CASES DIGESTs #2

GR No. 201565
1. G.R. No. 201565 October 13, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, SR.,
MAYOR REINARIO "REY" ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO a.k.a. "EDEL
EUTIQUIANO a.k.a. ESTONILO," ITCOBANES "NONONG NONOY ITCOBANES,"
ESTONILO-at large, TITING GALI BOOC-at large, ITCOBANES-at ORLANDO large,
TAGALOG MATERDAM a.k.a. "NEGRO MATERDAM," and CALVIN DELA CRUZ a.k.a.
"BULLDOG DELA CRUZ," Accused, vs. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR
REINARIO "REY" ESTONILO, EDE LB RANDO ESTONILO a.k.a. "EDEL ESTONILO,"
EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES a.k.a. "NONONG ITCOBANES," and CALVIN DELA CRUZ
a.k.a. "BULLDOG DELA CRUZ," Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

In this appeal, accused-appellants Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr. (Carlos, Sr.), Mayor Reinario Estonilo (Rey),
Edelbrando Estonilo (Edel), Eutiquiano Itcobanes (Nonong), and Calvin Dela Cruz (Bulldog) seek liberty from the
judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Manila, which found them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Direct Assault in Criminal Case No. 05-238607.

The above-named accused-appellants, along with four others, namely: Nonoy Estonilo (Nonoy), Titing Booc
(Titing), and Gali Itcobanes (Gali), and Orlando Tagalog Materdam (Negro) were all charged in an Information
dated July 30, 2004 that reads: That on or about April 5, 2004 at 8:00 o’clock in the evening thereof, at Celera
Elementary School, Brgy. Villa Inocencio, Municipality of Placer, Province of Masbate, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, armed with firearms, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one FLORO A. CASAS, while in the performance of
his duty being the District Supervisor of public schools, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body which
caused his instantaneous death.

On November 8, 2005, the prosecutor filed an Amended Information, which provides: That on or about April 5,
2004, at Celera Elementary School, Brgy. Villa Inocencio, Municipality of Placer, Province of Masbate, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court of Masbate, the above-named accused EX-MAYOR CARLOS
ESTONILO, SR. and MAYOR REINARIO "REY" ESTONILO, conspiring and confederating together and helping
one another, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously induce their co-accused, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO ALIAS "EDEL ESTONILO, "
EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES AL[I]AS "NONONG ITCOBANES, " NONOY ESTONILO, TITING BOOC, GALI
ITCOBANES, ORLANDO MATERDAM Y TAGALOG ALIAS "NEGRO MATERDAM," and CALVIN DELA
CRUZ ALIAS "BULLDOG DELA CRUZ," who were all armed with firearms, to attack, assault and use personal
violence upon the person of one FLORO A. CASAS, while in the performance of his duty being a District
Supervisor of public schools, by then and there shooting the latter, hitting said FLORO A. CASAS on the different
parts of his body which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter. When they were arraigned on
November 9, 2005, the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On the same date, the RTC
issued a pre-trial order which stated, among others:

a) Upon request by the prosecution, the defense admitted the following:

1. The identities of the five (5) accused present;

b) However, upon request by the defense, the prosecution did not admit that Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr. and
Mayor Reinario Estonilo were not at the scene of the incident during the incident.

After trial, the RTC found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The fallo of
its March 30, 2009 Decision provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused EX-
MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR REINARIO "REY" ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO
alias "EDEL ESTONILO," EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES alias "NONONG ITCOBANES," and CALVIN DELA
CRUZ alias BULLDOG DELA CRUZ" GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Murder with
Direct Assault under Article 248 and Article 148 in relation to Article 48 all of the Revised Penal Code and each of
said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to
forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua.

As civil liability pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, the aforesaid sentenced the accused are all
hereby ordered to solidarily indemnify the family of the victim Floro Casas in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(₱50,000.00). Likewise, by way of moral damages, the said accused are furthermore ordered to solidarily pay the
said family the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00).

The accused are, however, credited in the service of their sentence the full time during which they have been denied.
Let this case be archived as against the accused NONOY ESTONILO, TITING BOOC, and GALIITCOBANES
who have warrants of arrest issued against them but still remain at large, pending their arrest/s.

