666 Phil.

673

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 192465, June 08, 2011 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANGELITO

ESQUIBEL Y JESUS, APPELLANT.
DECISION

CARPIO, J.:
The Case

Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision [1] dated 15 December 2009 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03287. The CA affirmed with modification the
Decision[2] dated 24 October 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47 in
Criminal Case No. 03-215890, convicting appellant Angelito Esquibel y Jesus (Esquibel) of
the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Facts

An information[3] for murder, defined and penalized under Article 248[4] of the Revised Penal
Code, was filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 53 and then re-raffled to Branch 47. The
information states:

That on or about February 7, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, with treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
CLARK BALOLOY y TACSAGON, by stabbing and hitting him on the stomach,
thereby inflicting upon the latter a stab wound on the abdomen which was the direct
and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to law.

Upon arraignment, appellant Esquibel pleaded not guilty and asserted self-defense.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Maricel Gaboy (Gaboy), the eyewitness
to the crime and Baloloy's cousin and house helper; Felimon and Evelyn Baloloy, parents of
Clark Baloloy y Tacsagon (Baloloy); Dr. Elizardo Daileg (Dr. Daileg), the Medico-Legal
Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver; and SPO2 Danilo Vidal
who conducted the investigation against Esquibel.

The prosecution summed up its version of the facts: On 7 February 2003 at around 9 o'clock
in the evening, Baloloy and his parents were at home watching television. After eating
dinner, Baloloy went outside the house to wash his hands. Gaboy was also outside the house
waiting for a friend. Esquibel then appeared and sat beside Gaboy. Esquibel was a neighbor
and Gaboy had known him since she was a little girl.

When Esquibel saw Baloloy washing his hands and standing on a bent position with
Baloloy's back against him, Esquibel suddenly stood up and approached Baloloy. Esquibel
then stabbed Baloloy on the right side of the stomach with a knife. Afterwards, Esquibel ran
away.

Baloloy managed to go back inside the house with Gaboy following behind him. Before
collapsing, Baloloy uttered "Tatay, may tama ako. Si Butchoy sinaksak ako." Baloloy's
parents rushed him to the Ospital ng Maynila where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Daileg conducted the autopsy. In his Medico-Legal Report No. M-
401-03 dated 20 February 2003, Dr. Daileg found the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock
secondary to a stab wound caused by a sharp-edged instrument on the right side of the
abdomen.

During the trial, Baloloy's parents personally identified Esquibel as the one whom their son
referred to as "Butchoy." Baloloy's parents also incurred the amount of P20,000 representing
the cost of the casket.

The defense, on the other hand, presented Esquibel as the lone witness and invoked self-
defense. Esquibel testified that on the night of 7 February 2003, from 6:00 to 8:30 in the
evening, he was on a drinking spree with friends, including Baloloy. They were celebrating
the birthday of Esquibel's childhood friend, Philip Patino, at the latter's house. During the
party, Baloloy suddenly told Esquibel in an angry tone, "Butchoy Negro titirahin kita."
Esquibel retorted "Pati ba naman ako titirahin mo," referring to a previous incident where
Baloloy allegedly stabbed Esquibel's brother. Shortly after the exchange, Baloloy went home.

At around 9 o'clock in the evening, Esquibel left the party. He passed by in front of Baloloy's
house and heard Gaboy say "Kuya, nandiyan na." Then Baloloy suddenly appeared carrying
a knife and lunged at Esquibel. Esquibel eluded Baloloy's attack and grabbed the knife.
Esquibel then used the knife to stab Baloloy and immediately fled from the scene.

In its Decision dated 24 October 2007, the RTC found Esquibel guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. The RTC accorded full faith and
credence to the testimony of Gaboy and disregarded Esquibel's claim of self-defense. The
RTC stated that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established by direct and
positive evidence. Gaboy, the eyewitness, convincingly narrated the details and
circumstances of how Baloloy was killed, showing that Esquibel knowingly chose the mode
of attack to insure the accomplishment of the crime without risk to himself. The RTC further
stated that Esquibel's version of self-defense was self-serving and cannot be given credence
over the positive and credible testimony of Gaboy. The dispositive portion of the decision
states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Angelito Esquibel y
Jesus guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and there being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance present, imposes upon him the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided by law; to
indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00; to pay the heirs of the victim
the amount of P20,000.00 as actual damages; and to pay the costs.
 SO ORDERED.[5]

Esquibel filed an appeal with the CA. Esquibel imputed the following errors on the RTC:

I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE CREDENCE

TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED EYEWITNESS.

II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
POSITIVELY IDENTIFY HIM AS THE VICTIM'S ASSAILANT.

III. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY,

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING
TREACHERY.[6]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Decision dated 15 December 2009, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of
the RTC. The CA found no cogent reason to depart from the rule that matters concerning the
credibility of the witnesses in criminal cases are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Since the trial court is in the best position to assess and observe the witness' demeanor,
conduct and attitude under a grueling examination, the trial court's assessment of the
credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. The CA stated that Gaboy's testimony was
consistent, unwavering and straightforward. Esquibel's defense that there were alleged
inconsistencies in Gaboy's testimony are trivial and insignificant and do not contravene
Gaboy's testimony that she directly witnessed Esquibel stabbing Baloloy.

The CA deleted the award of actual damages of P20,000 since no receipt was presented to
support the claim. Nevertheless, the CA granted the amount of P20,000 as temperate
damages, given in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial or funeral expenses
is presented in court, since it cannot be denied that the heirs suffered pecuniary loss although
the exact amount was not proved. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the RTC finding the Accused-Appellant

Angelito Esquibel y Jesus guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by
law, and ordering him to pay the heirs of Clark Baloloy the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
the said Accused-Appellant is further ORDERED to pay the said heirs the amounts of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty Thousand Pesos
(Php20,000.00) as temperate damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(Php25,000.00) as exemplary damages. The award of actual damages in the amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) is DELETED for lack of factual basis. Costs
against Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.[7]

Appellant Esquibel now comes before the Court, submitting for resolution the same issues
argued before the CA. In a Manifestation[8] dated 6 September 2010, Esquibel stated that in
lieu of supplemental brief, he is adopting the Appellant's Brief[9] submitted before the CA.
Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it no longer desires to file a
supplemental brief and instead adopts the Appellee's Brief [10] dated 24 March 2009 which it
filed before the CA.[11]

Appellant assails the decisions of the RTC and CA for giving credence to the prosecution's
evidence. The issue boils down to the credibility of Gaboy, the lone eyewitness to the crime.

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

We agree with the RTC and the CA in ruling that the prosecution fully established appellant's
guilt for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Gaboy positively identified Esquibel
as the person who stabbed Baloloy. Despite the exhausting examination by the defense,
Gaboy was candid, straightforward, firm and unwavering in her narration of the events.

Also, the defense did not even raise any ill-motive on Gaboy's part to testify falsely against
Esquibel. In his Appellant's Brief, Esquibel admitted that he stabbed Baloloy although in self-
defense. By invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to appellant to show that the
killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability. [12] However, Esquibel merely
pointed to alleged inconsistencies in Gaboy's testimony and to the alleged failure of Gaboy to
positively identify him since there was no light in front of the victim's house where she was
sitting. These allegations by Esquibel were not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. Both the RTC and CA found that Esquibel's testimony is self-serving and deserves
no weight in law over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses,
particularly Gaboy's.

In People v. Nicholas,[13] we held that self-defense, to be successfully invoked, must be

established with certainty and proved with sufficient satisfactory and convincing evidence
that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.
Esquibel's testimony was not only uncorroborated but also extremely doubtful.

Further, we agree with the lower courts in appreciating treachery as a qualifying

circumstance. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to
defend himself or repel the aggression, thus, insuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. [14] The sudden attack by
Esquibel with a bladed weapon, with Baloloy's back against him, was undoubtedly
treacherous. Baloloy was washing his hands outside his house when Esquibel appeared out of
nowhere and stabbed him. Baloloy was unprepared and had no means to put up a defense.
Such aggression insured the commission of the crime without risk on Esquibel.

In sum, we find no cogent reason to depart from the decision of the CA. Esquibel is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law. As for damages, the CA
awarded these amounts: (1) P50,000 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000 as moral damages; (3)
P20,000 as temperate damages; and (4) P25,000 as exemplary damages. To conform with
recent jurisprudence,[15] the amounts awarded by the CA are hereby increased to: (1) P75,000
as civil indemnity;[16] (2) P25,000 as temperate damages; and (3) P30,000 as exemplary
damages.[17]
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15 December
2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03287 WITH THE
MODIFICATION that the amounts of civil indemnity, temperate damages, and exemplary
damages are increased to P75,000, P25,000, and P30,000, respectively.

SO ORDERED.

Nachura, Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

[1]Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Justices Rosalinda
Asuncion-Vicente and Antonio L. Villamor, concurring.
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 16-20. Penned by Presiding Judge Augusto T. Gutierrez.
[3]
Id. at 9-10.

Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provision of Article 246,
[4]

shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to
death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
[5]
CA rollo, p. 20.
[6]
CA rollo, p. 37.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[8]
Id. at 24-25.
[9]
CA rollo, pp. 35-46.
[10]
Id. at 68-81.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.

Beninsig v. People, G.R. No. 167683, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 320, citing Catalina
[12]

Security Agency v. Gonzalez- Decano, 473 Phil. 690 (2004).

[13]
422 Phil. 53 (2001).
[14]
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 519.
[15]
People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 180915, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 383.
[16]
See also People v. Obligado, G.R. No. 171735, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 380.

See also People v. Ortiz, Jr., G.R. No. 188704, 7 July 2010, 624 SCRA 533.
[17]

© Supreme Court E-Library 2012

This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical
Staff.