G.R. No. 121828.
June 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EDMAR AGUILOS,
ODILON LAGLIBA Y ABREGON and RENE GAYOT PILOLA, accused, RENE GAYOT PILOLA,
appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us is the appeal of appellant Rene Gayot Pilola for
the reversal of the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig
City, Branch 164, convicting him of murder, sentencing him to suffer reclusion
perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim Joselito Capa y
Rulloda in the amount of P50,000 for the latter’s death.
The Indictment
On June 7, 1998, Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba y Abregon and
appellant Rene Gayot Pilola were charged with murder in an Information which
reads:
That on or about the 5th day of February, 1988 in the
Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together with one Ronnie Diamante who is still at-large and no
fixed address and mutually helping and aiding with one another, armed with
double-bladed knives and a bolo and with intent to kill, treachery and taking
advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault hack and stab one Joselito Capa y Rulloda, as a
result of which the latter sustained hack and stab wounds on the different
parts of his body, which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Of the three accused, Odilon Lagliba was the first to be arrested[3] and tried,
and subsequently convicted of murder.[4] The decision of the trial court
became final and executory. Accused Edmar Aguilos remains at large
while accused Ronnie
Diamante reportedly died a month after the incident. Meanwhile, herein appellant Rene Gayot Pilola was arrested. He was arraigned on March 9, 1994, assisted
by counsel, and pleaded
not guilty to the charge.[5] Thereafter, trial of the case ensued.
The Evidence of the Prosecution[6]
On February
5, 1988, at around 11:30 p.m., Elisa Rolan was inside their store at 613
Nueve de Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City, waiting for her husband to arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. were drinking beer. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba arrived at
the store. Joselito and Julian invited
them to join their drinking spree, and although already inebriated, the two
newcomers obliged. In the course
of their drinking, the conversation
turned into a heated argument. Edmar
nettled Julian, and the latter was peeved. An altercation between the two ensued. Elisa pacified the protagonists and advised them to go home as she was
already going to close up. Edmar and Odilon left the
store. Joselito and Julian were also
about to leave, when Edmar and Odilon returned, blocking their way. Edmar took off his eyeglasses and punched
Julian in the face. Elisa shouted: “Tama
na. Tama na.” Edmar and Julian ignored her and traded fist
blows until they reached Aling Sotera’s store at the end of the street, about
twelve to fifteen meters away from Elisa’s store. For his part, Odilon positioned himself on
top of a pile of hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and Julian swapped
punches. Joselito tried to placate the
protagonists to no avail. Joselito’s
intervention apparently did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled out his knife with his right hand
and stepped down from his perch. He
placed his left arm around Joselito’s neck, and stabbed the latter. Ronnie and the appellant, who were across the
street, saw their gangmate Odilon stabbing the victim and decided to join the
fray. They pulled out their knives,
rushed to the scene and stabbed Joselito.
Elisa could not tell how many times the victim was stabbed or what parts
of his body were hit by whom. The victim
fell in the canal. Odilon and the appellant
fled, while Ronnie went after Julian and tried to stab him. Julian ran for dear life. When he noticed that Ronnie was no longer
running after him, Julian stopped at E. Rodriguez Road and looked
back. He saw Ronnie pick up a piece of hollow block and with it
bashed Joselito’s head. Not content,
Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck Joselito once more. Ronnie then fled from the scene. Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to Joselito’s house and informed
his wife and brother of the incident.[7]
The next day, Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz, Supervising Medico-Legal Officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Joselito
and prepared Autopsy Report No. N-88-375,[8] with the following findings:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Pallor, conjunctivae and integument, marked and generalized.
Contused abrasions: temple, right, 3.0 x 3.0 cm.; mandibular
region, right, 2.0 x 8.0 cm.; back, suprascapular region, left, 3.0 x 4.0 cm.;
deltoid region, right, 1.0 x 3.0 cm.
Lacerated wound, scalp, occipital region, 4.0 cm.
Incised wounds: forehead, right side, 5.5 cm.; arm, left,
upper third, posterior aspect, 1.5 cm.
