during that night?A It is in the same state as it is now, sir. ATTY. DALANGIN Make it appear on record that the field is right behind the house, the edge of the field is about 10 meters and there is also another house immediately behind the store, which is a portion of the house of the victim. And let it be placed on record that the perimeter of the residential lot where the house of the victim is constructed is fully secured by a perimeter fence made by bamboo and barbed wire and there are bamboo trees from the left side of the house right behind the store.COURT The bamboo trees were cut after the burial. Make it on record that the Court left the premises at 10:40 a.m.[12]
Although the appellant had a head start, considering that some time had elapsed between Rommel's rushing to his mortally wounded father and his pursuit of the perpetrator of the crime, it could not have been impossible for the boy to have overtaken the appellant when the latter fell down after fleeing the victim's house.
Q Now, you stated a while ago, you were able to see Joselito dela Cruz running away is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Will you please tell to this Honorable Court, the exact position of Joselito dela Cruz when he was running away from the scene of the crime?Fiscal: Objection, Your Honor, the witness is not in a position, how can ... COURT: Question, at the first time you saw Joselito dela Cruz running, did you see his face? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Why, was he facing you or his face on the sidewise? A On his sidewise, sir. (Nakatagilidpo). Q For how long have you known this Lito? A Long time, Your Honor, about two years. Q Why has Lito frequently in [sic] your house or you went on [sic] his house? A I used to see him in our house, sir, he used to drink with my father. Q Drinking what? A Drinking liquor with my father, sir. Q How many times before the shooting to your father, was this Lito drinking liquor with your father? A Many times, sir. Q You cannot count with your finger? A Yes, sir. Atty. Dalangin: Q At that time that accused was running and you were able to see the sideview [sic] of his face? A Yes, sir. Q And when you were able to see him running away from the scene of the crime, what part of your house did you ever see him?A In the field already, sir. Q How far? A About three (3) meters, sir. Q And there were no other illumination of light in the field?
A Yes, sir. Q And how were you able to recognize him? A Because when he was about to run, he fell down, sir. Q How far did he fell [sic] down from the place where your father laying [sic] prostrate? A About 1½ meter, [sic] sir. Q And in that 1 ½ meter distance, you can recognize him? A Yes, sir.[13]