MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA and SERVILLANO NACIONAL, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G.R. No. 221425 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA a.k.a "JOHN," "KONYONG" SALONGA and SERVILLANO NACIONAL @ "INONG" @ DIONISIO NACIONAL, Accused-Appellants.
January 23, 2017
G.R. No. 218466/G.R. No. 221425
FACTS:
Between 9:00 to 10:00 o'clock in the evening of January 20, 2002, eyewitness Reynaldo Necesito (Reynaldo) was walking towards the store of Leonida Fabrigas when he chanced upon accused-appellants having an altercation with the victim, Rolando Necesito (Rolando). From his vantage point, Reynaldo heard Ramos yell, "Okinam patayan ka!" (Son of a bitch! I will kill you!) and saw accused-appellants chase and eventually surround Rolando at an area around seven (7) meters away from where Reynaldo was hiding. Reynaldo then heard four (4) successive gunshots, making him hide under the trunk of the duhat tree for fear of being hit. It was on the sound of the fourth shot when Reynaldo witnessed Rolando fall face down on the ground. To ensure Rolando's demise, Ramos approached Rolando and shot him again. Thereafter, accused-appellants fled the scene.
The next day, Rolando's body was found near the duhat tree, prompting police officers to conduct an investigation from which were gathered the following evidence and information: (a) a piece of bamboo was recovered three (3) meters away from Rolando's corpse; (b) Rolando purportedly had a previous misunderstanding with Ramos sometime in 1997, yet the same was settled before the barangay; and (c) Rolando allegedly had a drinking spree with his friends at the time of the incident. An autopsy was likewise conducted on Rolando's body, revealing that there were four (4) incised wounds on his left hand, a stab wound on his left chest, and five (5) gunshot wounds on his body; that based on the nature and sizes of his wounds, it was possible that the firearm used was of the same caliber; and that his injuries could not have been inflicted by a single person.
For their respective parts, accused-appellants similarly invoked the defenses of denial and alibi.1âwphi1 Essentially, they insisted that they were somewhere else when the incident occurred. In addition, Ramos maintained that the declarations of Reynaldo against him were motivated by a personal grudge, while Nacional claimed that the corpus delicti was not proven with exact certainty since the cadaver that was exhumed and examined was already in an advanced stage of decomposition, having been interred for more than a month.
RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction for the crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm with modification. It held that Reynaldo was able to positively identify accused-appellants as Rolando's killers, given that he was only seven (7) meters away from the situs criminis. The CA likewise held that the accused-appellants took advantage of their combined superior strength as they even used several weapons to render the unarmed victim completely defenseless.
Dissatisfied, Nacional filed a Notice of Appeal, 16 (G.R. No.221425) while Ramos and Salonga filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court (G.R. No. 218466).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellants' conviction for the crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm.
RULING:
The Court notes that Nacional elevated the matter before the Court thru a Notice of Appeal17 (G.R. No. 221425) filed before the CA; on the other hand, Ramos and Salonga filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court (G.R. No. 218466). As a general rule, appeals of criminal cases shall be brought to the Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; except when the CA imposed the penalty of "reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty," in which case, the appeal shall be made by a mere notice of appeal filed before the CA.In this case, Ramos and Salonga clearly availed of a wrong mode of appeal by filing a petition for review on certiorari before the Court, despite having been sentenced by the CA of reclusion perpetua. Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court will treat their petition as an ordinary appeal in order to resolve the substantive issue at hand with finality.
To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (a) that a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (d) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
In the instant case, the prosecution, through the testimony of eyewitness Reynaldo, had established beyond reasonable doubt that: the accused-appellants chased, ganged up, and eventually, killed Rolando, and likewise, it was shown that they deliberately used weapons (i.e., gun and bamboo stick), which rendered Rolando defenseless from their fatal attacks. Thus, such killing was attended with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which perforce warrants accused-appellants' conviction for Murder
The courts a quo erred in convicting accused-appellants of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm since under Section 1 of RA 8294, "[i]f homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance." There are two (2) requisites to establish such circumstance, namely: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence
WHEREFORE, the consolidated appeals are DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05095 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows: accused-appellants Manny Ramos, Roberto Salonga, and Servillano Nacional are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to jointly and severally pay Rolando Necesito's heirs the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages, ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages with six percent (6%) legal interest per annum on all the monetary awards from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
No comments:
Post a Comment