People vs. Galvez

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected, made without warning, and gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having been proven, the crime is murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.

The accused-appellant Manuel Galvez y Estanislao was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, for the stabbing death of Romen Castro y Broquisa on May 9, 1998 in Caloocan City. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The accused pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits proceeded before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City.

At around 11:30 in the evening of May 9, 1998, Danilo Julia, Loreto Palad, and Alvin Adolfo were at a local fair inside the DM Compound in Heroes del 98, Caloocan City. Danilo Julia was playing bingo, while Loreto Palad, Alvin Adolfo, and the victim Romen Castro were playing a game where they would throw 25 centavo coins in one of the stalls. Loreto Palad was on the left side facing the stall, with Romen Castro on his left side, and Danilo Julia was around three meters away. After a while, five men arrived, including accused-appellant Manuel Galvez. Two of the men approached Romen Castro, while the other two men served as lookouts. Accused-appellant then went up directly to Romen Castro and stabbed him at the back with a knife, afterward throwing the knife away and fleeing with his companions. Loreto Palad saw Romen Castro fall to the ground, seriously wounded. With the help of Danilo Julia, Loreto Palad took the victim to the Ospital ng Caloocan, where he was declared dead on arrival. Danilo Julia did not know Galvez's companions but recognized accused-appellant because the place where the stabbing took place was well-lighted. Alvin Adolfo was around three arm lengths away from Castro and Galvez and saw the entire incident.

PO3 Feliciano Almojuela testified that he received a report of the incident and, with another policeman, went to the Caloocan City General Hospital to view the body and later proceeded to the scene of the crime where they found bloodstains on the cemented pavement near the gate of the DM Compound. Upon investigation, they learned that the assailant was accused-appellant, but they were not able to arrest him for lack of knowledge of his whereabouts. Reynaldo Castro, brother of the victim, testified that the day after his brother's death, two policemen arrived in his house with accused-appellant. Reynaldo told them that accused-appellant was not the one who stabbed his brother and should be released. A few minutes after they left, the people inside the house told Reynaldo that accused-appellant was the one who had stabbed Romen Castro, with Danilo Julia, Loreto Palad, Armando Rufo, and Alvin Adolfo pointing to accused-appellant as the assailant. At Reynaldo's instance, Arturo Saligumba, a barangay tanod, apprehended Manuel Galvez. Saligumba admitted that Reynaldo did not have personal knowledge of Galvez's culpability but was only told by others about the stabbing, and that it was the policeman who actually arrested Galvez.

SPO2 Vivencio Gamboa, investigator of the Station Investigation Division of the Caloocan City police, testified that Barangay Tanod Saligumba turned over accused-appellant to him for investigation. Gamboa took the statements of the witnesses and prepared the referral slip for filing of the case for inquest proceedings. On cross-examination, Gamboa explained that the statements of the witnesses were prepared only when accused-appellant was already in the custody of the police authorities, and that accused-appellant had been under detention since he was brought to the police station. The prosecution stipulated that there was no warrant of arrest at the time Galvez was taken into custody by Saligumba. Gamboa also testified that the knife used by the assailant could not be found because the incident occurred at nighttime, and that when asked where the knife was, accused-appellant invoked his right to remain silent.

Dr. Ludovico Lagat, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, conducted an autopsy on the body of Romen Castro. His report found a stab wound located at the left lumbar area, 11.0 cm. from the posterior median line, directed forward downward and medially, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues, into the retroperitoneum, penetrating the left kidney (thru and thru), then entering the peritoneal cavity, and into the abdominal aorta, with a depth of 10.0 cms. Dr. Lagat testified that only one stab wound was found, which was the fatal wound as the kidney and aorta were both damaged. From the direction of the stab wound, which was from the back going forward, Dr. Lagat concluded that the assailant was at the back of the victim when the latter was stabbed. On cross-examination, Dr. Lagat stated that any injury found on the hands could be considered defense wounds, but explained further that the abrasions found on the victim could have been inflicted by the assailant or caused by the impact as the victim fell to the ground after he had been stabbed. It was stipulated that the family of the victim incurred P30,000.00 as actual damages for the wake and funeral expenses, and Reynaldo testified that Romen Castro was a construction worker earning a daily wage of P150.00 at the time of his death.

