Case Digest: People vs. Manansala, GR No. 233104, September 2, 2020
Evidence | Rule 130
Hernando, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Eddie Manansala y Alfaro
Recit Ver:
This Court agrees with the RTC in appreciating the CCTV footages and admitting the same as evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the witnesses and supported the finding of treachery in the case at bar. As correctly held by the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that persons authorized to authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the person who made the recording but also by another competent witness who can testify to its accuracy. In the case at bar, Asas was able to establish the origin of the recording and explain how it was transferred to the compact disc and subsequently presented to the trial court. Hence, this Court finds no reason to contradict such finding.
Facts:
Eddie Manansala y Alfaro was charged for the murder of Armando Ramos in Manila, where he allegedly shot Ramos in the back with a handgun, causing his death.
Manansala pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution's Version:
On November 2, 2013, around 8:00 PM, Edward and Elmer Reyes were outside their rented apartment when they heard a gunshot inside the home of their landlord, Armando Ramos.
Edward saw Eddie Manansala holding a gun and leaving the scene hurriedly, while Ramos fell down the stairs, bleeding from his chest.
Corazon Ramos, Armando’s wife, heard the gunshot while taking a bath and found her husband lying at the bottom of the stairs covered in blood.
Ramos’ son, Asas, also heard the gunshot and saw his father fall down the stairs.
Bystanders rushed Ramos to the Chinese General Hospital, where he was declared dead.
A concerned citizen reported the shooting, and police began a hot pursuit operation to apprehend Manansala.
Dr. Salen’s autopsy revealed that the fatal gunshot wound entered through Ramos’ back and exited through the front, fatally lacerating his lungs and heart.
On November 6, 2013, police tracked Manansala to San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, where he was arrested.
CCTV footage from the crime scene showed a man resembling Manansala entering the house, shooting Ramos, and leaving immediately.
Ramos’ son, Asas, identified the man in the footage as Manansala.
Barangay Kagawad Piojo testified that Manansala and Ramos had a prior altercation over illegal electrical connections (jumpers), which occurred a day before Ramos was killed.
Defense's Version:
On November 2, 2013, Manansala claimed he was on his way to Bulacan to visit a friend, Allan Bautista. He passed by Ramos' house, took a bus to Bulacan, and arrived past 8:00 PM.
On November 3, 2013, Manansala’s daughter, Kiera, informed him that he was being accused of killing Ramos, which was widely reported in the news.
Manansala denied killing Ramos and planned to surrender to "Col. Pascual," his daughter's godparent, but was arrested on November 5, 2013, in Bulacan.
Manansala had known Ramos since he was 13 years old and did repair work for him. He denied the murder and the ownership of a gun, and claimed ill feelings arose between them over jumper installations.
RTC: Found Manansala guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The court relied on eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage to establish guilt.
The court found treachery due to the sudden shooting and ruled evident premeditation based on a prior altercation between Ramos and Manansala over electrical jumpers.
Manansala was ordered to pay the victim’s heirs actual damages, civil indemnity, and moral damages.
CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of murder.
The CA upheld the admission of CCTV footage, rejecting Manansala’s argument that it was improperly authenticated.
The CA maintained reclusion perpetua without parole eligibility due to the proscription of the death penalty.
The CA increased the awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages to Php 100,000 each and added interest to all monetary awards.
Issue:
Whether the court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to prove that it was the former who shot the victim.
Whether the court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to sufficiently establish the existence of treachery and evident premeditation.
Held:
The instant appeal is dismissed.
Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review. Thus, it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error that may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or not. In the crime of murder, the elements of murder and the aggravating circumstances qualifying the killing must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Here, Manansala was charged with Murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states:
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, x x x
x x x x
5. With evident premeditation.
Jurisprudence dictates that the elements of murder are as follows:
that a person was killed;
that the accused killed him;
that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Thus, for the charge of Murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
the offender killed the victim
through treachery, or by any of the other five qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information.
In the case at bar, the death of the victim Ramos is undisputed and there is no question that the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. The remaining points of contentions are whether Manansala was the perpetrator of the crime and whether the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation.
This Court agrees with the CA that the pieces of circumstantial evidence sufficiently support the finding that Manansala was the one who killed the victim. It is an elementary rule in criminal law that absence of direct evidence will not bar conviction of the accused when pieces of circumstantial evidence satisfactorily prove the crime charged.
In People v. Evangelio, this Court elaborated on how circumstantial evidence may be appreciated to support conviction, thus:
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if
there is more than one circumstance;
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.
Here, We are in agreement with the Office of the Solicitor General in its brief, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution was able to establish that Manansala was the author of the crime of murder based on the following circumstantial evidence:
Upon hearing the gunshot, Edward turned around and saw appellant holding a gun.
When Edward saw appellant, the latter was facing the stairs of the victim's house where he had his gun aimed towards the stairs.
