10/19/2016

G.R.No.183202

TodayisWednesday,October19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.183202June2,2014
ALBERTOALMOJUELAyVILLANUEVA,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
BRION,J.:
BeforethisCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1underRule45,seekingthereversaloftheCourtofAppeals'
(CA) decision2 dated March 17, 2008 and resolution3 dated June 2, 2008 in CAG.R. CR. No. 29268. These
assailed rulings affirmed with modification the decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, dated
January27,2005inCriminalCaseNo.93129891,findingpetitionerAlbertoAlmojuelayVillanueva(Almojuela)
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofhomicide.
FactualAntecedents
This case stemmed from two informations for attempted homicide and homicide filed with the RTC of Manila,
Branch 39, against accused Almojuela.5 The trial court dismissed the charge for attempted homicide for
insufficiencyofevidence.6Theinformationforhomicideisquotedbelow:
That on or about November 21, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating with one whose true name, identity and present whereabouts are (sic)still unknown and mutually
helpingeachother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully,andfeloniouslywithintenttokill,attack,assaultanduse
personalviolenceupononeRicardoQuejongyBellobythenandtherestabbinghimwithabladedweapontwice,
hittinghimontheleftsideofhisback,therebyinflictinguponthelattermortalwoundswhichwerethedirectand
immediatecauseofhisdeaththereafter.
Contrarytolaw.7
Duringarraignment,Almojuelaenteredapleaof"notguilty".Pretrialconferencewasconductedthentrialonthe
meritsfollowed.8 Two different versions of the facts surrounding the victim Ricardo Quejongs (Quejong) death
surfaced.
TheProsecutionsVersion
Sanito Masula (Masula) narrated the prosecutions account of the events which transpired on November 21,
1993,thecrimesdate.9
Ataround8:00intheevening,Masula,Quejong,JoseBuenhijoPaz(Paz),alongwithsomeothers,wereontheir
way home from a party when they encountered Almojuela, who was having a drinking spree with his friends in
frontofhishouse.
AlmojuelacalledonPazandshouted,"Matagalkanangnamumurosaakin,"towhich,Pazreplied,"Ganoonba?
Whatdoyouwant?"Immediately,afightensuedbetweenthetwo.Inthecourseofthefight,Almojuelastabbed
Pazinhisrightarm,causingthelattertoretreat.ItwasatthispointthatQuejongjoinedinthefightandgrappled
with Almojuela to the ground. A certain Dale Abarquez (Kagawad Abarquez) at that point, came to pacify the
parties. But the two men did not heed the kagawads order and continued wrestling with each other. This
promptedKagawadAbarqueztohitQuejongtwiceinhisbackandtofiretwowarningshotsintheair.Onhearing
thegunshots,Quejongandhisgroupimmediatelyranaway.10
Masula testified that he did not actually see Almojuela stab Quejong when they were grappling on the ground.
However,healsosaidthathenoticedbloodonQuejongsback.11OnQuejongswayhome,theirfriendssawthat
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183202_2014.html

