People vs. Silvederio III

Treachery is properly appreciated where the accused deliberately approaches and shoots an already wounded, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim who is in no position to defend himself; any defect in the Information’s allegation of treachery is waived if the accused fails to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars before arraignment. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only, the phrase “without eligibility for parole” need not be appended, and the damages are P75,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus P50,000 temperate damages.

Julian Silvederio III y Javelosa was prosecuted for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which punishes Murder with reclusion perpetua to death. The applicable statutory and administrative backdrop includes Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, which governs when the phrase “without eligibility for parole” should qualify reclusion perpetua. The damages framework also depends on whether the penalty is death reduced to reclusion perpetua or reclusion perpetua only.

On May 10, 2012, Glenn N. Lasafin, Jethro Bonitillo, Boy, and Kid went to Aura Chillout Lounge at Smallville for a drinking spree; Julian Silvederio III y Javelosa was also at Aura that night. While the four were drinking, the victim requested Bonitillo to accompany him to the restroom. On their way to the restroom, accused-appellant accosted them and asked the victim, “Ano ka parakoy ka?” Bonitillo, who knew accused-appellant because he was the boyfriend of accused-appellant’s sister, told the victim not to mind accused-appellant. When they were about to enter the restroom, they heard a gunshot. Bonitillo looked at the direction from where the gunshot came and then heard another gunshot; he saw that the victim was hit in his upper left arm. While the victim was holding his upper left arm with his right hand, accused-appellant approached and shot him with a .38 revolver. The victim fell after the third gunshot hit his left chest. He was brought to the hospital but was later declared dead.

Leopoldo Vasquez was on duty as a bouncer at Aura on May 10, 2012. After hearing the three gunshots, he proceeded to the scene and saw the victim lying near the door of the restroom. He also saw accused-appellant holding a .38 revolver. Vasquez confronted accused-appellant and said, “Why did you shoot him? Just surrender to me.” Accused-appellant ran away and threw the gun. Vasquez called out the security guards to help him chase accused-appellant; Vasquez and the security guards ran after accused-appellant until they reached and took hold of him at EMCOR Building. The police officers of Mandurriao Police Station responded. Vasquez and the security guards looked for the .38 revolver, which was thrown to a grassy portion; Dela Cruz, the security guard at Aura, found the firearm.

The defense interposed denial. It alleged that accused-appellant, together with Bryan, Puloy, Drope, Rabrab, Jake, May, Roy, Roy’s girlfriend, and Roy’s friend were at Aura at around 10:30 p.m. or 10:40 p.m. of May 9, 2012 until the early morning of May 10, 2012. While they were drinking, Bryan, Puloy, and Rabrab went to the restroom. When they returned to their table, Bryan informed accused-appellant that somebody from another table accosted them. Accused-appellant told his friends not to mind it and that they were there to enjoy and not to create trouble. After a few minutes, somebody from the other table shouted and asked Bryan, “What do you want? Are you going to fight?” Accused-appellant stood up, faced the man from the other table, and told him that he and his friends were there to just drink and enjoy. Minutes later, someone from behind accused-appellant struck him with a bottle of Red Horse beer on the left side of his head. As a result, accused-appellant fell. His friends fought with the group from the other table. Suddenly, he heard two gunshots. As his head was hit by the beer bottle, he just crawled on the floor. Bryan, Puloy, and Jake ran towards him and helped him stand. While they were going downstairs from Aura, they heard another gunshot which caused them to run in different directions. While walking away from Aura, accused-appellant fell due to overindulgence in alcohol and the blood oozing from his head. After he fell, the bouncers and the security guards held him. Later, they boarded accused-appellant in a patrol car where a police officer told him that he was a suspect of the incident. They then brought him to the hospital for identification by the victim and the witnesses. However, Bonitillo and the victim were not able to identify him.

The RTC found that the victim was already hit on his upper left arm when he sat on the stairs leading to the comfort room. Without prior altercation or exchange of blows between the victim and accused-appellant, the victim was unable to defend himself and was unaware when accused-appellant shot him. The RTC also found that accused-appellant knew fully well that the victim was already injured and in no position to defend himself, and that accused-appellant made sure his objective would be accomplished by deliberately approaching the injured and unarmed victim and, when he was already near and surely would not miss, shooting the victim on the chest when the victim was almost standing up. The CA affirmed these findings and held that Bonitillo’s eyewitness account was credible because it was a categorical, clear, and positive assertion of a fact; Bonitillo admitted he did not see who fired the first two shots because it was dark inside the disco, but the charge was based on accused-appellant approaching and shooting the victim who was already wounded and in a kneeling position. The CA also considered the purported inconsistency on whether Bonitillo saw accused-appellant throw the firearm or was only informed by the security guards as inconsequential because Bonitillo had declared that he saw accused-appellant shoot the victim.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.
• Credibility of Bonitillo: Accused-appellant argued that Bonitillo was not competent and credible, that the RTC should not have relied on his testimony, and that his identification as the perpetrator was highly suspect and tainted with improbabilities.
• Sufficiency of Information — Treachery: Accused-appellant argued that the Information did not sufficiently allege the qualifying circumstance of treachery, relying on People vs. Valdez, et al.