After Edward saw appellant running towards Lico Street, the former went back to the place where the gunshot was heard and there he saw the victim face down on the ground bloodied and unconscious. Blood was oozing from the victim's left chest.
Mananquil, on the other hand, after hearing the gunshot turned to his right and saw appellant coming out from the house of the victim.
When appellant was no longer in the vicinity of the shooting, Mananquil went back to the victim's house. There he saw the victim lying down.
The CCTV and its printouts corroborating the testimonies of Edward and Mananquil.41
The inescapable conclusion based on the above circumstances laid out by the prosecution convincingly point to Manansala as the killer.
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 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 order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present:
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. x x x
These elements are present in this case as testified to by the prosecution witnesses and corroborated by the CCTV footages.
Manansala stealthily entered the house of the victim and shot him while he was going upstairs. The fatal wound was inflicted from behind since the entry point was located at the back lumbar region while the exit point was at the front portion of the victim's body with the trajectory traversing upwards. These clearly indicate that the victim was going upstairs with his back towards the assailant when he was shot. We are thus in agreement with the OSG that treachery attended the killing as the victim's position rendered him defenseless from the sudden attack from behind.
Incidentally, treachery was also proven by the CCTV footages presented in court and testified on by witness Asas. Pertinent excerpts of Asas' testimony shows the following:
ACP POSO:
During the last hearing you were asked to produce the larger image extracted in the CCTV, do you have that copy of the picture or larger image of what were marked during the presentation of your testimony?
WITNESS [ASAS]:
Yes sir.
ACP POSO
The witness handed to me these pictures. In these pictures handed to me, where is the start or the beginning of the video?
WITNESS
Ito po.
ACP POSO
May I pray that this [enlarged] picture from the CCTV memory be [marked] as our exhibit U. This is prior to the shooting your Honor. Another [enlarged] (sic) copy of the picture depicting somebody playing guitar as U-1 your Honor.
COURT
Mark it.
ACP POSO
Who is [depicted] in this picture?
WITNESS
Eddie Manasala sir.
ACP POSO
While looking at the door where the incident happened, the person identified as Eddie Manansala be [marked] as exhibit V?
COURT
Okay, how about the first one, the first picture?
ACP POSO
Also the accused your Honor. The accused your Honor. The accused as pointed to by the witness as V-1 your Honor?
COURT
Mark it.
ACP POSO
Another picture of the accused while he was already about to pass the door of the house where the incident happened as exhibit W your Honor and the picture of the accused looking at the door as W-1?
COURT
Mark it.
ACP POSO
Another picture showing the accused [entering] the door of the house and raising his arm while shooting the victim as exhibit X and the location of the accused as our exhibit X-1?
COURT
Okay.
ACP POSO
The picture showing the accused after the shooting leaving the door of the house where the incident happened as exhibit Y and the picture holding the gun right after the shooting as exhibit Y-1 your Honor?
COURT
Mark it.
This Court agrees with the RTC in appreciating the CCTV footages and admitting the same as evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the witnesses and supported the finding of treachery in the case at bar. As correctly held by the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that persons authorized to authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the person who made the recording but also by another competent witness who can testify to its accuracy.
In the case at bar, Asas was able to establish the origin of the recording and explain how it was transferred to the compact disc and subsequently presented to the trial court. Hence, this Court finds no reason to contradict such finding.
However, this Court finds that the prosecution was not able to satisfactorily establish the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Per jurisprudence, "[t]he elements of evident premeditation are:
a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime;
an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts.
The above circumstances are not present in the case at bar. The only basis for the RTC and the appellate court in finding evident premeditation as attendant to the crime was the confrontation between the victim and Manansala one day before the killing. The trial court merely surmised that Manansala must have harbored feelings of resentment towards the victim and has clung to that thought and killed the victim.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. When it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered. "Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must be evident, not merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning."
Nevertheless, despite the absence of evident premeditation, the killing remains to be murder in view of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Necessarily so, this Court modifies the penalty imposed in light with our pronouncement in People v Jugueta and revert the penalty to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 248 of the RPC. Considering too that no other aggravating circumstance was present in the killing, the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be reverted to P75,000.00 each.
Anent the award of actual damages, Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that "one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved." In this case, the amount of P7,286.17 and P100,000.00as hospital and funeral expenses, respectively, were duly supported by official receipts. The handwritten list of expenses amounting to P36,000.00 as shown in Exhibit S52 were not duly supported by receipts hence were properly disregarded. The heirs of the victim are therefore entitled to be paid the amount of P107,286.17 as actual damages.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The January 5, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07893 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant EDDIE MANANSALA y ALFARO @ "Eddie Pusa," @ "Bulag" is found GUILTY of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of deceased Armando Ramos the following:
1. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. P75,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
4. P107,286.17 as actual damages.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on the aggregate amount of the monetary awards computed from the finality of this Decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, (Chairperson), Carandang,* and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
Baltazar-Padilla, J., on official leave.
Comments
Post a Comment