1/7

10/19/2016

G.R.No.183202

hehadstabwoundsinhisback.TheyimmediatelyrushedhimtotheUniversityofSantoTomasHospitalwhere
hediedapproximatelytwotothreehoursfromadmission.12
TheDefensesVersion
TheevidenceforthedefenseshowedthatonNovember21,1993,Almojuelawascookingpulutanforhisdrinking
buddiesFelicisimoVenezuelaandWinfredEvangelista,whenhisdaughtertoldhimthatsmokewasenteringtheir
house. He checked the report and saw the group of Paz, Quejong, Masula, and others, smoking marijuana.
Almojuelaconfrontedthegroup,towhichPazrespondedbycursinghim.Despitethisresponse,Almojuelasimply
wentinsidehishouseandcontinuedwithhiscooking.13
WhenPazsgroupwasalreadyhighondrugs,theycalledonAlmojuelaandchallengedhimtoafistfight,whichhe
accepted.ThefightonlyendedwhenAlmojuelasneighborscametopacifythem.ButasAlmojuelawasaboutto
enterhishouse,Quejongpulledhim,leadingtoanotherfight.TheyweregrapplingonthegroundwhenKagawad
Abarquezarrivedtointervenetostopthefight.Nooneheededthekagawadhence,hefiredtwowarningshotsin
theair.TheshotsforcedQuejongandhisgrouptoscamperaway.14
At around 10:30 in the evening of the same day, policemen came to Almojuelas house. They did not find him
becausehehidatthekamotengkahoythicketnearhishouse.HedidnotknowthoughthatQuejongsustained
anyseriousinjurysincetheyonlyengagedinafistfightnobladedweaponwasused.Hevoluntarilysurrendered
himself, however, when he learned from Kagawad Abarquez that Quejong had died from stab wounds. He
surrenderedtoSPO1DaniloVidadthroughtheassistanceofacertainSPO4Soriano,thefollowingday.15
TheRTCsRuling
InitsdecisiondatedJanuary27,2005,theRTCfoundAlmojuelaguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofhomicide,and
sentencedhimtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyofsix(6)yearsandone(1)dayasminimum,tofourteen(14)
years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)dayasmaximum.Italsoorderedhimtopaythefollowingindemnitiestothe
heirsofQuejong:P50,000.00ascivilindemnityP50,000.00asmoraldamagesP832,000.00forlossofearning
capacityP35,000.00forfuneralexpensesandP10,000.00forlitigationexpenses.
TheRTCgavegreatweighttoMasulastestimony.AlthoughMasuladidnotactuallyseeAlmojuelauseaknifeon
Quejong,strongevidencestillexistedtosupporthisconviction.
Only three persons were actually involved in the fight Almojuela, Quejong and Paz. Since only Almojuela was
armed with a knife and in fact he wounded Paz in his right arm, it was reasonable to conclude that he also
stabbedQuejong.16TheRTCnotedthatPazcouldnothavestabbedQuejongashehimselfwaswounded.
The RTC did not give credence to the testimony of Winfred Evangelista that Almojuela never held a bladed
weaponduringthefight.ThisstatementwasinconsistentwithhisearlierclaimthatAlmojuelatriedtotakeaknife
awayfromQuejongshand.TheRTCconcludedthatEvangelistaliedinopencourt.17
TheCAsRuling
The CA affirmed Almojuelas conviction but reduced the RTCs imposed penalty to six (6) years and eight (8)
monthsofprisionmayorasminimum,totwelve(12)yearsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporalasmaximum.18
The CA appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and noted that, although Almojuela hid
when policemen first visited him in his home, he still voluntarily surrendered to the authorities the day after the
incident.19
The CA also gave evidentiary weight to the attendant circumstantial evidence. It noted that the pieces of
circumstantial evidence, taken together, form an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that
Almojuelacommittedthecrimecharged.TheCAreasonedout:
Asestablishedbythetestimonies,itisapparentthatonlyJoseBuenhijoPaz,victimRicardoQuejongandaccused
ALMOJUELAwereinvolvedinthebrawlandofthethreeofthemitwasaccusedALMOJUELAwhowaslikelyto
havestabbedthevictim.HewastheonewhohadthemotivesinceheheldagrudgeagainstJoseBuenhijoPaz
andhewastheonewhoconfrontedthegroupofthevictim.ItwasaccusedALMOJUELAandthevictimRicardo
Quejongwhowrestledwitheachother,thusonlyaccusedALMOJUELAcouldhaveinflictedthefatalinjurytothe
(sic)RicardoQuejong.ItwasalsohighlyunlikelythatJoseBuenhijoPazhadinflictedtheinjurysincehehimself
wasinjuredbytheknifethatstabbedthevictimRicardoQuejong.ItwasinfactJoseBuenhijoPazwhowasbeing
aidedbythevictimRicardoQuejongagainsttheassaultofaccusedALMOJUELA.20
ThePetition
In his Rule 45 petition before us, Almojuela imputes error on the CA for finding that the prosecutions evidence
wassufficienttoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183202_2014.html

