G.R. No. 138943-44 - People vs. Almazan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138943-44)

Informations and Charges

The prosecutions were based on two Informations charging that Almazan shot Noli with a handgun, aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation, causing Noli’s death (Crim. Case No. C-51276), and that he also shot Noel with the same handgun, which would have produced Noel’s death had it not been for timely medical attendance (Crim. Case No. C-51277). Because the informations involved acts arising from the same incident and prosecution evidence was interrelated, the trial court proceeded with a joint trial.

Events on the Afternoon of 28 September 1996

At about 4:00 p.m. on 28 September 1996, Vicente Madriaga and Allan played chess before Vicente’s house at Pag-asa, Camarin, Caloocan City. Noli, carrying his two-year old daughter, Noel, and Angel Soliva watched the game. Almazan unexpectedly arrived, brandished a .38 caliber revolver, and directed his actions toward the group. The Court found that Almazan’s reason for the violence was tied to his fighting cocks having been stolen and his suspicion that Angel was the culprit. According to the prosecution narrative, Almazan uttered “manos-manos na lang tayo”, aimed at Angel, and pulled the trigger, but the gun misfired. He tried again, but it again failed. Vicente then stood up to calm him, but Almazan refused to be pacified. Angel ran away, and Almazan turned his gun toward Noli.

Noli pleaded for mercy for himself and his daughter, but Almazan shot Noli at the left side of his stomach, causing him to collapse immediately. Noli’s daughter remained holding him and crying. Almazan then turned to Noel and shot him on the left thigh. Noel managed to walk lamely but later fell to the ground. Neighbors brought Noli and Noel to the hospital, but Noli died before reaching it. Noel survived and received medical attention.

Medical and Forensic Evidence

Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service performed an autopsy on Noli. She testified that the cause of Noli’s death was a gunshot at the trunk fired from a .38 caliber revolver. Dr. Misael Jonathan Ticman, the attending physician of Noel, declared in direct testimony that Noel’s wound was a minor injury that would heal within a week. Noel was not admitted because the doctor sent him home the same day. On cross-examination, Dr. Ticman added that if not medically treated, the wound might get infected or lead to Noel’s death.

Defense Version and Theory of Self-Defense

The defense presented a different account and blamed Angel Soliva as the real aggressor. Almazan testified that upon returning home at about 4:00 p.m., he learned from his wife that his fighting cocks had been stolen. He then went out with his friend Johnald Molina to inquire. He and Johnald passed by the chess group and observed drinking. Angel allegedly called out to Almazan about looking for the fighting cocks. Almazan claimed that the group mocked him, and that when he responded, Angel suddenly pulled out a gun and shot twice, but the gun misfired each time. Almazan alleged that he then grappled with Angel for possession of the gun. He claimed that during the struggle Angel pulled the trigger and hit Noli, which the defense characterized as an accidental consequence of the scuffle. Almazan further claimed that he then received a blow from behind and fell. When he rose, he allegedly saw Noel poised to attack with a broken bottle, and he purportedly fired to forestall the attack, hitting Noel on the thigh and prompting Almazan to run home out of fear that he had hit Noel.

Johnald corroborated Almazan’s essential points. He testified that the group laughed at Almazan and suggested the cocks had already been cooked for pulutan, and that when someone from the group pulled out a gun and aimed at Almazan, the gun misfired twice and then fired on the third attempt, striking Noli. Johnald admitted he initially did not report the incident to the police due to fear and his effort to avoid involvement, but later volunteered to testify.

Trial Court Findings and Sentences

The trial court rejected the defense narrative. It held that prosecution witnesses had positively identified Almazan as the person responsible for the shootings. It treated the theft of Almazan’s fighting cocks as a sufficient motive for killing, reasoning that Almazan as a cockfight aficionado would have sought vengeance against those he suspected. On the defense’s claim that Johnald’s testimony should create reasonable doubt, the trial court held that Johnald’s testimony failed to do so and noted that as Almazan’s friend he would have been expected to extend succor rather than distort the truth in a manner unfavorable to the accused.

