PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ELSON
SANTUILLE @ "BORDADO" @ ELTON SANTUILLE @ "BORDADO |||

(People v. Santuille, G.R. No. 214772, [November 21, 2016])

Now before the Court for final review, we affirm appellant's conviction.
Well-settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, as the trial judge is
in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and has the unique
opportunity to observe the witness first hand and note his demeanor, conduct
and attitude under gruelling examination. 19 Absent any showing that the trial
court's findings of facts were tainted with arbitrariness or that it overlooked or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of significance and value, or its
calibration of credibility was flawed, the appellate court is bound by its
assessment.
In the prosecution of the crime of murder as defined in Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following elements must be established: (1)
that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the
killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or
parricide. 20
Our review of the records convinces us that these elements were clearly
met. We uphold appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 10-274400 for
Murder. The prosecution eyewitnesses positively identified appellant as the
person responsible for killing the victim Rogelio Maco. The Court finds no
reason to disbelieve the credible and straightforward testimonies. We are not
persuaded by the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi as these cannot prevail
over the eyewitnesses' positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the
crime. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence
is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 21
The prosecution ably established the presence of the element of
treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The shooting of the unsuspecting
victim was sudden and unexpected which effectively deprived him of the
chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, insuring the commission of
the crime without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part
of the victim.
In fine, the Court finds no error in the conviction of the appellant.
The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon
appellant
||| (People v. Santuille, G.R. No. 214772, [November 21, 2016])
BENJAMIN RUSTIA, JR., BENJAMIN RUSTIA, SR., and FAUSTINO
"BONG" RUSTIA, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (Rustia, |||

Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 208351, [October 5, 2016])

Furthermore, all the circumstances in the record indicated that the killing of
Ambrocio had been done in the heat of the moment. It is quite clear that Benjamin,
Jr. had not set out to kill Ambrocio when they both agreed to meet in order to
discuss their land dispute. The fact also remains that it was the victim who had
brought the gun to the meeting. In contrast, Benjamin, Jr. did not appear to have
prepared his own weapon to commit the crime. To establish the attendance of
treachery in such an environment, the State's evidence must competently and
convincingly show that the accused made some preparation to kill the victim; hence,
a killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be treacherous. 11 Even where the
victim was shot from behind, if the shooting was done in the course of a heated
argument between the victim and the assailant, treachery should not be
appreciated, for in that situation, the assailant was filled with anger and rage and
excitement, and had no time to reflect on his actions; in other words, he could not be
shown to have consciously adopted the mode of attacking the victim from behind to
facilitate the killing without risk to himself. 12
In the same manner, the petitioner's claim of incomplete self-defense must fail for
being unsupported by the evidence. This privileged mitigating circumstance
requires the indispensable element of unlawful aggression, the nature of which we
have explained in People v. Dulin: 13
. . . The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether or not the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal
safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three
elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least imminent; and
(c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and
(b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an
attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must
not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but
must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with
intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent
unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by
an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.
The burden of proving unlawful aggression belonged to the petitioners. According to
them, unlawful aggression manifested itself when Ambrocio reached for the gun
tucked in his waist. Yet, they did not thereby establish that Ambrocio had really
reached for his gun and actually taken it out. What we have on this defense was
instead the sole recollection of Benjamin, Jr., which, being uncorroborated even by
the other petitioners, was accorded scant consideration by both the RTC and the CA.
It is remarkable at least that none of the three disinterested eyewitnesses saw
Ambrocio reaching for the gun first. Thus, the claim of incomplete self-defense is
rejected. TCAScE
There being no treachery, the crime committed by Benjamin, Jr. was only homicide.
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines homicide and penalizes it with
reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of
any modifying circumstances, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is taken
from the medium period of reclusion temporal (from 14 years, eight months and one
day to 17 years and four months), while the minimum is taken from prision mayor,
the penalty next lower (from six years and one day to 12 years). Accordingly, the
indeterminate sentence of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years,
eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is hereby imposed.
||| (Rustia, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 208351, [October 5, 2016])

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO

DACANAY y TUMALABCAB, (People v. Dacanay y Tumalabcab, G.R. No.
|||

216064, [November 7, 2016])

Under Article 246 of the RPC, the crime of Parricide is committed

when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused. 57 Undoubtedly, all elements are present in this case.
To begin with, the fact that Norma was the spouse of Antonio was
sufficiently proven by the prosecution through their Marriage Contract. 58
Next, as a rule, an extrajudicial confession, where admissible, must be
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti in order to sustain a finding of guilt.
59 In this connection, extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary until
the contrary is proved. 60
Hence, as extensively discussed above, considering that Antonio failed
to rebut such presumption of voluntariness regarding the authorship of the
crime, coupled with the fact of death of his wife, Norma, we find Antonio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Parricide. AScHCD

As a final note, worth reiterating is the general rule that factual findings
of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight
and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless these are facts of
weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and would
materially affect the disposition of the case. 61 Moreover, in assessing the
credibility of the competing testimonies of witnesses, the Court defers to the
findings of the trial court, in light of the unique opportunity afforded them to
 observe the witnesses and to ascertain and measure their sincerity, spontaneity,
as well as their demeanor and behavior in court. 62
In addition, the Court finds sufficient basis to award damages to the
heirs of Norma, notwithstanding the lack of such grant by the RTC and CA. An
appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question
including one not raised by the parties. 63 In this case, the crime of Parricide
was committed absent any modifying circumstances that would affect the
imposable penalty. Hence, following our ruling in People v. Jugueta, 64 we
hereby grant an award for civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages
in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each.
||| (People v. Dacanay y Tumalabcab, G.R. No. 216064, [November 7, 2016])