Accused-appellant testified in his behalf, denying the allegations and claiming he was at his family's store in Monumento, Caloocan City on the night of May 9, 1998 and went home at around 11 o'clock in the evening to 1052 DM Compound, Caloocan City. He said that after eating supper he went out and had a talk with a neighbor until 12 midnight near their house, which was around a block away from the fair. He heard that a stone-throwing incident occurred that night but only learned that someone had been stabbed the following day. He said that at around 9 o'clock in the morning of that day, two policemen went to his house and told him he was suspected of stabbing Romen Castro, and asked him to accompany them to Reynaldo Castro's house. To clear his name, accused-appellant agreed, but upon arriving, the people in the house told the policemen that he was not the one who killed Romen Castro because the one who did so was fair-complexioned and short. Although allegedly released, he was later forced by a barangay tanod to board a taxi and go to the police headquarters, where he was told he was a suspect. He was not shown a warrant when he was arrested nor was he interviewed by the policemen at the headquarters.

Elmer Aguilar, a witness for the defense, testified that he was at the fair at around 11:30 in the evening when Romen Castro arrived, and after Romen Castro's enemies arrived, a commotion ensued, with these people throwing stones and pieces of wood at the victim and the latter retaliating. Romen Castro tried to run, but his attackers, around five in all, caught up with him, and he was stabbed by one of them on his left buttock. Aguilar said he did not see accused-appellant at the local fair that night. Corroborating accused-appellant's testimony were his neighbor Edwin Mangalabanan, who claimed he was exchanging stories with accused-appellant from 11 o'clock in the evening to 12 midnight; his aunt Elena Javier, who recalled seeing accused-appellant buying a cigarette at a sari-sari store around 60 to 70 meters from the fair after hearing someone shout that someone had been stabbed; and his mother Epida Galvez, who testified that she saw her son Manuel at the store, smoking a cigarette, and told him to go home. SPO1 Alberto Lizarondo testified for the defense that bystanders informed him that accused-appellant had stabbed Romen Castro, and that he fetched Galvez from his house and brought him to the house of the victim, but the people there just looked at Galvez and did not point to him as the person responsible. He therefore let Galvez go, but later that same day saw Galvez in the police station, where the relatives and witnesses told him that the reason they said nothing when he asked them to identify Galvez was because of fear.

• Illegality of Arrest: Accused-appellant questioned the legality of his arrest, alleging that it was based on hearsay evidence, and maintained that he was arrested not because of the positive identification of the eyewitnesses but on the basis of the hearsay testimony of Reynaldo Castro.
• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Accused-appellant contended that eyewitnesses Danilo Julia, Alvin Adolfo, and Loreto Palad could not have seen the stabbing incident as the commotion took place only after the victim was stabbed, and that there was no reason for them to pay attention to the people involved.
• Failure to Identify: Accused-appellant set great store on the testimony of SPO1 Alberto Lizarondo that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused-appellant as Romen Castro's assailant when he was presented before them in the house of Reynaldo Castro.
• Absence of Qualifying Circumstances: Accused-appellant insisted that neither evident premeditation nor treachery attended the commission of the crime and that, at most, the crime committed was homicide.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the arguments of the prosecution-appellee beyond the evidence presented at trial.

• Legality of Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was illegal and whether such illegality vitiated the subsequent proceedings.
• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Whether the trial court erred in crediting the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Danilo Julia, Alvin Adolfo, and Loreto Palad despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Failure to Identify: Whether the prosecution witnesses' failure to immediately identify accused-appellant before SPO1 Lizarondo impaired their credibility.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether treachery and/or evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime, qualifying the killing to murder.