As to the characterization of the offenses, the trial court appreciated treachery for murder, on the ground that the victims were completely defenseless and did not provoke the attack. It found no evident premeditation, because the record lacked proof of the manner and time when any plan to kill was hatched. For Crim. Case No. C-51276, the trial court imposed the reduced penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death, and ordered Almazan to pay the heirs of Noli P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P8,000.00 as funeral expenses, plus costs. For Crim. Case No. C-51277, the court found Almazan guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum and fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, with accessory penalties and costs, and ordered civil indemnity of P20,000.00.

Appellate Issues Raised by Almazan

On appeal, Almazan sought absolution in Crim. Case No. C-51276, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He challenged the testimony of Shirley Abordo, claiming it was hearsay, and he also attacked Vicente Madriaga’s testimony as allegedly inconsistent on vital points. He emphasized that the prosecution failed to present Angel Soliva, whom the defense argued was the primary participant and the real transgressor. He contended that in the absence of evidence establishing absolute and moral certainty of his guilt, he should be acquitted.

With respect to Crim. Case No. C-51277, Almazan argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of frustrated murder. He asserted that Noel’s wound was not fatal and that the prosecution’s basis for treating the act as frustrated murder was misplaced. He further claimed that he shot Noel only to forestall an attack rather than to kill Noel intentionally.

Credibility of Witnesses and Weight of Identification

The Court reiterated the doctrine that appellate courts are bound by the trial court’s assessment of credibility because the trial judge has the unique advantage of observing the witnesses’ demeanor and conduct. The Court found no reason to depart from that principle. It held that prosecution witnesses remained consistent and steadfast in identifying Almazan as the assailant. The Court noted that Vicente and Noel denied the defense’s claim that the group’s mockery by the drunken spectators initiated the violence.

On the specific challenge to Shirley Abordo’s testimony, the Court found inconsistencies and incoherence, and more importantly held that her narration was derived from other prosecution witnesses rather than from her own perception, making it hearsay, which the Court rejected. Still, the Court ruled that these matters did not affect the determination of guilt because the key findings of murder and Almazan’s authorship of the violence remained supported by the reliable and positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court also reminded that inconsistencies warrant acquittal only when they relate to significant facts vital to guilt or innocence, and that discrepancies immaterial to the elements of the crime could not justify reversal.

Rejection of the Blame-Allocation Against Angel Soliva

The Court rejected the defense’s insistence that the shooting of Noli could have been done by Angel Soliva. It held that such an allegation was unacceptable in the face of positive identification of Almazan by prosecution witnesses. The Court also found implausible the defense claim that the shooting was merely an accidental consequence of a struggle, because no substantial evidence showed that a struggle truly occurred. It reasoned that if Almazan and Angel had been engaged in a struggle while surrounded by Angel’s friends, those surrounding persons could have easily ganged up on Almazan.

The Court recognized that Johnald Molina testified that Angel was the real culprit, but it agreed with the observation of the trial court that it was natural for a friend to attempt to rescue a friend from confinement or execution even at the cost of distorting truth. It also treated Almazan’s flight as an indication of guilt, noting that he went into hiding after the incident and was only collared by Western Police District agents eight months later.

Treachery and the Proper Penalty for Murder

The Court held that treachery was properly appreciated by the trial court, given that Almazan attacked unarmed victims who had not provoked and who were unaware of any murderous design. However, it corrected the trial court’s qualification as to the effect of treachery on penalty. The Court explained that treachery in this case qualified the offense to murder, and thus could not simultaneously be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. It ruled that where murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances are present, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed. It also held that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation could not be appreciated because it was never proved during the trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the murder conviction and its penalty consistent with these principles.

Noel’s Wound, Self-Defense, and the Change from Frustrated to Attemp

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138943-44)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted accused-appellant Henry Almazan, who appealed from a Joint Decision of the trial court convicting him of murder and frustrated murder.
The Informations charged Almazan with (a) shooting Noli S. Madriaga with a handgun, aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation, causing death, and (b) shooting Noel Madriaga with the same handgun, which would have caused Noel’s death but for timely medical attendance.
The cases were tried jointly under Sec. 14, Rule 119, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua for murder and an indeterminate sentence for frustrated murder, with corresponding civil liabilities.
On appeal, Almazan sought acquittal in the murder case and modification in the frustrated murder case to reflect the claimed nature of his participation and intent.