2/7

10/19/2016

G.R.No.183202

Hemaintainsthatthecircumstantialevidenceisnotstrongenoughtoidentifyhimasthecrimesperpetrator.Even
assuming that he did stab Quejong, he submits that the CA failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of
incompleteselfdefense.PazandQuejonggangeduponhim,forcinghimtorepeltheirunlawfulaggressionwith
abladedweapon.21
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
arguesthatonlyquestionsoflawmaybereviewedinaRule45petition,andthatthefindingsoffactbythetrial
court,ifaffirmedbytheCA,aregenerallyconclusiveandbindingontheSupremeCourt.
TheOSGalsomaintainsthatthecircumstantialevidenceissufficienttosupportAlmojuelasconviction.Also,the
mitigatingcircumstanceofincompleteselfdefenseshouldnotbeappreciatedsinceitwasAlmojuelawhostarted
theunlawfulaggression.22
TheCourtsRuling
WeDENYthepetition.
Circumstantialevidenceasbasisforconviction
Wefinditclear,basedontherecordsandtheevidenceadducedbybothparties,thatnodirectevidencepointsto
AlmojuelaastheonewhostabbedQuejonginthenightofNovember21,1993.
Lest this statement be misunderstood, a finding of guilt is still possible despite the absence of direct evidence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken together,
create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others,
wastheauthorofthecrime.23
Circumstantialevidencemaybecharacterizedasthatevidencethatprovesafactorseriesoffactsfromwhichthe
facts in issue may be established by inference.24 Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, a conviction based on
circumstantialevidencemaybesustainedifthefollowingrequisitesareallpresent:
a.Thereismorethanonecircumstance
b.Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand
c.Thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.25
In People v. Galvez,26 we laid down the basic guidelines that judges must observe when faced with merely
circumstantialevidenceindecidingcriminalcases.Theprobativevalueofsuchcircumstantialevidencemustbe
distilledusingthefollowing:
a.Circumstantialevidenceshouldbeacteduponwithcaution
b.Alltheessentialfactsmustbeconsistentwiththehypothesisofguilt
c.Thefactsmustexcludeeveryothertheorybutthatoftheguiltoftheaccusedand
d. The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused so as to convince beyond reasonable
doubtthattheaccusedwastheperpetratoroftheoffense.Thepeculiarityofcircumstantialevidenceisthat
the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively. The
guiltoftheaccusedcannotbededucedfromscrutinizingjustone(1)particularpieceofevidence.
They are like puzzle pieces which when put together reveal a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that
theaccusedistheauthorofthecrime.27
Inthepresentcase,theRTCandtheCAreliedonthefollowingcircumstancesinconcludingthatAlmojuelawas
theperpetratorofthecrime:
1.AlmojuelaorallyprovokedPazwhenthelatterandhisgrouppassedbyAlmojuelashouse
2.AfightensuedbetweenthemandAlmojuelawoundedPazsrightarmwithaknife
3.ThewoundedPazretreatedandQuejongnextfoughtwithAlmojuela
4.DuringQuejongandAlmojuelasfight,theygrappledandwrestledwitheachotherontheground
5.QuejongandAlmojuelawereonlypacifiedwhenKagawadAbarquezcameandfiredtwogunshotsinthe
air
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183202_2014.html

3/7

10/19/2016

G.R.No.183202

6.MasuladidnotseeAlmojuelastabQuejongbuthesawbloodinQuejongsbackduringthefight
7. Quejongs group scampered away after the gunshots. On Quejongs way home, one of his friends
noticedthathehadstabwoundsinhisback
8.Quejongwasimmediatelyrushedtothehospitalwhereheexpiredafewhoursafterand
9.Almojuelahidwhenpolicemencametohishometoinvestigate.
Theninecircumstances,individually,arenotsufficienttosupportAlmojuelasconviction.Buttakentogether,they
constitute an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that Almojuela is guilty of the crime of
homicide.
First,AlmojuelawastheonewhoprovokedPazandhisgrouptoafight.Hisunlawfulaggressionwasthestarting
causeoftheeventswhichledtoQuejongsdeath.
Second,MasulacategoricallytestifiedthatonlyAlmojuelawasarmedwithaknifeduringthefight.Infact,hehit
Pazinhisrightarm,forcingthelattertoretreat.
Third, only three persons actually were involved in the fight: Almojuela, Paz and Quejong. Paz was wounded,
forcing him to retreat. This fact renders it improbable that Paz was the one who stabbed Quejong. Thus,
Almojuelaalonewastheperpetrator.
Fourth, although Masula admitted that he did not actually see Almojuela stab Quejong, he testified that he saw
bloodonQuejongsbackduringhisfightwithAlmojuela.
Fifth,afterQuejongandhisgroupscurriedawayfromthescene,hisfriendnoticedthathehadstabwoundsinhis
back.AlmojueladidnotpresentanyevidencethatQuejongfiguredinanyotherfightwithanotherpersonafterthe
fightwithAlmojuela.Infact,Quejongwasimmediatelyrushedtothehospital.
Sixth, Almojuela hidin the kamoteng kahoy thicket near his house when policemen visited him for investigation.
Wehaverepeatedlyheldthatflightisanindicationofguilt.Theflightofanaccused,intheabsenceofacredible
explanation,isacircumstancefromwhichguiltmaybeinferred.Aninnocentpersonwillnormallygraspthefirst
availableopportunitytodefendhimselfandasserthisinnocence.28
TheseprovencircumstancesleadtothereasonableconclusionthatAlmojuelastabbedQuejongduringtheirfight,
causingthelatterssubsequentdeath.
Themitigatingcircumstancesofincompleteselfdefenseandvoluntarysurrender
AlmojuelaarguesthatevenifhedidstabQuejong,themitigatingcircumstanceofincompleteselfdefenseshould
beappreciatedinhisfavor.Anincompleteselfdefenseisappreciatedwhen:
a.thereisunlawfulaggressiononthepartofthevictim
b.themeansemployedtopreventorrepeltheunlawfulaggressionisnotreasonablynecessaryand
c.thereislackofprovocationonthepartofthepersondefendinghimself.
There can be no selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
aggressionagainstthepersonwhoresortedtoselfdefense.29Thismitigatingcircumstanceisinapplicableinthe
present case because the unlawful aggression did not start from the victim Quejong but from Almojuela. The
prosecution proved that it was Almojuela who first challenged Paz and his group to a fight. Almojuela came
preparedtofightandwasinfactarmedwithabladedweapon.
Moreover,thethirdelementisalsoabsentsincethereisnolackofsufficientprovocationonAlmojuelaspartas
shownbyhisconfrontationalstancerightfromthestart.
Weaffirm,however,theCAsrulingthatthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrendershouldbeappreciated
infavorofAlmojuela.Forvoluntarysurrendertoapply,thefollowingrequisitesmustconcur:
a.theoffenderhadnotbeenactuallyarrested
b.theoffendersurrenderedhimselftoapersoninauthorityorthelattersagentand
c.thesurrenderwasvoluntary.
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to submit himself to the
authoritieseitherbecauseheacknowledgedhisguiltorhewishedtosavetheauthoritiesthetroubleandexpense
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183202_2014.html

