Culpability of Accused-appellant Established
Murder, according to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as follows:
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished byreclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[9] Treachery was alleged in the information as qualifying circumstance for the charge of murder.
The charge of murder was established by the prosecution through its documentary and testimonial evidence. Santonia’s death and the treachery that qualified the killing to murder were established. Santonia was shown to have died of internal hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound.[10] The person who caused the gunshot wound was positively identified as the accused-appellant. The trial court noted that Mitchell Santonia and Carandang, the prosecution witnesses, both gave a thorough account of the incident at Perez’s house. Their testimonies on how accused-appellant shot Santonia from behind materially corroborated each other. They both testified that Santonia and Mitchell Santonia were on their way out of Perez’s house when they heard a gunshot. Santonia then fell down and it was accused-appellant whom they saw holding a gun, showing beyond doubt that he is the killer. All the elements of the crime of murder were duly proved.
For his defense, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution was not able to prove through its evidence the presence of treachery which qualified the killing of Santonia to murder. He maintains that treachery did not attend the killing of Santonia, because there was an altercation between him and the victim, making it impossible for the latter not to have been forewarned of any danger to himself. He avers that “an attack from behind is not necessarily treacherous unless it appears that the method of attack was adopted by the accused deliberately with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without any risk to the assailant from the defense that the party assaulted may make.”[11] He further avers that his conviction must depend on the weight of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in its execution which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself or herself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[12] The elements of treachery are: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.[13]
That the killing of Santonia was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code was adequately proved. As observed by the trial court, Santonia was not afforded any means of defending himself or an opportunity to retaliate. We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General in its argument[14] that the attack on Michael was sudden, unexpected and without warning. Before the shooting, Mitchell Santonia had already convinced his brother to go home and they were on their way out of Perez’s house. Santonia, thus, had his defenses down and had no reason to feel that his life was in danger. He could not have protected or defended himself as his back was turned when he was suddenly shot from behind. He could not have prepared himself for an attack as he had no inkling of what was about to occur. He had heeded the advice that he should just defer arguing with accused-appellant and headed home instead. As shown by the testimony of Carandang, accused-appellant’s act of shooting Santonia was so swift that no one had any time to react or try to stop the attack. Clearly, the strategy employed by accused-appellant and the means he used to accomplish the act ensured that the killing of Santonia would be without risk to himself.
As to the issue raised on the weight of the prosecution’s evidence, the matter boils down to the credibility of the witnesses against accused-appellant. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[15] We adhere to the rule that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court,[16] unless the trial court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and significance which, if considered, would have altered the result of the case.[17] An examination of the records shows that none of the aforementioned circumstances applies.
The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that accused-appellant’s uncorroborated testimony is weak in light of the positive identification by two credible witnesses. The defense noticeably failed to present any of the other men present at their drinking session who could corroborate accused-appellant’s version. Even accused-appellant’s son, who was also present at the time of the incident, did not provide any supporting testimony for the defense.
The trial court said:
The Court finds no irregularity in the manner the two prosecution witnesses testified. Their testimonies are likewise deserving of faith and credit from the court as [these] gave a detailed account of what transpired on the night of the incident. The testimony of witness Gregorio Carandang corroborated the testimony of Mitchell (brother of the victim) on material points. The testimon[ies] of the prosecution witnesses deserv[e] full faith and credit.
On the other hand, the accused claims simple denial in that he claims that he has nothing to do with the death of Michael as the gun accidentally fired and hit Michael when they were in the act of grappling for [it].[18]
In sustaining the findings of the trial court, We uphold settled jurisprudence that denial, like alibi, constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[19]
Penalty Imposed
The penalty for murder absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance is reclusion perpetua, which is the lesser penalty for murder in conformity with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. We affirm the penalty imposed on accused-appellant, as neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance was present in the instant case.
x x x."