Key Factual Allegations

On 28 September 1996 at about 4:00 p.m., Vicente Madriaga and Allan played chess in front of Vicente’s house in Pag-asa, Camarin, Caloocan City.
The spectators included Noli Madriaga, who carried his 2-year old daughter, Vicente’s grandson Noel Madriaga, and neighbor Angel Soliva.
Almazan unexpectedly arrived, brandished a .38 caliber revolver, and suspected Angel of stealing his fighting cocks.
Almazan attempted to shoot Angel, but the gun misfired twice, after which Vicente tried to calm him down.
Almazan refused to be pacified, Angel ran away, and Almazan then aimed at Noli despite Noli’s pleas for mercy for himself and his daughter.
Almazan shot Noli on the left side of his stomach, causing him to fall immediately to the ground, while his daughter remained unscathed and held onto Noli.
Almazan then turned on Noel and shot him on the left thigh, after which Noel managed to walk lamely before eventually falling.
Neighbors brought Noli and Noel to the hospital, but Noli died before reaching the hospital while Noel survived his injuries.
The prosecution evidence established that Almazan acted on suspicion and intent to “get even,” and that the victims were attacked without provocation or awareness of murderous designs.

Medical and Forensic Findings

The body of Noli underwent autopsy by Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, who found the cause of death to be a gunshot at the trunk from a .38 caliber revolver.
Noel was attended by Dr. Misael Jonathan Ticman, who testified on direct examination that Noel’s left-thigh gunshot wound was a minor injury that would heal within a week, and that Noel was not in danger of dying.
Dr. Ticman also testified on cross-examination that if not medically treated, the wound might get infected or lead to death.
Noel was not admitted because his doctor sent him home the same day, reflecting the characterization of the injury as not fatal at the time.

Defense Theories Presented

Almazan denied legal guilt in the murder case by asserting that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He assailed the testimony of Shirley Abordo, the common-law wife of Noli, as hearsay because her narration derived from others rather than from her own perception.
He challenged inconsistencies in testimony attributed to Vicente Madriaga.
He claimed Angel Soliva was the actual shooter of Noli, arguing that the defense theory of mistaken identity created reasonable doubt.
Almazan’s alternative narrative was that he went out after learning his fighting cocks were stolen, saw the group drinking and mocking him, and then saw Angel shoot him twice with a gun that initially misfired.
Almazan testified that during the scuffle, the gun-wielder’s trigger eventually fired and hit a person carrying a small child, which he asserted was Noli.
He testified that after receiving a blow from behind, he saw Noel with a broken bottle and fired to defend himself, with the bullet hitting Noel’s thigh.
As corroboration, Johnald Molina testified that the group mocked Almazan, that the gun-wielder pressed the trigger multiple times with misfires until it eventually fired and hit a person near the small child, and that another shot followed.

Issues on Appeal

The appeal presented the question whether the prosecution proved Almazan’s guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt despite the defense’s claims of hearsay, alleged testimonial inconsistencies, and the asserted real-cause theory pointing to Angel.
The appeal also raised whether Almazan should be convicted of frustrated murder instead of a less serious offense, given that Noel’s wound was allegedly not fatal and could have produced death only if not for timely medical attendance.
The appeal further required evaluation of whether Almazan’s firing at Noel was done with justifying self-defense rather than with intent to kill.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Witness Credibility

The Court held that appellate courts are doctrinally bound by the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe demeanor and conduct firsthand.
The Court found the prosecution witnesses consistent in narrating the manner of events and steadfast in identifying Almazan as the person who attacked the victims with a .38 caliber revolver.
The Court ruled that the victims, Vicente and Noel, denied the defense theory that the group’s alleged drunken mocking was the cause or that the violence began with their mockery.
The Court rejected the defense attempt to shift blame to the group because the trial court’s credibility determination favored the prosecution account.
The Court found Shirley Abordo’s testimony to be hearsay because her narration was derived from the accounts of other prosecution witnesses and not from her own perception.
The Court held that although the defense pointed to inconsistencies in testimony, the inconsistencies did not refer to significant facts vital to guilt or innocence and were immaterial for acquittal purposes.
The Court rule