• Guilt for Murder: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant killed Glenn N. Lasafin with treachery.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether Bonitillo’s testimony was credible and sufficient to identify accused-appellant as the killer.
• Sufficiency of Information — Treachery: Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• Penalty — “Without Eligibility for Parole”: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be qualified as “without eligibility for parole.”
• Damages: Whether the CA’s awards of P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are proper where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only.

• Guilt for Murder: Yes. The prosecution established all elements of Murder: the victim was killed, accused-appellant killed him, treachery attended the killing, and it was neither parricide nor infanticide.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. Bonitillo’s eyewitness account was categorical, clear, and positive; minor inconsistencies on trivial matters do not impair credibility, and the RTC’s assessment is accorded high respect.
• Sufficiency of Information — Treachery: Yes. The Information alleged that accused-appellant shot the victim several times even when he was already kneeling down and deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself; even if insufficient, the defect was waived by failure to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars before arraignment.
• Penalty — “Without Eligibility for Parole”: No. The phrase need not be appended where the death penalty is not warranted; reclusion perpetua is indivisible and carries no parole, and the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua, not death reduced by RA 9346.
• Damages: No. The CA’s P100,000.00 awards are proper only where death is reduced to reclusion perpetua; where reclusion perpetua only is imposed, the proper amounts are P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus P50,000.00 temperate damages, with 6% interest from finality.

• Guilt for Murder: Murder under Article 248, RPC, as amended by RA 7659, requires: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance in Article 248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The SC found all four established: Glenn N. Lasafin was killed; Bonitillo positively identified accused-appellant as the one who killed the victim; treachery attended the killing; and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Its essence is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Two elements must be present: (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 by him. The RTC found that the victim was already hit on his upper left arm when he sat on the stairs leading to the comfort room; without prior altercation or exchange of blows between the victim and accused-appellant, the victim was unable to defend himself and was unaware when accused-appellant shot him. Accused-appellant knew fully well that the victim was already injured and in no position to defend himself, and deliberately approached the injured and unarmed victim and shot him on the chest when he was almost standing up. The form of attack ensured the commission of the crime without risk to accused-appellant. Thus, treachery was properly appreciated.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The SC rejected accused-appellant’s claim that Bonitillo was incompetent and incredible and that his identification was highly suspect and tainted with improbabilities. The CA correctly held that it was not an issue whether Bonitillo could have identified who fired the first two shots, because Bonitillo admitted that he did not see who fired them since it was dark inside the disco; the charge of Murder qualified by treachery was based on accused-appellant approaching and shooting the victim who was already wounded and in a kneeling position. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because it can observe the witnesses’ deportment on the stand, an opportunity denied to appellate courts. The SC has ruled that when issues involve credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings, calibration of testimonies, assessment of probative weight, and conclusions anchored on those findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance. The purported inconsistency on whether Bonitillo saw accused-appellant throw the firearm or was only informed by the security guards was inconsequential because Bonitillo had declared that he saw accused-appellant shoot the victim. Discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor details that do not touch the essence of the crime do not impair credibility; Bonitillo’s eyewitness account was a categorical, clear, and positive assertion of a fact. The SC found no reason to depart from the RTC’s assessment, as affirmed by the CA.

• Sufficiency of Information — Treachery: Accused-appellant contended that the Information did not sufficiently allege treachery, relying on People vs. Valdez, et al. In Valdez, the Informations merely mentioned that the killings were qualified by treachery, among others, and did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended each killing. Here, the Information adequately alleged treachery: it stated that accused-appellant shot the victim several times even when he was already kneeling down and deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself. Even assuming that the Information did not sufficiently allege treachery, accused-appellant was deemed to have waived the supposed defect. In People vs. Solar, the SC affirmed the ruling in Valdez that it is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in an Information that the act was done “with treachery” without specifically describing the acts done by the accused that made the circumstance present; nevertheless, the SC modified the conviction because the accused failed to timely question the sufficiency of the Information. The accused did not file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars, voluntarily entered his plea during arraignment, and proceeded with trial; he was deemed to have waived any waivable defects in the Information and to have understood the acts imputed against him. Similarly, accused-appellant failed to file either a motion to quash the Information or a motion for a bill of particulars before his arraignment, so he was deemed to have waived the supposed insufficiency in the allegation of treachery.

