G.R. No.

192465 June 8, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ANGELITO ESQUIEL ! JESUS, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
"ARPIO, J.#
T$e "%&e
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision
1
dated 15 Dece!er "##$ of the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA'
(.). C)'*.C. No. #+",-. .he CA affired /ith odification the Decision
"
dated "0 Octo!er "##- of the )egional
.rial Court %).C& of 1anila, Branch 0- in Criinal Case No. #+'"15,$#, convicting appellant Angelito Es2ui!el 3
4esus %Es2ui!el& of the crie of urder and sentencing hi to suffer the penalt3 of reclusion perpetua.
T$e F%'(&
An inforation
+
for urder, defined and penali5ed under Article "0,
0
of the )evised 6enal Code, /as filed /ith the
).C of 1anila, Branch 5+ and then re'raffled to Branch 0-. .he inforation states7
.hat on or a!out 8e!ruar3 -, "##+, in the Cit3 of 1anila, 6hilippines, the said accused, ared /ith a !laded /eapon,
/ith intent to 9ill, /ith treacher3, did then and there /illfull3, unla/full3 and feloniousl3 attac9, assault and use
personal violence upon one C:A); BA:O:O< 3 .ACSA(ON, !3 sta!!ing and hitting hi on the stoach, there!3
inflicting upon the latter a sta! /ound on the a!doen /hich /as the direct and iediate cause of his death
thereafter.
Contrar3 to la/.
=pon arraignent, appellant Es2ui!el pleaded not guilt3 and asserted self'defense.
.he prosecution presented the follo/ing /itnesses7 1aricel (a!o3 %(a!o3&, the e3e/itness to the crie and
Balolo3>s cousin and house helper? 8elion and Evel3n Balolo3, parents of Clar9 Balolo3 3 .acsagon %Balolo3&? Dr.
Eli5ardo Daileg %Dr. Daileg&, the 1edico':egal Officer /ho conducted the post'orte e@aination on the cadaver?
and S6O" Danilo Aidal /ho conducted the investigation against Es2ui!el.
.he prosecution sued up its version of the facts7 On - 8e!ruar3 "##+ at around $ o>cloc9 in the evening, Balolo3
and his parents /ere at hoe /atching television. After eating dinner, Balolo3 /ent outside the house to /ash his
hands. (a!o3 /as also outside the house /aiting for a friend. Es2ui!el then appeared and sat !eside (a!o3.
Es2ui!el /as a neigh!or and (a!o3 had 9no/n hi since she /as a little girl.
Bhen Es2ui!el sa/ Balolo3 /ashing his hands and standing on a !ent position /ith Balolo3>s !ac9 against hi,
Es2ui!el suddenl3 stood up and approached Balolo3. Es2ui!el then sta!!ed Balolo3 on the right side of the stoach
/ith a 9nife. After/ards, Es2ui!el ran a/a3.
Balolo3 anaged to go !ac9 inside the house /ith (a!o3 follo/ing !ehind hi. Before collapsing, Balolo3 uttered
C.ata3, a3 taa a9o. Si Butcho3 sina9sa9 a9o.C Balolo3>s parents rushed hi to the Ospital ng 1a3nila /here he
/as pronounced dead on arrival.
1edico':egal Officer Dr. Daileg conducted the autops3. In his 1edico':egal )eport No. 1'0#1'#+ dated "#
8e!ruar3 "##+, Dr. Daileg found the cause of death as heorrhagic shoc9 secondar3 to a sta! /ound caused !3 a
sharp'edged instruent on the right side of the a!doen.
During the trial, Balolo3>s parents personall3 identified Es2ui!el as the one /ho their son referred to as
CButcho3.C Balolo3>s parents also incurred the aount of 6"#,### representing the cost of the cas9et.
.he defense, on the other hand, presented Es2ui!el as the lone /itness and invo9ed self'defense. Es2ui!el
testified that on the night of - 8e!ruar3 "##+, fro D7## to ,7+# in the evening, he /as on a drin9ing spree /ith
friends, including Balolo3. .he3 /ere cele!rating the !irthda3 of Es2ui!el>s childhood friend, 6hilip 6atino, at the
latter>s house. During the part3, Balolo3 suddenl3 told Es2ui!el in an angr3 tone, CButcho3 Negro titirahin 9ita.C
Es2ui!el retorted C6ati !a naan a9o titirahin o,C referring to a previous incident /here Balolo3 allegedl3 sta!!ed
Es2ui!el>s !rother. Shortl3 after the e@change, Balolo3 /ent hoe.
At around $ o>cloc9 in the evening, Es2ui!el left the part3. *e passed !3 in front of Balolo3>s house and heard
(a!o3 sa3 C;u3a, nandi3an na.C .hen Balolo3 suddenl3 appeared carr3ing a 9nife and lunged at Es2ui!el. Es2ui!el
eluded Balolo3>s attac9 and gra!!ed the 9nife. Es2ui!el then used the 9nife to sta! Balolo3 and iediatel3 fled
fro the scene.