4/7

10/19/2016

G.R.No.183202

thatmaybeincurredforhissearchandcapture.

30

Although Almojuela hid when policemen first visited him in his home, it was also duly proven that soon after he
learnedofQuejongsdeath,AlmojuelavoluntarilygavehimselfuptoacertainSPO4Sorianowhothenturnedhim
overtoSPO1DaniloVidadoftheWesternPoliceDistrict.31Underthesefacts,alltheelementsofthemitigating
circumstanceofvoluntarysurrenderarepresentinthiscase.
Theawardedindemnities
We note that the RTC awarded P35,000.00 as funeral expenses to the heirs of Quejong this amount was
affirmedbytheCA. However,sincenodocumentaryevidencewaspresentedtosupportthisclaim,itcannotbe
awarded. Nonetheless, an award ofP25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper
whennoevidenceofthesaidexpensesispresentedduringtrial.UnderArticle2224oftheCivilCode,temperate
damagesmayberecoveredsinceitcannotbedeniedthattheheirsofthevictimsufferedpecuniaryloss,though
theexactamountwasnotproven.32
1 w p h i1

Wealsodeletetheawardoflitigationexpensesforlackofactualproof.Weadditionallyimposea6%intereston
allthemonetaryawardsfordamagestobereckonedfromthedateoffinalityofthisdecisionuntilfullypaid.
As a final note, the general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA,
deservegreatweightandrespect.33
These factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal, unless these are facts of weight and substance that
wereoverlookedormisinterpretedandthatwouldmateriallyaffectthedispositionofthecase.34Wehavecarefully
scrutinizedtherecordsandwefindnoreasontodeviatefromtheRTCandCA'sfindings.Weseenoindication
that the trial court, whose findings the CA affirmed overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding
factsandcircumstancesofthecase.Thus,wedefertothetrialcourtonthefindingsoffactsasitwasinthebest
positiontoassessanddeterminethecredibilityofthewitnessespresentedbybothparties.35
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyDENYthepetitionandAFFIRMtheMarch17,2008decisionand
June2,2008resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR.No.29268withthefollowingMODIFICATIONS:
(a)theawardedfuneralandlitigationexpensesaredeleted(b)thepetitionerisorderedtopaythevictim'sheirs
P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages and (c) he is further ordered to pay the victim's
heirsinterestonalldamagesawardedatthelegalrateofsixpercent(6%)perannumfromthedateoffinalityof
thisjudgmentuntilfullypaid.36
SOORDERED.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183202_2014.html

5/7