• Penalty — “Without Eligibility for Parole”: The CA ruled that accused-appellant shall be ineligible for parole pursuant to RA 9346. The SC found no need to add the qualification “without eligibility for parole.” A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC provides that parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties; reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and carries no minimum nor maximum period. With no minimum penalty imposable on those convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, even prior to the enactment of RA 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The guidelines provide: (1) in cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua, it being understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and (2) when circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of RA 9346, the qualification “without eligibility for parole” shall be used to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA 9346. Article 248, RPC, as amended by RA 7659, punishes Murder by reclusion perpetua to death. The RTC meted out reclusion perpetua, not “death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 9346.” Apart from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances were established. Under Article 63, RPC, when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Thus, the RTC’s imposition of reclusion perpetua was correct, and there was no need to append the phrase “without eligibility for parole.”

• Damages: The CA imposed P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment. Under People vs. Jugueta, these amounts are imposed where the penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346. Since the penalty imposed in this case is reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim because no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses was presented in court. The civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid, consistent with Nacar vs. Galley Frames, et al.

• Murder under Article 248, RPC — Murder requires: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The SC applied all four where the victim was killed, accused-appellant was positively identified, treachery attended, and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide.
• Treachery — Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Its essence is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Two elements must be present: (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 by him. The SC applied these where the victim was already wounded, kneeling or sitting on the stairs, and unaware when accused-appellant approached and shot him in the chest.
• Sufficiency of Information alleging treachery — An Information must specifically describe the acts done by the accused that made treachery present; merely stating “with treachery” is insufficient. However, the defect is waivable: if the accused fails to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars before arraignment, he is deemed to have waived the supposed insufficiency and to have understood the acts imputed. The SC applied this where the Information alleged shooting several times even when the victim was kneeling, and in any event found waiver.
• “Without eligibility for parole” in reclusion perpetua — Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the phrase “without eligibility for parole” need not qualify reclusion perpetua where the death penalty is not warranted; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. The phrase is used only when circumstances warrant the death penalty but it is not imposed because of RA 9346. The SC applied this because the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua, not death reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Damages for Murder where penalty is reclusion perpetua only — Under People vs. Jugueta, where the penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are P100,000.00 each. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts are P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; temperate damages of P50,000.00 may be awarded where no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented. All monetary awards earn 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.
• Credibility of witnesses and trial court findings — When issues involve credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings, calibration of testimonies, assessment of probative weight, and conclusions anchored on those findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and discern whether they are telling the truth. Appellate courts will not overturn these findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance. The SC applied this in upholding Bonitillo’s positive identification despite minor inconsistencies.

• “Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.” — Defines treachery as the SC applied it to the killing.
• “To properly appreciate treachery, two elements must be present: (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 by him.” — Sets out the two requisites the SC found present.
• “Similarly, accused-appellant in the instant case failed to file either a motion to quash the Information or a motion for a bill of particulars before his arraignment. Hence, he is deemed to have waived the supposed insufficiency in the allegation of treachery in the Information.” — Applies the waiver rule to the defective-allegation issue.
• “In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole” — States the guideline the SC applied in removing the parole qualification.

• People vs. Cirbeto, G.R. No. 231359, February 7, 2018, 855 SCRA 234 — Cited for the elements of Murder and for the rule that the trial court’s credibility findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.
• People vs. Las Piñas, et al., 739 Phil. 502 (2014) — Cited for the elements of Murder and the two elements of treachery.
• People vs. Racal, 817 Phil. 665 (2017) — Cited for the two elements of treachery.
• People vs. Albino, G.R. No. 229928, July 22, 2019 — Cited for the essence of treachery: the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the victim no chance to resist or escape.
• People vs. Valdez, et al., 679 Phil. 279 (2012) — Distinguished; its Informations merely mentioned treachery without setting forth the facts and circumstances showing how treachery attended the killings.
• People vs. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019 — Followed; failure to timely question the sufficiency of the Information through a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars waives the defect.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlling for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages depending on whether the penalty is death reduced to reclusion perpetua or reclusion perpetua only.
• Nacar vs. Galley Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited for the 6% per annum interest on monetary awards from finality of judgment until full payment.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and punishes Murder with reclusion perpetua to death when attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery; the SC applied it to uphold the conviction and penalty.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as an aggravating circumstance; the SC used its definition and requisites to affirm the qualifying circumstance.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for indivisible penalties; where the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty is applied; the SC used this to affirm reclusion perpetua.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; the CA invoked it for parole ineligibility, but the SC clarified that the phrase “without eligibility for parole” need not be appended where the death penalty is not warranted.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines on the proper use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole” in indivisible penalties; the SC applied guideline (1) because the death penalty was not warranted.
• Rules of Court — motion to quash and motion for bill of particulars — The SC held that failure to file either before arraignment waives waivable defects in the Information, including insufficient allegation of treachery.