Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > November 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 240231 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CRESENCIANO ENOJO A.K.A. "OLPOK," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:

This� appeal ¹� assails� the Decision² dated� 19� December� 2017� by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02161, which affirmed with modifications� the Joint Decision³�� dated 16 November� 2015 of Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete� City in Criminal� Case Nos. 14617, 14900, 14902 and 14903, finding Cresenciano Enojo (accused� appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three (3) counts of murder, for the killing of three (3) children, namely:� Delfred A. Cuevas, nine (9) years old; Alfred A. Cuevas,� six (6) years old; and Chrocila A. Cuevas, two (2) years old; and one (1) count of frustrated murder, for the wounding of their mother, Cannen A. Cuevas.

The separate Informations filed against accused-appellant read:

Criminal Case No. 14900

That on November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and� within� the� jurisdiction� of� this� Honorable� Court,� the� above-named accused with treachery and abuse of superior strength the victim being a minor and of tender age and unarmed, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack DELFRED A. CUEVAS, a 9 year old, inflicting upon the said victim the following mortal wounds x x x which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659.⁴

Criminal Case No. 14902

That on November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and� within� the� jurisdiction� of� this� Honorable� Court,� the� above-named accused with treachery and abuse of superior strength the victim being [a] minor and of tender age and unarmed, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack CARLFRED A. CUEVAS,⁵ a 6 year old, inflicting upon the said victim the following mortal wounds x x x which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659.⁶

Criminal Case No. 14903

That on November� 20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita,� Negros Oriental, Philippines, and� within� the� jurisdiction�� of� this� Honorable�� Court,� the� above-named accused with treachery� and abuse of superior� strength� the victim being [a] minor� and� of� tender�� age� and� unarmed,�� did� then� and� there�� willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack CHRESELA A. CUEVAS,⁷� a 2 year old, inflicting� upon the said victim the following� mortal wounds� x x x [w]hich caused� the instantaneous� death of the victim.

Contrary� to Article 248 of the Revised� Penal Code as amended� by RA 7659.⁸

Criminal Case No. 14617

That on or about November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental,� Philippines,� and within the jurisdiction� of this� Honorable� Court, the� above-named�� accused,� with� intent� to� kill,� with� treachery,� abuse� of superior� strength� and� disregard� of� the respect� due� the� offended� party� on account of her sex, the victim being a woman, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously� attack, assault and hack three (3) times Carmen Cuevas� with the use of a bolo the accused� was then armed� and provided, thereby inflicting upon the victim the following injuries x x x which injuries could have caused the death of the victim, thus performing all the acts of execution�� which�� could�� have�� produced�� the�� crime�� of�� Murder,�� as�� a consequence, but neve1iheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent� of� the� will� of� the� accused,� that� is,� by� the� timely� medical assistance given to said victim that prevented her death.

Contrary� to Article� 248� of the� Revised� Penal� Code� in relation� to Articles 6 and 250 of the said (sic) code.⁹

When arraigned, accused-appellant� pleaded not guilty to the charges. Upon� termination� of pre-trial,� trial� ensued� where� the� prosecution� and the defense presented their respective versions of the facts.


The� prosecution� presented� the� following� as� its witnesses:� (1) Felix Montiil (Montiil), the victims' neighbor; (2) Carmen Cuevas (Carmen); and, (3) Dr. Clemente� Hipe IV (Dr. Hipe).��� Montiil testified� that he overheard one of the child victims, Delfred, saying he hit accused-appellant's dog with a slingshot.�� At that exact moment, accused-appellant was passing by, and in a fit of rage, he told Delfred, "tirador ka� rang� bataa ka nga akong iro dako man ug samad sa kilid.� Buk-on nya�� nako na�� imong ulo bataa ka. Bisan musugilon ka sa�� imong� ginikanan iapil nako ug buak ang ulo. "¹⁰ The RTC translated this to mean:

Slingshot you juvenile child, my dog has� a big wound on its side, it even went home to my house.� I might break� your head you juvenile child. Even if you will tell your parents I will also break their heads.¹¹

