People vs. Almosara

Treachery qualifies a killing when the accused, without warning, pins down the victim and repeatedly stabs him, affording the victim no opportunity to defend himself, even if the victim had a weapon at his waist but was prevented by the suddenness of the attack from drawing it; the testimony of child witnesses is entitled to full probative weight when they positively identify the assailant and no ill motive is shown.

Antonio Almosara and his father Adolfo Almosara were charged with murder for the killing of Arnulfo Cabintoy in Antipolo City on December 6, 2000. The Almosaras and the Cabintoys were neighbors in Sitio Quarry, Antipolo City. Adolfo Almosara died during the pendency of the case, resulting in its dismissal as to him. The case against Antonio proceeded to trial. The other accused — Anthony Almosara y Buenaflor and Ronnie Almosara — remained at large. The prosecution's principal eyewitnesses were Arnulfo's young children, Gregorio (six years old) and Marife (five years old), who witnessed the killing from inside their residence.

On December 6, 2000, siblings Gregorio (six years old) and Marife (five years old) were inside their residence at Sitio Quarry, Antipolo City. Right outside, their father Arnulfo Cabintoy was drinking with Antonio Almosara (appellant), Anthony Almosara, Adolfo (Rodolfo) Almosara, and Ronnie Almosara. After the drinking session, Arnulfo advised appellant to go to sleep, which irritably led to a heated exchange between them. Shortly after, the Almosaras left. Suspecting that they might return and retaliate, Arnulfo asked his wife Maria to fetch their son who was at the basketball court. Arnulfo then gathered stones outside his home, thinking to use them to defend himself and his family.

The Almosaras returned, now armed with bolos. Appellant went straight to Arnulfo, pinned him down to the ground, and repeatedly stabbed him. While Arnulfo was already lying prostrate, Anthony joined in and stabbed him once in the stomach. Ronnie and Adolfo also joined, stabbing Arnulfo a total of six times in the back. The Almosaras then fled. Maria returned from the basketball court and found people gathered around their house; some restrained her from entering. She saw her husband lying face down on the ground, covered in blood, and heard people say that the persons responsible were her husband's drinking buddies. Barangay Chairman Wilfredo Almazen, who lived nearby, saw appellant, Adolfo, and another person passing by the road fronting his house, wearing bloodied clothes and holding bolos. He chased and caught appellant, bringing him to the police headquarters. SPO1 Felipe Matias pursued and apprehended Adolfo.

Dr. Filemon Porciuncula, Jr. conducted an autopsy and found incise wounds on Arnulfo's left nape and right arm, abrasions on the left forehead, right knee, and left hand — all non-fatal — as well as a stab wound in the left chest and four stab wounds in the left side of the back, three of which were fatal. He concluded that Arnulfo died of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab wounds, as reflected in Medico-Legal Report No. M-878-00.

Appellant testified that during the drinking session, Ronnie and Arnulfo got into a heated argument. When he tried to pacify them, Arnulfo punched him and chased him with a two-foot tubo. He wrested the tubo from Arnulfo and hit him back. While grappling for the tubo, Ronnie allegedly rushed in and repeatedly stabbed Arnulfo. Appellant claimed he then left and ran away. He was caught by Chairman Almazen, who warned him he would be indicted. At the police station, Maria pointed him out as her husband's assailant, which he denied. Notably, appellant never implicated Ronnie as the assailant during his arrest or the preliminary investigation.