Stab wounds:
1. Elliptical,
1.8 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, medial extremity is
sharp, lateral extremity is blunt; located at the anterior chest wall, level of
3rd intercostal space, right, 5.0 cm. from anterior median line; directed
backward, upward and medially, non-penetrating, with an approximate depth of
3.0 cm.;
2. Elliptical,
1.5 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, one extremity is
sharp and the other is blunt; located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest,
level of 3rd intercostal space, left, 3.0 cm. from anterior median line;
directed backward, downward and medially, into the left thoracic cavity,
penetrating the left ventricle of the heart with an approximate depth of 10.0
cm.;
3. Elliptical,
3.0 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, one extremity is
sharp and the other is blunt; located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest,
level of 4th intercostal space, 12.0 cm. from anterior median line; directed
backward, downward and medially, penetrating upper lobe of left lung with an
approximate depth of 9.0 cm.;
4. Elliptical,
2.0 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, one extremity is
sharp and the other is blunt; located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest,
level of 5th intercostal space, left, 15.0 cm. from anterior median line;
directed backward, downward and medially, penetrating the left thoracic cavity
and then lower lobe of left lung and then penetrating the left ventricle of the
heart with an approximate depth of 11.0 cm.;
5. Elliptical,
1.3 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, one extremity is
sharp and the other is blunt; located at the lateral chest wall, level of 7th
intercostal space, left, 16.0 cm. from anterior median line; directed backward,
upward and medially, into the left thoracic cavity and then penetrating the
lower lobe of left lung with an approximately depth of 10.0 cm.;
6. Elliptical,
4.0 cm., oriented almost horizontally, edges are clean-cut, one extremity is
sharp and the other is blunt; located at the lumbar region, left, 14.0 cm. from
anterior median line; directed backward, upward and medially, into the
abdominal cavity and then penetrating ileum;
7. Elliptical,
1.5 cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper extremity is
sharp, lower extremity is blunt; located at the chest, lateral, level of 9th
intercostal space, left; 14.0 cm. from posterior median line; directed forward,
upward and medially, non-penetrating with an approximate depth of 4.0 cm.;
8. Elliptical,
2.0 cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper extremity is
blunt, lower extremity is sharp; located at the abdomen, postero-lateral
aspect, 15.0 cm. from posterior median line; directed forward, upward and
laterally, into the abdominal cavity and then perforating the spleen and
pancreas with an approximate depth of 13.0 cm.;
9. Elliptical,
5.0 cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper extremity is
blunt, lower extremity is sharp; located at the left arm, upper third,
anterior; directed backward, downward and medially, involving skin and
underlying soft tissues with an approximate depth of 6.0 cm.;
10. Elliptical,
2.3 cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper extremity is
sharp, lower extremity is blunt; located at the left forearm, upper third,
anterior; directed backward, upward and medially and communicating with another
wound, arm, left, medial aspect, 2.0 cm.;
11. Elliptical,
2.0 cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper extremity
blunt, lower extremity, sharp; located at the left arm, lower third, posterior
aspect, directed forward, downward and medially, communicating with another
wound, arm, left, lower third, posterior aspect, 1.5 cm.
Hemothorax, left – 900 c.c.
Hemopericardium – 300 c.c.
Hemoperitoneum – 750 c.c.
Brain and other visceral organs, pale.
Stomach-filled with rice and other food particles.
CAUSE
OF DEATH: Multiple stab wounds.
The Evidence of the Appellant
The appellant denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of
alibi. He testified that at around 11:00 p.m. of February 5, 1988,
he was in the house of his cousin, Julian Cadion, at 606 Nueve de
Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City. He
suddenly heard a commotion
coming from outside. Julian rushed out of the house
to find out what was going on.
The appellant remained
inside the house because he was suffering from ulcer and was experiencing
excessive pain in his stomach.
