855 Phil. 352
CAGUIOA, J:
That at or about 1:30 o'clock in the morning of December 28, 1993 at the ground floor of Sing-Sing Garden and Restaurant, Villanueva Street, Butuan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, by means of force and violence and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously attack, assault[,] and shot with the use of a handgun one Edwin B. Bagaslao [(victim)] thereby inflicting upon him [a] gunshot wound on his head which caused his subsequent death.Upon arraignment, Menil pleaded not guilty.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code)[5]
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: Cynthia Rose Coloma, the victim's common-law wife, Ricardo Oracion Torralba and Dr. Renato Salas Muñez.Version of the Defense
Coloma testified that on December 28, 1993 at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, she and the victim Edwin B. Bagaslao were about to leave the Christmas party held at Tip-Topp Disco in Sing-Song Garden Restaurant and organized by the Butuan Bet Takers Association, of which victim Bagaslao was a member. As they were on their way downstairs, accused-appellant Menil pushed Coloma. A heated argument ensued. It appeared that accused-appellant was looking for the girl who left him on the dance floor and had mistaken Coloma to be that girl. Dodoy[6] Plaza [(Dodoy)], who was also a member of the organization, pacified the victim and accused-appellant.
When the two were already on their path on the sidewalk of the Sing-Sing Garden, accused-appellant suddenly came from behind and shot the victim. Prosecution witness Toralba, who was also leaving the party, was approximately one (1) meter away from the victim and accused-appellant. He saw the latter shoot the victim. Torralba also testified that accused-appellant ran away after the shooting incident.
The victim fell on the shoulders of Coloma. Dodoy Plaza and the other friends of the victim brought him to the hospital on board a police car. Coloma reported the incident to the police station and had the incident blottered. Thereafter, she went to the hospital where the victim was admitted. However, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, the victim died.
Dr. Muñez, who signed the Medical Certificate, testified that the victim was admitted due to "a gunshot wound point of entry right zygomatic area, point of exit left parietal region[.]"[7]
As for accused-appellant, he vehemently denied the accusations hurled against him.
He testified that on December 27, 1993, he was strolling along Montilla Boulevard at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening. There, he saw some friends namely Armando de Castro and Jose Tadyamon, who invited him to join them at Sing-Sing Garden where they sat themselves and had beer.
At around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Bagaslao and some of his companions, who were seated two tables away from accused-appellant, allegedly got very rowdy. Accused-appellant admonished them to behave themselves.
At 1:20 o'clock in the morning of the next day, accused-appellant and his companions decided to call it a night and went downstairs. On the way down, Bagaslao blocked his path. By the time accused-appellant was [on] the last step of the stairs, Bagaslao grabbed his revolver. Accused-appellant had no choice but to grapple with Bagaslao in order to regain possession of the revolver. Bagaslao then said to him, "patuo-tuo ka" which translates to English as "you 're pretending to be someone[.]"
After the grappling, a shot was fired. Bagaslao fell. Accused-appellant denies having killed Bagaslao.[8]
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, accused EDGARDO B. MENIL is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, for the death of Edwin B. Bagaslao, as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. The accused EDGARDO B. MENIL is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without possibility of parole.The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.[10] The accused freely admitted regarding the shooting, which resulted to the death of the victim.[11] In fact, he testified under oath that the firearm that was used to shoot the victim was his service firearm.[12] Further, the RTC held that treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing of the victim.[13] There was clear showing that the accused deliberately and consciously employed a specific form or plan of attack, which would ensure the commission of the crime.[14]
Furthermore, the accused EDGARDO B. MENIL is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Edwin B. Bagaslao, the following sums:SO ORDERED.[9]
- Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, as civil indemnity ex delicto;
- Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages; and
- Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos, as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated November 26, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 6048 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant EDGARDO B. MENIL is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion [p]erpetua without possibility of parole.The CA ruled that the prosecution witnesses positively identified Menil as the perpetrator of the crime.[16] It further ruled that the fact that the witnesses' testimonies were given only fourteen (14) years after the incident is of no moment.[17] Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses can remember with high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.[18] Furthermore, the CA noted that after the warrant of arrest for Menil was first issued, the return thereof provided that he could no longer be found in his indicated residence, thus the case was temporarily archived by the trial court.[19] In fact, it took eleven (11) years before Menil was finally apprehended.[20] Flight, in jurisprudence, has always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[21] Lastly, it ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim.[22] However, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.[23]
Accused-appellant is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of Edwin B. Bagaslao the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[15]
In the case at bench, the victim Bagaslao and his common-law wife were walking on the sidewalk, awaiting for their ride back home, when accused-appellant suddenly appeared at their back and shot the victim. To recall, although the victim and accused-appellant had an altercation at the stairs of the restaurant prior to the shooting, the two were pacified by a certain Dodong Plaza. Thus, the victim had no reason to suspect that [the] accused-appellant had any intention of shooting or killing him. The shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected[,] which effectively deprived him of the chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, insuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.[27]The Court disagrees.
Furthermore, to qualify the crime to Murder, the following elements of treachery in a given case must be proven: (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and, (b) said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[32]
Q What happened next when the accused Edgardo Menil pushed you? A Edwin Bagaslao asked him why did you push her? Q What was the answer of the accused? A According to him, he was looking for that girl who left him on the dance floor. Q What happened after that? A Heated argument pursued. Q With whom? A Between accused Edgardo Menil and Edwin Bagaslao. Q What were (sic) the argument about? A Edwin Bagaslao told him that I was not the woman who left him at the dance floor, because I am his wife. Q After Edwin Bagaslao said that, what was (sic) the accused A They were pacified because somebody intervene (sic). Q Who pacified the two? A Dodoy Plaza. Q After they were pacified, what happened next? A We went down and were about to go home. Q Who was your companion when you went down? A I was with Edwin Bagaslao. Q After that when you went down what happened? A When we were already downstairs, and we were already taking the path on the sidewalk of the Sing-Sing Garden, all of a sudden this Edgardo Menil approached us from behind. Q After the accused approached you from behind, what happened next? A I heard a soft gun report.[31] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)