People vs. Conde

The conviction for Murder qualified by treachery was affirmed where the prosecution's eyewitnesses positively identified the accused as the perpetrator, and the sudden, unexpected attack on an unarmed, unsuspecting victim deprived the latter of any chance to defend himself. Where the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, with no ordinary aggravating circumstance present, the proper amounts of damages are ₱75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present.

The case stemmed from an Information charging accused-appellant Danilo Conde y Mina with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for killing Reynaldo Adlawan y Antonio on February 24, 2013, in San Mateo, Rizal. The Information alleged that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, aggravated by nighttime. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and trial on the merits ensued.

On February 24, 2013, at around 11:50 in the evening, Jeffrey Atibagos was at the house of his sister, Mary Jane Cabangisan, in Patiis, San Mateo, Rizal, drinking with accused-appellant Danilo Conde, the deceased Reynaldo Adlawan, and Rogelio Cabangisan. While they were drinking and having a casual conversation, Jeffrey saw accused-appellant, who was seated beside him, suddenly and without provocation stab the deceased, who was seated beside accused-appellant. Rogelio, who was in front of accused-appellant, also saw the latter leaning on his chair with his hands crossed while they were casually conversing, when suddenly accused-appellant stabbed the deceased on the chest with a knife that accused-appellant had been secretly holding. Rogelio heard the deceased say, "Pareng Danny, bakit mo ako sinaksak." When Rogelio asked accused-appellant why he stabbed the deceased, accused-appellant also stabbed Rogelio, but Rogelio was able to parry the attack. Rogelio and Jeffrey brought the deceased to St. Matthews Hospital, but the latter already expired.

Accused-appellant denied the charge, maintaining that on the same evening, Jeffrey told him to buy "pulutan" for a drinking spree at Rogelio's house together with Reynaldo. Accused-appellant was able to buy the pulutan at a nearby ihawan but was unable to return because the lady from whom he bought the pulutan invited him to have a drinking spree at the said ihawan. After consuming four bottles of Red Horse and feeling drunk, accused-appellant fell asleep at a waiting shed. Thereafter, he was awakened by Jeffrey and Rogelio, who told him that he stabbed Reynaldo.

The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses — Jeffrey Atibagos, accused-appellant's uncle-in-law and Reynaldo's kumpare; Rogelio Cabangisan, Jeffrey's brother-in-law; and Mary Jane Cabangisan, Jeffrey's sister and Rogelio's wife — who positively identified accused-appellant as the person who suddenly stabbed Reynaldo on the chest. Police Officer III Cornelio B. Giwao stated that when accused-appellant was arrested, he was in possession of the kitchen knife used in stabbing Reynaldo. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty, brushing aside his plain denial, and held that the prosecution witnesses' statements remained unrebutted. The RTC found that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven, but that nighttime was not proven because the evidence revealed that accused-appellant did not take advantage of the darkness to consummate the crime.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in giving weight to the prosecution witnesses' statements, and that it is contrary to human experience for him to go with the victim to a house of a close friend, join a drinking session, and just stab the latter without reason in front of their close friends.
• Defense of Denial and Frame-up: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC should have considered his defense of denial and frame-up, as the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the RTC correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder, and that the prosecution proved all elements of the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
• Rejection of Alibi: The OSG argued that the RTC correctly disregarded accused-appellant's defense of alibi, considering that the latter failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time the crime was committed.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's decision giving weight to the prosecution witnesses' statements.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's decision disregarding the accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, and no compelling reason was found to depart from the uniform factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: No. The positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses prevails over accused-appellant's bare denial, and the defense failed to substantiate the alibi, as there was no proof that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the locus delicti at the time of the crime.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The Court applied the settled rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not finality, by the appellate court when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. The prosecution witnesses — Jeffrey, Rogelio, and Mary Jane — positively identified accused-appellant as the person who suddenly stabbed Reynaldo on his chest. Their view at the time of the stabbing was unobstructed by any object, and there was no evidence that they were ill-motivated to testify against accused-appellant. The rule is that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive for a prosecution witness to falsely testify against an accused, his or her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. The defense failed to refute the statements of the prosecution witnesses, offering only the weak defense of denial and alibi. The Court quoted the CA's ruling that "[c]riminals oftentimes behave irrationally or illogically when they commit crimes, as in the case of heinous or gruesome crimes such as Murder or Rape."

