PEOPLE v. RAYTOS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LORENZO RAYTOS Y ESPINO, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 225623

June 7, 2017

FACTS:

On February 1, 2010, at around 12:00 a.m., he was in front of his house with Raytos and ten (10) others occupying three (3) tables and having a dance session as it was just the day after their barangay fiesta. While he was dancing with the victim, Raytos approached them and said that he wanted to dance with the victim. Papiona acceded and went to the side of the road just an arm's length away from the dance area. From his position at the side of the road, he saw Raytos stab the victim when the latter turned his back from Raytos while dancing. Papiona recalled that he saw Raytos hold the right back shoulder of the victim and stab the latter's back several times with the use of a knife measuring 8 inches in length. Raytos then went to a hilly portion of their barangay while Papiona helped in loading the victim on a truck and in bringing the latter to the hospital. He did not hear any argument from both the victim and Raytos prior to the incident. Three days later, the victim died.

Romeo Nacase y Tarayo (hereafter Nacase), testified that he is a resident of Brgy. Nagcaduha, Villareal, Samar, and knew both the victim and Raytos. On February 1, 2010, at around 9:00 in the evening, he was having a drinking spree with the victim and a certain Dado Nacase. Soon thereafter, he saw the victim and Edgar dancing and while the two danced, he saw Raytos pull a knife from his pocket and approach the victim from the back. When the victim was about to tum around, Raytos took hold of the victim's shirt and stabbed the victim in the back. He was about 4 Yi meters away when the incident happened. He did not hear the victim and Raytos argue or talk before the stabbing incident.

Francisca Araza y Macasalabang (hereafter Francisca), wife of the victim, is left with eleven (11) children. She presented and identified official receipts as proof of the expenses incurred for the hospitalization and other medical expenses of her husband amounting to ₱4,986.00 and a certification from Rendeza Funeral Parlor for embalming services amounting to ₱8,000.00. With the death of her husband, she felt sadness, the heavy weight and of present future difficulties, and longing for him that even the amount of ₱l,000,000.00 will be an insufficient compensation. Her deceased husband used to earn an average monthly income of ₱2,000.00.

Version of the Defense

Raytos testified that he knew the victim, David Araza, since birth, who was residing in Brgy. Igot, Villareal, Samar, which is 300 meters away from his residence in Brgy. Nagcaduha, Villareal, Samar. On February 1, 2010, at around 8:00 in the evening, he was in Purok 1, Brgy. Nagcaduha Villareal, Samar, coming from his cousin's place, when he was invited by Indo Sabio to partake on some leftovers from the fiesta and to join them as a dance session was being held. He joined the table where Indo Sabio, Anita Sabio, Kanor Sabio, Domingo Sabio, Romeo Nacase and Edgar Papiona were seated. Seated on the other table beside them were Indo Sabio's wife, a certain Tina, Elsa Sabio, Rudy Araza and Rudy's wife. At around 11:30 in the evening, David Araza (victim), coming from Purok 2, passed by Purok 1 and was approached by Edgar Papiona, and the two danced. After they danced, the victim approached the table where Anita Sabio was seated and invited her to dance, but the latter refused. Thereafter, the victim and Edgar Papiona danced again. After dancing, the victim approached again Raytos' table and asked who was brave enough while drawing a knife tucked in the waistband of his pants. Raytos tried to escape by moving backwards and, while doing so, he got hold of the victim's right hand. Raytos twisted the victim's arm, got hold of the knife and then stabbed the victim several times on the chest. He delivered three (3) successive stabbing blows in a quick and swift manner because he panicked. He ran away immediately and surrendered himself to the barangay officials and they proceeded to the police station.

Dionisio Mado y Bardaje (hereafter Mado) testified that he knew Raytos because the latter often comes to Brgy. Guintarcan, where Mado resides. He also knew the victim personally. On February 1, 2010, at around 10:00 in the evening, he was at Brgy. Nagcaduha, Villareal, Samar, watching the dance session being held, and he saw the victim enter the dance area and challenge the people seated on one table to a fight. When the victim saw Raytos, he pointed at Raytos and said "You are the one I want" and Raytos answered saying "I [h]ave no fault against you." Then, the victim drew a knife from his waist and stabbed Raytos but the latter was able to parry the stabbing blow and wrested possession of the knife from the victim. Mado recalled that Raytos used both his hands in parrying the stabbing blow delivered by the victim and when Raytos got hold of the knife, he stabbed the front portion of the victim's body. Mado did not see anything more because Raytos ran away after the incident, and a commotion then ensued.