In its Decision dated "0 Octo!er "##-, the ).C found Es2ui!el guilt3 !e3ond reasona!le dou!t of the crie of
urder 2ualified !3 treacher3. .he ).C accorded full faith and credence to the testion3 of (a!o3 and
disregarded Es2ui!el>s clai of self'defense. .he ).C stated that the 2ualif3ing circustance of treacher3 /as
dul3 esta!lished !3 direct and positive evidence. (a!o3, the e3e/itness, convincingl3 narrated the details and
circustances of ho/ Balolo3 /as 9illed, sho/ing that Es2ui!el 9no/ingl3 chose the ode of attac9 to insure the
accoplishent of the crie /ithout ris9 to hiself. .he ).C further stated that Es2ui!el>s version of self'
defense /as self'serving and cannot !e given credence over the positive and credi!le testion3 of (a!o3. .he
dispositive portion of the decision states7
B*E)E8O)E, preises considered, this Court finds the accused Angelito Es2ui!el 3 4esus guilt3 !e3ond
reasona!le dou!t of the crie of 1urder defined and penali5ed under Article "0, of the )evised 6enal Code, as
aended and there !eing no itigating or aggravating circustance present, iposes upon hi the penalt3 of
)EC:=SION 6E)6E.=A /ith all the accessor3 penalties provided !3 la/? to indenif3 the heirs of the victi the
su of 65#,###.##? to pa3 the heirs of the victi the aount of 6"#,###.## as actual daages? and to pa3 the
costs.
SO O)DE)ED.
5
Es2ui!el filed an appeal /ith the CA. Es2ui!el iputed the follo/ing errors on the ).C7
I. .*E CO=). A E=O ()AAE:< E))ED IN (IAIN( =ND=E C)EDENCE .O .*E .ES.I1ON< O8 .*E
A::E(ED E<EBI.NESS.
II. .*E CO=). A E=O ()AAE:< E))ED IN CONAIC.IN( .*E ACC=SED'A66E::AN. DES6I.E .*E
6)OSEC=.ION>S 8AI:=)E .O 6OSI.IAE:< IDEN.I8< *I1 AS .*E AIC.I1>S ASSAI:AN..
III. ASS=1IN( A)(=ENDO .*A. .*E ACC=SED'A66E::AN. IS (=I:.<, .*E CO=). A E=O
()AAE:< E))ED IN A66)ECIA.IN( .)EAC*E)<.
D
T$e Ru)*n+ o, ($e "ou-( o, A..e%)&
In a Decision dated 15 Dece!er "##$, the CA affired /ith odification the decision of the ).C. .he CA found
no cogent reason to depart fro the rule that atters concerning the credi!ilit3 of the /itnesses in criinal cases
are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Since the trial court is in the !est position to assess and
o!serve the /itness> deeanor, conduct and attitude under a grueling e@aination, the trial court>s assessent of
the credi!ilit3 of a /itness is entitled to great /eight. .he CA stated that (a!o3>s testion3 /as consistent,
un/avering and straightfor/ard. Es2ui!el>s defense that there /ere alleged inconsistencies in (a!o3>s testion3
are trivial and insignificant and do not contravene (a!o3>s testion3 that she directl3 /itnessed Es2ui!el sta!!ing
Balolo3.
.he CA deleted the a/ard of actual daages of 6"#,### since no receipt /as presented to support the clai.
Nevertheless, the CA granted the aount of 6"#,### as teperate daages, given in hoicide or urder cases
/hen no evidence of !urial or funeral e@penses is presented in court, since it cannot !e denied that the heirs
suffered pecuniar3 loss although the e@act aount /as not proved. .he dispositive portion of the decision states7
B*E)E8O)E, the assailed decision of the ).C finding the Accused'Appellant Angelito Es2ui!el 3 4esus guilt3
!e3ond reasona!le dou!t of 1urder, sentencing hi to suffer the penalt3 of reclusion perpetua /ith all the
accessor3 penalties provided !3 la/, and ordering hi to pa3 the heirs of Clar9 Balolo3 the aount of 8ift3
.housand 6esos %6hp5#,###.##& as civil indenit3, is A88I)1ED /ith 1ODI8ICA.ION that the said Accused'
Appellant is further O)DE)ED to pa3 the said heirs the aounts of 8ift3 .housand 6esos %6hp5#,###.##& as oral
daages, ./ent3 .housand 6esos %6hp"#,###.##& as teperate daages, and ./ent3 8ive .housand 6esos
%6hp"5,###.##& as e@eplar3 daages. .he a/ard of actual daages in the aount of ./ent3 .housand 6esos
%6hp"#,###.##& is DE:E.ED for lac9 of factual !asis. Costs against Accused'Appellant.
