Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51731:gr-182192-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:35:14+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA y MULINGTAPANG alias "BOY DUNGGOL, Accused-Appellant.
For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02367, dated 16 October 2007, 1 affirming with modification the Decision, dated 4 July 2006, of the Batangas City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch IV, in Criminal Case No. 12486, 2 finding accused-appellant Agripino Guevarra y Mulingtapang, alias "Boy Dunggol," guilty of murder, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
That on or about August 24, 2002 at around 9:15 o'clock in the evening at Ebora Road, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a caliber .45 pistol, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and repeatedly shot with said firearm suddenly and without warning one P/Chief Inspector Marcos Barte y Paz while the latter was unarmed and completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on different parts of his body which directly caused the victim's death.
That the special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm is attendant in the commission of the offense.
When arraigned on 12 November 2002, appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge.4 Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
Contusion; anterior chest wall, midline, 2 x 3 cm.
1. ENTRANCE 1.3 x 1.0 cm. ovaloid, edges inverted, with a contusion collar widest at its upper border, surrounded by an area of tattoing, 8 x 6 cms. at the left temple 6 cms. infront and 5 cms. above the left external auditory meatus, directed backwards, downwards and medially, involving the skin and underlying soft tissue, fracturing left temporal bone, lacerating corresponding lobe, fracturing and penetrating left midcranial fossa, into the soft tissue of the left posterior neck, 12 cms, below and 10 cm behind the left external auditory meatus where a semideformed slug was recovered.
2. ENTRANCE 1.3 x. 1.0 cm. ovaloid, edges inverted, with a contusion collar widest at its lower border located at the right anterior chest wall, 10 cms. from the anterior median line, 125 cms. above the right heel, directed, backward, upward and from right to left involving the skin and underlying soft tissue perforating the heart, and upper lobe of the left lung, then making an EXIT wound, 1.0 x 1.1. cm., ovaloid, edges everted, located at the back left side, (scapular area) 20 cm. from the posterior median line, 137 cm. above the left heel.
3. ENTRANCE 1.2 x 1.0 cm. ovaloid, edges inverted with a contusion collar widest at its lower border, located at the left anterior chest wall, 2 cm. from the anterior median line 131 cm. above the left heel, directed backward, upward and laterally, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues, perforating upper lobe of the left lung then making an EXIT wound, 1 x 1.1 cm. ovaloid, edges everted located at the left arm, posterior aspect, upper 3rd 28 cms. above the left elbow.
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellant and Ferdinand Ravino (Ravino) to refute the foregoing accusation. No documentary evidence was presented. Appellant denied any liability and interposed the defense of alibi.
In view of all the foregoing and upon evidence established by the Prosecution, accused Agripino Guevarra y Mulingtapang alias "Boy Dunggol" is hereby found Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The proper penalty would have been death by lethal injection but with the repeal of the death penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which was recently signed into law by the President on June 22, 2006, imposition thereof is no longer possible. Consequently, herein accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs. Further, he shall pay the private offended party P50,000.00 for the death of Major Barte as compensatory damages; P109,250.00 as actual damages sustained which were reflected in the official receipts submitted in evidence; P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P4,212,312.72 loss of earnings computed on the basis of the pay slip of Major Barte for the month of August, 2002 showing that at the time of his death his full compensation amounted to P30,982.00.
Appellant maintains in his lone assigned error that his testimony and that of his corroborating witness, Ravino, were more credible than the testimonies of Anacleto and Antonette; that his denial and alibi were meritorious; and that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor.
A: The shooting of Major Barte (Inspector Barte), sir.
A: Agripino Guevarra y Mulingtapang alias "Boy Dunggol."
A: I did not notice where he came from, he suddenly appeared.
A: He approached Major Barte and asked "are you Major Barte?" and afterwards he fired shots at Major Barte.
A: I saw him slumped on his seat on the car, bloodied.
A: About one arm['s] length, ma'am.
A: From my right side, sir.
A: On the right side of the jeep, sir.
A: More or less one (1) arm length, sir.
A: We were both on the same distance from the jeep, sir.
A: I heard four (4) shots, sir.
A: I heard that gunshot, ma'am.
A: I turned my head where the gunshot came from, ma'am.
A: I saw a man shooting a man riding at the right side of the vehicle, ma'am.
A: Mr. Agripino Guevarra, ma'am.
A: Yes, ma'am. Being a native of this barangay and I have been a barangay councilwoman and he became also a barangay tanod.
Further, the foregoing testimonies are consistent with documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Anacleto and Antonette to be clear and credible.
We agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm attended the killing of Inspector Barte.
In the case at bar, treachery was alleged in the information and all its elements were duly established by the prosecution.