After trial on the merits, the R TC found Raytos guilty of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery.

Raytos appealed to the CA via Notice of Appeal dated December 10, 2012. 1Raytos then filed his Brief dated March 16, 2015, while the plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief dated October 14, 2015. 13 In a Manifestation dated November 9, 2015, Raytos waived his right to file a Reply Brief. 

In the questioned Decision, the CA affirmed Raytos' conviction while modifying the award of damages.

On March 14, 2016, Raytos brought the instant case before this Court via Notice of Appeal of even date.

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND NOT APPRECIATING THE SELF-DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AS THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.

RULING:

The Court finds the appeal lacking in merit.

In this case, the opposing sides are incessant on the truthfulness of their version of the story, which differ in material points of fact; the State, on one hand, has successfully presented strong evidence of guilt for Murder, while Raytos, on the other hand, maintains his innocence based on his plea of self-defense.

At this point, it bears noting that the issue of whether the accused acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. The RTC's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the CA.This is a rule borne out of necessity given the distinct vantage point of the trial court in observing and assessing the witnesses while undergoing the rigors of direct and cross-examination; it is only in the crucible of this exercise that the trial court is able to extract incommunicable evidence from the witnesses based on their demeanor on the stand.Hence, in the absence of a clear showing that the lower courts erred in their appreciation of the facts, or in their application of the pertinent laws and jurisprudence to such facts, their findings will no longer be disturbed on appeal.

In fine, given the concurrent findings of guilt made by both the RTC and CA, the Court finds that no cogent reason exists to reverse Raytos' conviction. Raytos Failed To Establish The Elements Of Self-Defense

A plea of self-defense admits the commission of the act charged as a crime; accordingly, the onus probandi falls on the accused to prove that such killing was justified - failure to discharge which renders the act punishable.

Thus, to exonerate himself, the accused must establish: (i) that there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (ii) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (iii) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. 24 Of the three, unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement; absent such element, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated. 

After poring over the records of this case, the Court is convinced that Raytos failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, David Araza (Araza). Necessarily, Raytos' claim of self-defense has no more leg to stand on.

Here, Raytos admitted that after obtaining possession of the weapon, he no longer had any reason to stab Araza as in fact, there was no showing that the latter persisted in his alleged purpose of wanting to hurt Raytos. Thus, based on his own statements, Raytos overstepped the acceptable boundaries of self-preservation when he deliberately inflicted fatal injuries on Araza, even when the purported aggression had already ceased. 48 By killing Araza, Raytos was no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the former. 49

The Qualifying CircumstanceOf Treachery Was SufficientlyEstablished By The Evidence

To alleviate his conviction, Raytos contends that there was a dearth of evidence to show that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.50 Raytos specifically avers that had he wanted to ensure that no risk would come to him, he would have chosen another time and place to stab Araza instead of inside the dancing area, where many people were around. 

The Court disagrees.

Treachery or alevosia, is present when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 52Alevosia is characterized by a deliberate, sudden and unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself or repel the assault and without risk to the assailant. 

The victim was dancing when he was attacked. There was no confrontation. No forewarning. His dancing partner was even misled into believing that accused only wanted to dance with the victim. But of course, it was just an excuse, so that it would be easier for the accused to attain his purpose. It was so sudden that even the others were unprepared to do anything to prevent the attack or at least minimize the injuries. It was an unexpected occurrence right in the middle of a celebration which was intended to be a joyous one.

The wounds sustained by the victim clearly disprove the claim of accused that he was suddenly able to stab the former because he wrestled with him, because actually, there was no fight that preceded the attack. There was plainly, murder. 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01556, finding accused-appellant Lorenzo E. Raytos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of David Araza the amountof Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as moral damages, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.