• Inconsistencies in Prosecution Testimonies: Appellant argued that the testimonies of Gregorio and Marife failed to paint a coherent picture of the incident, pointing out that both said they shouted for the Almosaras to stop, yet Gregorio did not notice his sister was present, and that they gave inconsistent statements on whether it was Ronnie or Anthony who stabbed their father after appellant delivered the initial blow.
• Unnatural Behavior of Witness: Appellant maintained that Gregorio's act of going inside their home and doing nothing even after his father was already stabbed was contrary to human experience.
• Absence of Treachery: Appellant argued there was no proof he consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the killing, and that the fact Arnulfo was armed with a bolo indicated he was not without means to defend himself; the alleged quarrel before the attack also dispelled treachery.
• Absence of Abuse of Superior Strength: Appellant contended that the Almosaras did not simultaneously attack Arnulfo but took turns stabbing him, and that no evidence showed a disparity between the build of Arnulfo and the individual builds of the Almosaras.
• Liability Should Be for Homicide Only: In the absence of treachery and abuse of superior strength, appellant argued he should only be found liable for homicide.
• Weakness of Defense vs. Strength of Prosecution: Although acknowledging that denial is a weak defense, appellant maintained that the prosecution must not profit from the weakness of his defense but must rely on the strength of its own evidence.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the testimonies of Gregorio and Marife were replete with details on how their father was attacked and were given in a straightforward manner, and that the alleged inconsistencies as to who attacked first were insignificant details that could not defeat their positive identification of appellant.
• Natural Inconsistencies of Children: Being only six and five years old when they witnessed the killing, the children could not be expected to give an error-free narration, and Gregorio could not be expected to behave like an adult; no motive was shown for the witnesses to falsely charge appellant.
• Deference to Trial Court Findings: When witness credibility is in issue, the trial court's factual findings and calibration of testimonies are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when sustained by the Court of Appeals.
• Presence of Treachery: The prosecution argued that Arnulfo was attacked from behind and was already lying prostrate when repeatedly stabbed, rendering him unaware of the imminent peril and incapable of defending himself; although he had a bolo at his waist, he was unable to draw it.
• Absorption of Abuse of Superior Strength: Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength was deemed absorbed therein and could no longer be appreciated as a separate aggravating circumstance.
• Rejection of Denial: The prosecution maintained that it was inexplicable for Arnulfo to continue hitting appellant when it was supposedly Ronnie who was stabbing Arnulfo, and that appellant's failure to point to Ronnie at the time of arrest undermined his defense; denial cannot prevail over the categorical testimonies of witnesses who positively identified appellant as the assailant.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses: Whether the testimonies of the victim's children, Gregorio and Marife, aged five and six at the time of the killing, were sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of Arnulfo Cabintoy, qualifying the crime as murder.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the monetary awards imposed by the lower courts were proper.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses: Yes. The positive identification of appellant by Gregorio and Marife was credible and sufficient to sustain conviction, minor inconsistencies being trivial and indicative that the witnesses were not rehearsed.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery attended the killing because appellant, without warning, pinned the victim down and repeatedly stabbed him, affording the victim no chance to resist or escape; the victim's inability to draw the bolo at his waist confirmed his defenseless position.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: Yes. Reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the lesser indivisible penalty under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, no mitigating or aggravating circumstance having been shown; damages were modified to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, given the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand. This rule applies with even greater stringency where the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's findings. Gregorio and Marife positively identified appellant as one of the four persons who stabbed their father, providing detailed accounts of how appellant pinned Arnulfo down and stabbed him twice, while Anthony stabbed him once in the stomach and Ronnie and Adolfo stabbed him six times in the back. The alleged inconsistencies — whether it was Ronnie or Anthony who delivered the second attack, and whether Gregorio should have gone inside the house — were trivial matters that did not affect credibility. On the contrary, such inconsistencies indicated the witnesses were not rehearsed. Being children of five and six, they could not be expected to give error-free testimonies. No ill motive was attributed to them, and the absence of evidence of improper motive strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed. Appellant's defense of denial and alibi failed in light of the positive eyewitness testimonies, and his belated introduction of "Ronnie" as the real assailant was unconvincing, as he never implicated Ronnie during his arrest or preliminary investigation.

• Treachery: Treachery requires two elements: (1) the victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack, and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack. Both elements were satisfied. Appellant, without any warning, barged into the victim's premises, went straight to pin him down, and repeatedly stabbed him. The victim was gathering stones outside his home when attacked. Although Arnulfo had a bolo at his waist, the suddenness of the attack effectively prevented him from drawing it, as Gregorio testified that Arnulfo was unable to draw or hold the bolo. Dr. Porciuncula confirmed that the fatal wounds were located at the left back portion of the victim, consistent with an attack from behind on a prostrate victim. The essence of treachery is the swift, deliberate, and unexpected attack affording the hapless victim no chance to resist or escape. When abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter and may not be separately appreciated. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger, the decisive factor being whether the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.