Inspector Barte was sitting inside the jeep when appellant suddenly appeared and approached him. Appellant asked Inspector Barte if he was "Major Barte." However, before Inspector Barte could respond or utter a word, appellant quickly shot him several times in the head and chest with a caliber .45 pistol. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant's attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without means of escape. There is no doubt that appellant's use of a caliber .45 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for Inspector Barte to be seated first in the jeep before approaching him and of shooting Inspector Barte several times on the head and chest, was adopted by him to prevent Inspector Barte from retaliating or escaping. Considering that Inspector Barte was tipsy or drunk and he was seated inside the jeep where the space is narrow, there was absolutely no way for him to defend himself or escape.
We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties imposed on appellant.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63(4) of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in this case, and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance. As earlier determined, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the aggravating circumstances of treachery and use of an unlicensed firearm were present in the instant case. Nonetheless, the aggravating circumstance of treachery in this case cannot be applied for offsetting because it was already considered as a qualifying circumstance.59 Thus, only the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm may be utilized in offsetting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Hence, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetuaon appellant.
As to damages, both courts acted accordingly in awarding civil indemnity 61 to the heirs of Inspector Barte since the award of this damage is mandatory in murder cases.62 Nevertheless, the amount of P50,000.00 imposed as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.63 In People v. Quiachon, 64 we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper as the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. In the instant case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm attended the killing of Inspector Barte. These circumstances were duly alleged in the information and proven during the trial.
2/3 (80 - age of deceased) x (GAI - 50% of GAI).
= 2/3 (34) x (P371,784.00 - P185,892.00) = 2/3 (34) x P185,892.00. = P4,213,551.00.
Hence, the amount of P4,212,312.72 awarded to the heirs of Inspector Barte as indemnity for the latter's loss of earning capacity should be increased to P4,213,551.00.
WHEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02367, dated 16 October 2007, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the civil indemnity of appellant is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; (2) the indemnity for Inspector Barte's loss of earning capacity is increased from P4,212,312.72 to P4,213,551.00; and (3) an interest on all the damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid is imposed.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-19.
2 Penned by Judge Conrado R. Antona; CA rollo, pp. 38-44.
5 TSN, 3 February 2003, pp. 3-6.
7 TSN, 3 June 2003, pp. 22-30.
8 TSN, 1 April 2003, pp. 10.
9 TSN, 16 September 2006, pp. 3-10.
10 TSN, 3 June 2003, pp. 3-12.
11 Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit "L."
12 TSN, 16 September 2006, pp. 15-27.
13 Folder of Exhibits, Exh. "R."
14 TSN, 3 June 2003, pp. 15-17.
19 Folder of Exhibits, Exh. "E."
22 Folder of Exhibits, Exh. "H."
33 Id., Exh. "S" and "T."
34 TSN, 7 December 2004, pp. 3-8.
35 TSN, 2 May 2006, pp. 3-9.
36 CA rollo, pp. 38-44.
40 CA rollo, p. 28.
41 People v. Galido, G.R. NOS. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 513.
42 TSN, 3 February 2003, pp. 5-6 and 10-11.
43 TSN, 26 February 2003, pp. 12-13.
45 TSN, 3 June 2003, pp. 26-29.
46 People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 661-662.
47 Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 171, 184 (2001); People v. Lustre, 386 Phil. 390, 400 (2000).
49 TSN, 7 December 2004, p. 11.
50 People v. Larranaga, G.R. NOS. 138874-75, 21 July 2005, 463 SCRA 652, 662; People v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 158203, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 719, 736; People v. Datingginoo, G.R. No. 95539, 14 June 1993, 223 SCRA 331, 335; People v. Abatayo, G.R. No. 139456, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 562, 579.
51 People v. Simon, G.R. No. 130531, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 330, 353-354; Section 8 & 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
52 Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
53 Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 669-670.
54 Passed on 6 June 1997.
55 Folder of Exhibits, Exh. "F."
56 Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 173551, 4 October 2007, 534 SCRA 668, 697.
57 People v. Saul, 423 Phil. 924, 936 (2001).
59 People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 156, 178.
60 Mendoza v. People, supra note 56 at 697.
61 Erroneously referred to as compensatory damage by the RTC.
62 People v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471, 11 May 2007, 523 SCRA 118, 134.
63 Id; People v. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 704, 719.
65 People v. Buban, supra note 62 at 134.
66 Article 2230 of the Civil Code: "In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party."
67 Folder of Exhibits, Exhs. "I" and "J."
68 Article 2206 of the Civil Code: "The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be x x x in addition: (1) the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. x x x."
69 People v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 272, 295, Manaban v. People, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 503, 525.
70 Folder of Exhibits, Exhs. "O."
72 People v. Buban, supra note 62 at 135; Mendoza v. People, supra note 56 at 702.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.