• Legality of Arrest: No. The arrest was illegal, but by entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, accused-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused.
• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: No. The eyewitnesses' positive identification of accused-appellant should be accepted where there is favorable lighting and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused. Minor inconsistencies in their testimonies do not detract from their credibility but in fact enhance it for they erase any suggestion of a rehearsed testimony.
• Failure to Identify: No. Fear for one's life is a valid explanation for the witnesses' failure to immediately identify the perpetrator to the proper authorities, and such failure does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witnesses.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Partially. Evident premeditation cannot be taken against accused-appellant for lack of proof of its requisites, but treachery attended the killing. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having been proven, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

• Legality of Arrest: The arrest was illegal because Arturo Saligumba admitted that he arrested Galvez on the basis solely of what Reynaldo Castro had told him and not because he saw accused-appellant commit the crime. The prosecution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest issued against accused-appellant when he was taken into custody. Considering that accused-appellant was not committing a crime at the time he was arrested nor did the arresting officer have any personal knowledge of facts indicating that accused-appellant committed a crime, his arrest without a warrant cannot be justified. However, by entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, accused-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest, as objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Romen Castro was known to Danilo Julia, Loreto Palad, and Alvin Adolfo since they were all residents of DM Compound, just like accused-appellant. The witnesses did not have to pay any particular interest to these people, as it is but natural for them to recognize people whom they knew. Danilo Julia and Loreto Palad were only around three meters away from Romen Castro, while Alvin Adolfo was just three arm lengths away from the victim when the incident happened. There was no need for any commotion before the eyewitnesses could notice the movements of the victim and his assailants. Only when they approached the victim and hemmed him in, while accused-appellant stabbed him, did the eyewitnesses have reason to focus their attention on the assailants and notice the details of this startling event. Where there is favorable lighting and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused, their positive identification of the perpetrators should be accepted. In the absence of evidence showing ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit. The inconsistency regarding the location of the stab wound — witnesses testifying it was on the right side of the back while the autopsy report stated it was at the left lumbar area — is a single lapse on a minor detail that cannot undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Minor inconsistencies do not detract from credibility but in fact enhance it for they erase any suggestion of a rehearsed testimony. The failure of the prosecution to present the murder weapon is not fatal to its case because the positive identification of the eyewitnesses is sufficient to prove the culpability of the accused. The determination of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, since it is in the best position to observe the witnesses' demeanor, behavior, conduct, and attitude.

• Failure to Identify: Fear for one's life is a valid explanation for the witnesses' failure to immediately identify the perpetrator to the proper authorities. In this case, the eyewitnesses identified accused-appellant as the person who stabbed Romen Castro as soon as accused-appellant had left the house. Their initial reluctance was due more to fear than to their inability to identify accused-appellant. In contrast to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification, accused-appellant merely offers alibi as a defense. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently established by eyewitnesses. For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he could not have been physically present at the place where the crime was committed or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Accused-appellant admitted that his house was just a block away from where the fair was held, so his alibi cannot be given any value. The corroborative testimonies of accused-appellant's aunt, mother, and friend cannot be credited as corroborative testimony is not credible if tainted with bias, particularly where the witnesses are so closely related to the accused as to be interested in his acquittal.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Evident premeditation cannot be taken against accused-appellant as there was no proof to show (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender time to reflect on the consequences of his act. Where there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance. However, treachery attended the killing. To prove treachery, the following must be established: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. In this case, the victim had his back to his five assailants and was playing a game at the fair when these men suddenly approached him. Two of these men stayed within the vicinity to serve as lookouts, while two other assailants went to each side of the victim to restrain him. Then, accused-appellant went up to the victim, who was busy playing the game and thus was unaware of the arrival of the five men, and stabbed him at the back. The attack was thus sudden and unexpected, made without warning and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault.