• Proper Penalty and Damages: Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63(2) of the RPC, the lesser indivisible penalty — reclusion perpetua — is imposed when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. No such circumstances attended the killing. The Court of Appeals correctly awarded civil indemnity of ₱75,000. Pursuant to People vs. Gervero, which followed People vs. Jugueta, temperate damages were increased to ₱50,000 (no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses having been presented), and moral and exemplary damages were each increased to ₱75,000. Interest at six percent per annum was imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality until fully paid.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses — A child witness is presumed qualified to testify, and inconsistencies in a child's testimony that relate only to minor and peripheral matters do not negate the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator. The absence of evidence of ill motive on the part of a child witness strongly sustains the conclusion that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Children of tender age cannot be expected to give error-free narrations of events, and sworn statements are generally considered inferior to testimony in open court.

• Deference to Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Where the culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the credibility of witnesses, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect and will not ordinarily be disturbed absent any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight that could affect the outcome. This rule applies with even greater stringency when the trial court's findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.

• Treachery — Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two elements must concur: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed. Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned, the decisive factor being whether the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.

• Absorption of Abuse of Superior Strength in Treachery — When abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter and may no longer be separately appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.

• Application of Indivisible Penalties — Under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

• "In any event, whether six (6) year old Gregorio and five (5) year old sister Marife were able to consistently account on who exactly launched the second attack on Arnulfo and whether Gregorio and Marife should not have gone inside their house after they saw their father wounded and bloodied are trivial matters which do not affect their credibility as witnesses. On the contrary, these inconsistencies, if at all, indicate that these witnesses were not rehearsed." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the credibility of child witnesses, explaining why minor inconsistencies enhance rather than undermine credibility.

• "The essence of treachery hinges on the aggressor's attack sans any warning, done in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." — This is the canonical formulation of treachery relied upon by the Court, frequently cited in subsequent murder jurisprudence.

• "When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter and may no longer be separately appreciated." — This states the settled doctrine on the relationship between treachery and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances.

• "there could be no hard and fast gauge for measuring a person's reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling, not to mention horrifying, occurrence, as in this case." — This passage addresses the argument that Gregorio's behavior was unnatural, establishing that there is no universal standard for human reaction to traumatic events.

• People of the Philippines vs. Jeffrey Collamat, et al., G.R. No. 218200, August 15, 2018 — Cited for the rule that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, given the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand.
• People of the Philippines vs. Golem Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017 — Followed for the doctrine that the absence of evidence of ill motive on the part of a witness strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit; also cited for the proposition that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.
• People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Ibanez, et al., 718 Phil. 370 (2013) — Cited for the rule that a child witness cannot be expected to give an error-free narration of events and that inconsistencies between sworn statements and testimony in court do not militate against credibility.
• People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Esugon, 761 Phil. 300 (2015) — Followed for the proposition that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness and that inconsistencies relating only to minor and peripheral matters have negligible effect on testimony when the child positively identifies the perpetrator.
• People of the Philippines vs. Roger Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017 — Cited as the controlling authority defining treachery and its two requisite elements.
• People of the Philippines vs. Marcial D. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205 (2017) — Followed for the doctrine that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger, the decisive factor being whether the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.
• People of the Philippines vs. Esmael Gervero, et al., G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018 — Applied for the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in murder cases, following People vs. Jugueta.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes murder, prescribing reclusion perpetua to death when committed with qualifying circumstances including treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. Applied to qualify the killing of Arnulfo Cabintoy as murder.
• Article 14, Paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Applied to establish that the sudden, deliberate, and unexpected attack on the victim, who was pinned down and unable to defend himself, constituted treachery.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for application of indivisible penalties: when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Applied to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua as the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for murder.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.