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: The Court ruled that alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. The defense of denial and alibi should be considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted. Citing People vs. Moreno, the Court explained that denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony, and for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. In this case, the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses prevails over accused-appellant's bare denial, and the defense failed to present the woman who allegedly invited him to a drinking spree.

• Treachery: The Court upheld the CA's finding that the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery is defined as "the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part." The essence of treachery is the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: first, the assailant employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the criminal act that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and second, said means, methods, or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. Here, accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Reynaldo while the latter was conversing with Rogelio and Jeffrey. The unexpectedness of the attack deprived Reynaldo of any chance to defend himself. Accused-appellant was in possession of a knife when he went on a drinking session, and the weapon used, the time of execution, and the suddenness of the attack were employed to ensure the killing of the unsuspecting, defenseless victim.

• Evident Premeditation: The Court upheld the CA's finding that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not present. The elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. The prosecution failed to establish these requisites, as there was no evidence that accused-appellant made a previous decision to murder Reynaldo, no showing that his acts manifestly indicated that he clung to his determination, and no proof of the time when he resolved to commit the crime.

• Damages: The Court modified the awards imposed by the CA, reducing the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 each to conform with the ruling in People vs. Jugueta. In Jugueta, the Court ruled that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts should be ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. In this case, there was no evidence of any ordinary aggravating circumstance, as the allegation of nighttime was not proven. The CA correctly awarded actual damages for funeral expenses in the amount of ₱30,225.00, as this was adequately supported by evidence. The imposition of a legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of the decision until full payment was likewise proper.

• Treachery — Defined as the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part. The essence of treachery is the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender. Two conditions must concur: (1) the assailant employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the criminal act that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods, or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. In this case, treachery was appreciated because accused-appellant suddenly stabbed the victim while the latter was conversing with others, and the unexpectedness of the attack deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself.

• Evident Premeditation — The elements are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish these requisites, as there was no evidence of a previous decision to kill, no showing of overt acts indicating a clinging to the determination, and no proof of the time when the accused resolved to commit the crime.

• Denial and Alibi — Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. These requirements of time and place must be strictly met. In this case, the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses prevailed over the accused-appellant's bare denial, and the defense failed to substantiate the alibi.

• Doctrine of Damages in Murder Cases (People vs. Jugueta) — When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts should be ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. In this case, since there was no evidence of any ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court reduced the awards to ₱75,000.00 each.

• "Treachery is defined as 'the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his [or her] part.' The essence of treachery is 'the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself [or herself] and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.'" — This passage defines the controlling doctrine of treachery and its essence, which was the basis for affirming the conviction for Murder qualified by treachery.

• "Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. A categorical statement that has earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he [or she] was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime[,] and [that] it was physically impossible for him [or her] to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Moreno, articulates the standard for evaluating the defenses of denial and alibi, which the Court applied to reject the accused-appellant's defenses.

• "When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts should be ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and ₱75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present." — This passage from People vs. Jugueta establishes the governing rule for damages in murder cases where only reclusion perpetua is imposed, which the Court applied to modify the awards.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the proper amounts of damages in murder cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only, with no ordinary aggravating circumstance. The Court applied this ruling to reduce the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 each.

• People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020 — Cited for the proposition that denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony, and for the requisites of the defense of alibi. The Court quoted this case in rejecting the accused-appellant's defenses.

• People vs. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24, 40 (2015) — Cited for the two conditions that must concur for treachery to be appreciated. The Court applied these conditions in finding that treachery qualified the killing.

• People vs. Aguila, G.R. No. 238455, December 9, 2020 — Cited for the elements of evident premeditation. The Court applied these elements in finding that the prosecution failed to establish evident premeditation.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Murder. The Court applied this provision in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for Murder qualified by treachery, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Article 29, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214 — Provides for the credit for preventive detention. The RTC ordered that accused-appellant be credited for the time spent for his preventive detention in accordance with this provision.

Caguioa, J. (Chairperson), Gaerlan, J., Dimaampao, J., and Singh, J., concurred in the decision.