SO O)DE)ED.
-
Appellant Es2ui!el no/ coes !efore the Court, su!itting for resolution the sae issues argued !efore the CA.
In a 1anifestation
,
dated D Septe!er "#1#, Es2ui!el stated that in lieu of suppleental !rief, he is adopting the
Appellant>s Brief
$
su!itted !efore the CA. :i9e/ise, the Office of the Solicitor (eneral anifested that it no
longer desires to file a suppleental !rief and instead adopts the Appellee>s Brief
1#
dated "0 1arch "##$ /hich it
filed !efore the CA.
11
Appellant assails the decisions of the ).C and CA for giving credence to the prosecution>s evidence. .he issue !oils
do/n to the credi!ilit3 of (a!o3, the lone e3e/itness to the crie.
T$e Ru)*n+ o, ($e "ou-(
.he appeal lac9s erit.
Be agree /ith the ).C and the CA in ruling that the prosecution full3 esta!lished appellant>s guilt for the crie of
urder !e3ond reasona!le dou!t. (a!o3 positivel3 identified Es2ui!el as the person /ho sta!!ed Balolo3. Despite
the e@hausting e@aination !3 the defense, (a!o3 /as candid, straightfor/ard, fir and un/avering in her
narration of the events.
Also, the defense did not even raise an3 ill'otive on (a!o3>s part to testif3 falsel3 against Es2ui!el. In his
Appellant>s Brief, Es2ui!el aditted that he sta!!ed Balolo3 although in self'defense. B3 invo9ing self'defense, the
!urden of evidence shifts to appellant to sho/ that the 9illing /as Fustified and that he incurred no criinal
lia!ilit3.
1"
*o/ever, Es2ui!el erel3 pointed to alleged inconsistencies in (a!o3>s testion3 and to the alleged
failure of (a!o3 to positivel3 identif3 hi since there /as no light in front of the victi>s house /here she /as
sitting. .hese allegations !3 Es2ui!el /ere not su!stantiated !3 clear and convincing evidence. Both the ).C and
CA found that Es2ui!el>s testion3 is self'serving and deserves no /eight in la/ over the positive and credi!le
testionies of the prosecution>s /itnesses, particularl3 (a!o3>s.
In 6eople v. Nicholas,
1+
/e held that self'defense, to !e successfull3 invo9ed, ust !e esta!lished /ith certaint3
and proved /ith sufficient satisfactor3 and convincing evidence that e@cludes an3 vestige of criinal aggression on
the part of the person invo9ing it. Es2ui!el>s testion3 /as not onl3 uncorro!orated !ut also e@treel3 dou!tful.
8urther, /e agree /ith the lo/er courts in appreciating treacher3 as a 2ualif3ing circustance. .he essence of
treacher3 is the sudden and une@pected attac9 on an unsuspecting victi !3 the perpetrator of the crie,
depriving the victi of an3 chance to defend hiself or repel the aggression, thus, insuring its coission /ithout
ris9 to the aggressor and /ithout an3 provocation on the part of the victi.
10
.he sudden attac9 !3 Es2ui!el /ith a
!laded /eapon, /ith Balolo3>s !ac9 against hi, /as undou!tedl3 treacherous. Balolo3 /as /ashing his hands outside
his house /hen Es2ui!el appeared out of no/here and sta!!ed hi. Balolo3 /as unprepared and had no eans to put
up a defense. Such aggression insured the coission of the crie /ithout ris9 on Es2ui!el.
In su, /e find no cogent reason to depart fro the decision of the CA. Es2ui!el is guilt3 !e3ond reasona!le dou!t
of the crie of urder and is sentenced to suffer the penalt3 of reclusion perpetua /ith all the accessor3
penalties provided !3 la/. As for daages, the CA a/arded these aounts7 %1& 65#,### as civil indenit3? %"&
65#,### as oral daages? %+& 6"#,### as teperate daages? and %0& 6"5,### as e@eplar3 daages. .o confor
/ith recent Furisprudence,
15
the aounts a/arded !3 the CA are here!3 increased to7 %1& 6-5,### as civil
indenit3?
1D
%"& 6"5,### as teperate daages? and %+& 6+#,### as e@eplar3 daages.
1-
/HEREFORE, /e 0IS1ISS the appeal. Be AFFIR1 the Decision dated 15 Dece!er "##$ of the Court of
Appeals in CA'(.). C)'*.C. No. #+",- /ITH THE 1O0IFI"ATION that the aounts of civil indenit3,
teperate daages, and e@eplar3 daages are increased to 6-5,###, 6"5,###, and 6+#,###, respectivel3.
SO OR0ERE0.
ANTONIO T. "ARPIO
Associate 4ustice