The following
morning, the appellant learned from their neighbor, Elisa Rolan, that Joselito
had been stabbed to death. The
appellant did not bother to ask who was responsible for the stabbing.[9]
Julian
alias “Buboy” Cadion corroborated the appellant’s testimony. He testified that the appellant was in their
house on the night of February 5, 1988, and was suffering from ulcer. The appellant stayed home on the night of the
incident.[10]
Agripina
Gloria, a female security guard residing at Block 30, Nueve de Pebrero,
612, Int. 4, Allison St., Mandaluyong City, testified that on February 5, 1988 at around
11:00 p.m., she heard a commotion outside. Momentarily, she saw Ronnie rush into the kitchen of the house of her
niece Teresita; he took a knife and run towards Nueve de Pebrero Street where
Edmar and Julian were fighting. She then
followed Ronnie and saw Joselito trying to pacify the protagonists. Ronnie grabbed Joselito and instantly stabbed
the latter, who for a while retreated and fell down the canal. Not content, Ronnie repeatedly stabbed
Joselito. Thereafter, Ronnie ran towards
the direction of the mental hospital.
Agripina did not see Odilon or the appellant anywhere within the
vicinity of the incident.[11]
On May 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its assailed
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds RENE GAYOT PILOLA of 606 Nueve de Febrero Street,
Mandaluyong City, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder punished under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Pilola is hereby ordered to indemnify the
heirs of deceased Joselito Capa alias Jessie in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnity for his death jointly and solidarily with
Odilon Lagliba who was earlier convicted herein. With cost against the accused.[12]
In the case at bar, the appellant assails the decision of
the trial court contending that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS
CONSPIRACY ANENT THE ASSAILED INCIDENT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE
AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS ELISA ROLAN AND IN SETTING
ASIDE THE EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT
PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[13]
The appellant avers that Elisa is not a credible witness and
her testimony is barren of probative weight.
This is so because she contradicted herself when she testified on direct
examination that Ronnie struck the head of the victim with a hollow block. However, on cross-examination, she stated that it was Edmar who
struck the victim. The inconsistency in Elisa’s
testimony impaired her credibility.
The contention of the appellant does not hold water.
First. The identity of the person who
hit the victim with a hollow block is of de minimis importance. The victim died because of multiple
wounds. The appellant is charged with
murder for the killing of the victim with a knife, in conspiracy with the other
accused.
Second. The perceived
inconsistency in Elisa’s account of events is a minor and collateral detail
that does not affect the substance of her testimony, as it even serves to
strengthen rather than destroy her credibility.[14]
Third. Elisa has been
consistent in her testimony that the appellant was one of the men who stabbed
the victim, the others being Ronnie and Odilon.
Elisa’s testimony
is corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz and his testimony
that the victim sustained eleven stab wounds. The doctor testified that there were two or
more assailants:
Q Could you tell
the court what instrument could have been used by the perpetrator in inflicting
those two incise wounds?
A Those incise
wounds were caused by a sharp instrument like a knife or any similar
instrument.
…
Q Now you also
found out from the body of the victim eleven stab wounds?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, tell the
court in which part of the body of the victim where these eleven stab wounds [are]
located?
A Shall I go one
by one, all the eleven stab wounds?
Q All the eleven
stab wounds?
A One stab wound
was located at the front portion of the chest, right side. Another stab wound was located also on the
chest left side, another stab wound was located at the antero lateral aspect,
it’s the front of the chest almost to the side.
And also another one, also at the chest, another stab wound was at the
left side of the chest and another one was at the lumbar region of the abdomen
left side or where the left kidney is located, lumbar area. Another one at the side of the chest, left
side of the chest. Another stab wound in
the abdomen, another stab wound at the left arm. Another one at the left forearm and the last
one in the autopsy report is located at the left arm. These are all the eleven stab wounds
sustained by the victim.
…
A The instrument
used was a sharp pointed edge or a single bladed instrument like a knife,
kitchen knife, balisong or any similar instrument.
Q Considering the
number of stab wounds, doctor, will you tell us whether there were several
assailants?
A In my opinion,
there were more than one assailants (sic) here because of the presence of
different types of stab wounds and lacerated wounds. This lacerated wound could not have been
inflicted by the one holding the one which inflicted the instrument . .
(discontinued) which inflicted the stab wounds.
Q So there could
have been two or three assailants?
A More than
one.[15]
The physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation
of the veracity of Elisa’s testimony.[16]
Fourth. Even the
appellant himself declared on the witness stand that he could not think of any
reason why Elisa pointed to him as one of the assailants. In a litany of cases, we have ruled that when
there is no showing of any
improper motive on the part of a witness to testify falsely against the accused
or to falsely implicate the latter in the commission of the crime, as in
the case at bar, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists,
and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[17]
Fifth. The trial court gave credence and
full probative weight to Elisa’s testimony. Case law has it that the trial court’s
calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the
credibility of witnesses and the probative weight thereof is given high
respect, if not conclusive effect, by the appellate court.
The appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove
that he conspired with Ronnie and Odilon in stabbing the victim to death. He contends that for one to be a conspirator,
his participation in the criminal resolution of another must either precede or
be concurrent with the criminal acts. He
asserts that even if it were true that he was present at the situs criminis and
that he stabbed the victim, it was Odilon who had already decided, and in fact
fatally stabbed the victim. He could not
have conspired with Odilon as the incident was only a chance encounter between
the victim, the appellant and his co-accused.
In the absence of a conspiracy, the appellant cannot be held liable as a
principal by direct participation. Elisa
could not categorically and positively assert as to what part of the victim’s
body was hit by whom, and how many times the victim was stabbed by the
appellant. He asserts that he is merely
an accomplice and not a principal by direct participation.
We are not persuaded by the ruminations of the appellant.
There
is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it.[18] Conspiracy
as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proved separately from and
with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. After all, secrecy and
concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they
had acted with a common purpose and design.[19] Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two
or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[20]
There may be conspiracy
even if an offender does not know the identities of the other offenders,[21]
and even though he is not
aware of all the details of the plan of operation or was not in on the scheme
from the beginning.[22] One need only to knowingly contribute his efforts in furtherance of it.[23]
One who joins a criminal
conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of his
co-conspirators. If conspiracy is
established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation of law, the act
of one would be the act of all.[24] Each of the conspirators is the agent of all the others.[25]
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the conspiracy.[26] The mere presence of an accused at the situs of the crime
will not suffice; mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act
without cooperation or agreement to cooperate on the part of the accused is not
enough to make him a party to a conspiracy.
There must be
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose.[27] Conspiracy to exist does not require
an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists
if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution.[28] As a rule, the concurrence of
wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, may be deduced from the evidence of
facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the parties
cooperated and labored to the same end.[29]
Even if
two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they may be
held criminally liable as principals by direct participation if they perform
overt acts which mediately or immediately cause or accelerate the death of the
victim, applying Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code:
Art.
4. Criminal liability. – Criminal
liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
In such a case, it is not necessary that each of the
separate injuries is fatal in itself. It
is sufficient if the injuries cooperated in bringing about the victim’s
death. Both the offenders are criminally
liable for the same crime by reason of their individual and separate overt
criminal acts.[30] Absent conspiracy between two or more offenders, they may be
guilty of homicide or murder for the death of the victim, one as a principal by
direct participation, and the other as an accomplice, under Article 18 of the
Revised Penal Code:
Art.
18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the
persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
To hold
a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (a) the community
of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.[31]
Accomplices come to know
about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation after
the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does
the accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime
should be committed; they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.[32] However, where one cooperates in
the commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves are
acts of execution, he is a principal by direct participation, and not merely an
accomplice.[33]
In this case, Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab the victim. The appellant and Ronnie were on the side of
the street. However, while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the
appellant and Ronnie agreed to join in; they rushed to the scene and
also stabbed the victim with their respective knives. The three men simultaneously stabbed the
hapless victim. Odilon and the appellant
fled from the scene together, while Ronnie went after Julian. When he failed to overtake and collar Julian,
Ronnie returned to where Joselito fell and hit him with a hollow block and a
broken bottle. Ronnie then hurriedly
left. All the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the appellant
before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they
conspired to kill the victim.
The victim died because of multiple stab wounds inflicted by
two or more persons. There is no evidence that before
the arrival of Ronnie and the appellant at the situs criminis, the victim was
already dead. It cannot thus be argued
that by the time the appellant and Ronnie joined Odilon in stabbing the victim,
the crime was already consummated.
All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the appellant
conspired with Odilon to kill the victim; hence, all of them are criminally
liable for the latter’s death. The
appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal by direct participation.
Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with
Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is nevertheless criminally
liable as a principal by direct participation.