As to the accused ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM ALIAS "NEGRO MATERDAM," separate trial is
necessary considering that he was only recently arrested when the trial of this case as to the other accused was
already about to end.

The RTC gave credence to the eyewitness account of Antipolo and the corroborating testimony of Serapion, who
were both present at the school grounds during the shooting incident. The RTC pronounced that the evidence on
record showed unity of purpose in the furtherance of a common criminal design, that was the killing of Floro.
Accused-appellants Nonoy and Negro were the gunmen, while accused-appellants Edel and Nonong served as
backup gunmen. Accused-appellant Bulldog, and accused Gali, Titing and one alias Ace served as lookouts.

The RTC found accused-appellants Mayor Carlos, Sr. and Rey to have ordered their co-accused to kill Floro based
on the testimony of Servando, who was present when the group planned to kill Floro. Thus, the RTC concluded that
Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr. is a principal by inducement. And accused-appellant Rey conspired with his father. In sum,
the prosecution was able to establish conspiracy and evident premeditation among all the accused-appellants.

The accused-appellants’ defense of alibi and denial did not withstand the positive identification of the prosecution
witnesses. The accused appellants claimed that they were somewhere else in Placer, Masbate when the shooting
took place. However, they were not able to establish the physical improbability of their being in the crime scene at
the time of the shooting. The RTC was convinced that the motive for the murder was due to Floro’s support for
mayoral candidate Vicente Cotero. Since the victim was a district supervisor of public schools, the RTC convicted
the accused appellants of the complex crime of murder with direct assault.

In its May 12, 2011 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC decision. The dispositive
part thereof reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant appealed is denied. The Decision dated 30
March 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the
penalty imposed upon accused-appellants shall simply be reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties and that the
award of civil indemnity is increased to Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00).

The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the RTC considering that the RTC had
observed and monitored at close range the conduct, behavior and deportment of the witnesses as they testified. The
Court of Appeals corrected the penalty imposed, and explained that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty
which should be imposed without specifying the duration.

On June 29, 2011, the accused-appellants moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its
November 8, 2011 Resolution. Unsatisfied, the accused-appellants appealed their case before this Court.

ISSUES

All five accused-appellants appealed the foregoing RTC decision to the Court of Appeals alleging that the RTC
erred in concluding that motive was duly established, in appreciating the prosecution evidence and disregarding the
salient points of the defense evidence, and in convicting the accused.

RULINGS

The accused-appellants pray for the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the criminal case on the following
assignment of errors: the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in (1) giving credence and weight to the prosecution
evidence, (2) finding that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants, and (3) finding the accused-appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the prosecution evidence.

In essence, the defense disagrees with the disposition of the Court of Appeals affirming their conviction for murder
with direct assault on the ground that some of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses constitute circumstantial
evidence, and that the prosecution was not able to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal fails. After a review of the record of the case, the Court sustains the conviction of the accused-appellants
for murder with direct assault.

The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses on the witness stand and
weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies
before it. It is, thus, no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a
rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.

The Court had nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records but found no indication that the trial and the appellate
courts overlooked or failed to appreciate facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of this case. The trial
court and the appellate court did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly of Antipolo who was an eyewitness to the crime.

To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that a person was
killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that (1) Floro was killed; (2) Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr., Rey,
Edel, Nonong, and Calvin were five of the nine perpetrators who killed him; (3) the killing was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation as testified to by prosecution eyewitnesses, Servando and
Antipolo, as well as treachery as below discussed; and (4) the killing of Floro was neither parricide nor infanticide.

Of the four elements, the second and third elements are essentially contested by the defense. The Court finds that the
prosecution unquestionably established these two elements.

For the second element, the prosecution presented pieces of evidence which when joined together point to the
accused-appellants as the offenders. Foremost, there is motive to kill Floro. It was Floro’s support for Vicente
Cotero, who was Rey’s opponent for the position of mayor in Placer, Masbate. Second, the prosecution was able to
establish that the accused appellants planned to kill Floro on two separate occasions. Essentially, the prosecution
evidence consists of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the eyewitness Antipolo is
direct evidence of the commission of the crime.