• Waiver of objection to illegal arrest — Objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, the accused waives his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused.

• Positive identification vs. alibi — Where there is favorable lighting and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused, their positive identification of the perpetrators should be accepted. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently established by eyewitnesses. For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he could not have been physically present at the place where the crime was committed or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

• Treachery — To prove treachery, the following must be established: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. A sudden and unexpected attack, made without warning and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault, constitutes treachery.

• Evident premeditation — To prove evident premeditation, there must be proof of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender time to reflect on the consequences of his act. Where there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

• Loss of earning capacity — In determining the amount of lost income, the following must be taken into account: (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise have lived and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. The second variable is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income less living and other incidental expenses. Net earnings is computed at fifty percent (50%) of the gross earnings.

• "By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, however, accused-appellant Galvez waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. It is now settled that objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived." — This passage establishes the doctrine on waiver of objections to illegal arrest, holding that participation in trial cures any defect in the arrest.

• "To prove treachery, the following must be established: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted." — This is the canonical formulation of the requisites of treachery, applied to find the killing of Romen Castro constitutive of murder.

• "For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he could not have been physically present at the place where the crime was committed or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission." — This passage states the requisites for the defense of alibi, which the Court applied to reject accused-appellant's defense given the proximity of his house to the crime scene.

• "Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not an uncommon event, and acquittals have resulted in cases where the inconsistencies and self-contradictions dealt with material points as to altogether erode the witnesses' credibility. But when such inconsistencies are minor in character, not only do they not detract from the credibility of the witnesses but they in fact enhance it for they erase any suggestion of a rehearsed testimony." — This passage articulates the rule on minor inconsistencies in witness testimony, applied to uphold the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses.

• People vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, April 27, 2000 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
• People vs. Meris, G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447, March 28, 2000 — Cited for the propositions that the illegality of an arrest does not render subsequent proceedings void, and that positive identification by witnesses should be accepted where there is favorable lighting and no bias.
• People vs. Rendoque, 322 SCRA 622 (2000) — Cited for the rule that in the absence of evidence showing ill motive on the part of prosecution witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit, and that alibi is an inherently weak defense.
• People vs. Tañeza, G.R. No. 121668, June 20, 2000 — Cited for the rule on minor inconsistencies in witness testimony and for the rule that exemplary damages are awarded only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000 — Cited for the propositions that failure to present the murder weapon is not fatal to the prosecution's case, and that fear is a valid explanation for failure to immediately identify the perpetrator.
• People vs. Orcula, G.R. No. 132350, July 5, 2000 — Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation and for the rule on alibi.
• People vs. Geral, G.R. No. 122283, June 15, 2000 — Cited for the requisites of treachery and for the rule that findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses command great weight.
• People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 129284, March 17, 2000 — Cited for the rule on credibility of witnesses and for the award of civil indemnity.
• People vs. Gailo, 316 SCRA 733 (1999) — Cited for the rule that corroborative testimony is not credible if tainted with bias, particularly where witnesses are closely related to the accused.
• People vs. Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 — Cited for the rule that where there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, evident premeditation cannot be considered.
• People vs. Go-od, G.R. No. 134505, May 9, 2000 — Cited for the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
• People vs. Arellano, G.R. No. 122477, June 30, 2000 — Cited for the award of actual damages where the defense stipulated to the amount.
• People vs. Lazarte, G.R. No. 1130711, June 29, 2000 — Cited for the increase of moral damages to P50,000.00 and for the formula in computing loss of earning capacity.
• People vs. Cupino, G.R. No. 125688, March 31, 2000 — Cited for the increase of moral damages to P50,000.00.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — The provision defining and penalizing murder, which the Court applied in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — The provision on credit for preventive imprisonment, which the trial court applied in crediting accused-appellant's preventive imprisonment in full in the service of his sentence.

Bellosillo, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred. Quisumbing, J., was on leave.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided text.