The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in bringing about and
accelerated the death of the victim or contributed materially thereto.[34]
The trial court correctly overruled the appellant’s defense
of alibi. Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in a
criminal prosecution, because it is easy to concoct but hard to disprove. To serve as basis for acquittal, it must be
established by clear and convincing evidence.
For it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was absent
from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been present then.[35] In this
case, the appellant avers that at the time of the stabbing incident, he was
resting in the house of his cousin at 606 Nueve de Pebrero Street as he was
suffering from stomach pain due to his ulcer.[36] But the appellant failed to
adduce any medical certificate that he was suffering from the ailment. Moreover, Elisa positively identified the
appellant as one of the men who repeatedly stabbed the victim. The appellant’s defense of alibi cannot
prevail over the positive and straightforward identification of the appellant
as one of the victim’s assailants. The
appellant himself admitted that his cousin’s house, the place where he was
allegedly resting when the victim was stabbed, was merely ten to fifteen meters
away from the scene of the stabbing.
Indeed, the appellant’s defense of denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot be
given greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of prosecution
eyewitness Elisa Rolan.[37]
The appellant’s defenses must crumble in the face of
evidence that he fled from the situs criminis and later left his house. The records show that despite being informed
that he was sought after by the authorities as a suspect for the killing of the
victim, the appellant suddenly and inscrutably disappeared from his residence
at Nueve de Pebrero. As early as May 5,
1988, a subpoena for the appellant was returned unserved because he was “out of
town.”[38] The appellant’s own witness, Julian Cadion, testified that the
appellant had left and was no longer seen at Nueve de Pebrero after the
incident, thus:
Q So, how long did
you stay at 606 Nueve de Pebrero after February 5, 1988?
A One week only,
sir, and then three weeks after, I returned to Nueve de Pebrero.
Q The whole week
after February 5, 1988, was Rene Pilola still living at 606 Nueve de Pebrero?
A I did not see
him anymore, sir.
Q And then three
weeks thereafter, you went back to Nueve de Pebrero. Is that what you were then saying?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, at the time
that you went back to 606 Nueve de Pebrero, was Rene Pilola there?
A I did not see
him anymore, sir.[39]
The
records show that the appellant knew that he was charged for the stabbing of
the victim. However, instead of
surrendering to the police authorities, he adroitly evaded arrest. The appellant’s flight is evidence of guilt
and, from the factual circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, no reason can
be deduced from it other than that he was driven by a strong sense of guilt and
admission that he had no tenable defense.[40]
The Crime Committed by the Appellant
and the Proper Penalty Therefor
The
trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder qualified by
treachery. Abuse of superior strength
likewise attended the commission of the crime.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on
his part.[41] In this case, the attack on the unarmed victim was sudden. Odilon, without provocation, suddenly placed
his arm around the victim’s neck and forthwith stabbed the latter. The victim had no inkling that he would be
attacked as he was attempting to pacify Edmar and Julian. Ronnie and the appellant, both also armed
with deadly weapons, rushed to the scene and stabbed the victim, giving no real
opportunity for the latter to defend himself.
And even as the victim was already sprawled on the canal, Ronnie bashed
his head with a hollow block. The
peacemaker became the victim of violence.
Unquestionably, the nature and location of the wounds showed
that the killing was executed in a treacherous manner, preventing any means of
defense on the part of the victim. As
testified to by Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz, the victim was stabbed, not just once,
but eleven times mostly on
the chest and the abdominal area. Six of
the stab wounds were fatal, causing damage to the victim’s vital internal
organs.[42]
The
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.[43]
There is no mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the
felony. The penalty for murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since no aggravating and mitigating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the proper penalty is
reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Civil Liabilities of the Appellant
The trial court correctly directed the appellant to pay to
the heirs of the victim Joselita Capa the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity
ex delicto, in accord with current jurisprudence.[44] The said heirs are
likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000, also conformably
to current jurisprudence.[45] In addition, the heirs are entitled to exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000.[46]
WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated May 3, 1995, of Branch 164 of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 73615, finding
appellant Rene Gayot
Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. The appellant is
hereby directed to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselito Capa the amount of
P50,000 as civil indemnity; the amount of P50,000 as moral damages; and the
amount of P25,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on official leave.