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference. It consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Here, the circumstantial evidence consists
of the testimonies of Servando and Serapion. Servando was present when Mayor Carlos, Sr. ordered his men to kill
Floro. Whether this order was executed can be answered by relating it to Antipolo’s eyewitness account as well as
Serapion’s testimony.

As for the third element of qualifying circumstance, the prosecution witness, Servando, testified that he was present
on the two occasions when the accused-appellants were planning to kill Floro. His categorical and straight forward
narration proves the existence of evident premeditation.

Treachery also attended the killing of Floro. For treachery to be present, two elements must concur: (1) at the time
of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is that the
attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

In this case, accused-appellant Nonoy and accused Negro successively fired at Floro about seven times – and the
victim sustained gunshot wounds all found to have been inflicted at close range giving the latter no chance at all to
evade the attack and defend himself from the unexpected onslaught. Accused-appellants Edel and Nonong were on
standby also holding their firearms to insure the success of their "mission" without risk to themselves; and three
others served as lookouts. Hence, there is no denying that their collective acts point to a clear case of treachery.

The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in light of the positive identification
made by Antipolo and Serapion. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the
prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic
that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. The accused-appellants’ alibis that they were at different
places at the time of the shooting are negative and self-serving and cannot be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis
the affirmative testimony of credible witnesses. The accused-appellants, the victim, and the prosecution witnesses
reside in the same municipality and are, therefore, familiar with one another. More so, that the two principal accused
in this case are prominent political figures. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have been mistaken on
the accused appellants’ identity including those who remained at large.

Further, it has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the following: (i) that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him
to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Physical impossibility involves the distance and the facility of
access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed; the accused must
demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate
vicinity when the crime was committed.58 Here, the accused-appellants utterly failed to satisfy the above-quoted
requirements. In fact, Mayor Carlos, Sr. and his other co-accused, except for Nonong, admitted that they were near
the school before the incident and at the school minutes after the killing took place. Certainly, the distance was not
too far as to preclude the presence of accused-appellants at the school, and/or for them to slip away from where they
were supposed to be, unnoticed.

On the offense committed by accused-appellants, the RTC correctly concluded that they should be held accountable
for the complex crime of direct assault with murder. There are two modes of committing atentados contra la
autoridad o sus agentesunder Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellants committed the second form
of assault, the elements of which are that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance
upon a person in authority or his agent; the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on
the occasion of such performance; and the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is,
that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority.

In this case, Floro was the duly appointed District Supervisor of Public Schools, Placer, Masbate, thus, was a person
in authority. But contrary to the statement of the RTC that there was direct assault just because Floro was a person in
authority, this Court clarifies that the finding of direct assault is based on the fact that the attack or assault on Floro
was, in reality, made by reason of the performance of his duty as the District Supervisor.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority for that matter, there arises the
complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide. The offense is a complex crime, the penalty for which is
that for the graver offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the felony of murder;
thus, the imposable penalty should have been death. Plus the fact that there exists an aggravating circumstance,
pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is death. But the imposition of
death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines"; thus, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed upon accused-
appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

As to the proper monetary awards imposable for the crime charged, modifications must be made herein. The award
of ₱100,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral damages is proper to conform with current jurisprudence.

Further, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of
exemplary damages is justified under Article 223060 of the New Civil Code. Thus, conformably with the above, the
legal heirs of the victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00.

Lastly, an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn
from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

At this point, notice must be made that on January 28, 2014, the Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison informed the
Court of the death of accused-appellant Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr. on January 9, 2013. In view thereof, the case against
deceased Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr. is hereby ordered dismissed.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 12, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
04142, affirming the Decision dated March 30, 2009, promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
45, in Criminal Case No. 05-238607, finding accused appellants REINARIO "REY" ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO
"EDEL" ESTONILO, EUTIQUIANO "NONONG" ITCOBANES, and CAL VIN "BULLDOG" DELA CRUZ
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder with Direct Assault, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS,
the award of civil indemnity and moral damages is increased to ₱100,000.00 each, in addition to ₱100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and the imposition of 6% thereon as legal interest upon finality of this Court's Decision. SO
ORDERED.