Upon hearing this, Delfred rushed home. Moments later, his mother, Carmen, came looking for accused-appellant to confront him on what he told her son.� However, accused-appellant emerged and hacked Cannen twice on the� head� and� once� on� the� back,� causing� the� latter� to� fall� to the� ground. Accused-appellant� then made his way to Carmen's house, giving Carmen the opportunity to seek Montiil's help.¹²

In� her� testimony,� Carmen� recounted� how� she� heard� her� children, Alfred� and Chrocila,� calling� out to her� after she fell to the ground.��� She yelled for them to run to their house, but accused-appellant� followed them.¹³ Carmen� claimed� she� witnessed� how� accused-appellant� hacked Alfred� and Chrocila� to� death.¹⁴�� �As� for� Delfred,� she� maintained� that� her son� almost escaped, but accused-appellant� caught up with him and hacked him on the head twice. ¹⁵

Finally, Dr. Ripe, the physician who medically examined Carmen, testified that the injuries she suffered were fatal, and should have resulted in her death, but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of the will of the accused: the timely medical attention provided to Carmen.¹⁶

Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied having hacked to death Carmen's three (3) minor� children.��� He� narrated� that� while� plowing� his� neighbor's� field,� he heard children crying from a distance, but the sound died down.� Accused� appellant continued with his errands and chanced upon Carmen, then armed with� wooden� club� with� clothes� drenched� in� blood.��� When� asked� what happened, Carmen angrily retorted she would break his head if he continued asking her questions.� Carmen then attacked and hit him.� When the attack continued, accused-appellant� swung his bolo, accidentally hitting Carmen on the head.� He was surprised for being considered the suspect in the killing of Carmen's three children.¹⁷

Ruling of the� RTC
After trial, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of murder and one (1) count of frustrated murder.� The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE,�� all� the� foregoing� considered,� judgment� is� hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 14617, the court finds accused Cresenciano Enojo� @ "Olpok"� GUILTY beyond� reasonable doubt of the crime� of Frustrated Murder under Article 248 as amended by R.A. 7659 of the� Revised� Penal� Code in� relation to Article� 6 and� 50 also of the� Revised� Penal� Code� and hereby sentence[s] him to suffer 13 years of cadena temporal with the accessories of the law as well as sentence[s]� him to pay temperate� damages in the amount of Php25,000.00��� in�� lieu�� of�� actual�� damages considering� that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certainty during trial.

2. Considering that deceased minor victims Delfred Cuevas, Cal:fred (actually Alfred) Cuevas and Chrosela (actually Chrocila) Cuevas in� Criminal� Case� Nos.� 14900,� 14902,� 14903,� were� children� of tender�� years,�� and�� since�� killing�� a� child�� is� characterized�� by treachery� even if the manner of the assault is not shown because of the weakness of the victim due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused, the court finds accused Cresenciano�� Enojo� GUILTY� beyond�� reasonable doubt� for three� (3) counts� of the crime� of Murder under Article� 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7559 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.

The penalty of Death should have been imposed to the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 14900, 14902 & 14903, however, with the enactment of R.A. No.� 9346� on June 24, 2006, this court has to reduce� the penalty� of death to reclusion perpetua each in all said cases.� This, notwithsating (sic), accused� should� not� be eligible� for� parole� under Act No.� 4103,� otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

Finally, [the] accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the aforesaid three (3) children the amounts ofPhp50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00� as moral damages, Php30,000.00� as exemplary� damages and Php25,000.00�� as� temperate�� damages�� for� each� child-victim,�� plus� legal interest� on� all damages� awarded� at the� rate� of� 6%� from� the� date� of� the finality of this decision.

SO ORDERED.¹⁸� (Citations omitted)

The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to sustain accused-appellant's conviction of the crimes charged.� After affording itself the opportunity to observe the witnesses'� demeanor� on the stand, the RTC found� no reason� to doubt� their credibility.�� Moreover,� accused-appellant's claim of self-defense� failed to persuade since his version of what transpired was uncorroborated by any other witness and no medical certificate was presented to prove the alleged injuries sustained. ¹⁹��� The RTC, however, was convinced� that� Carmen� only saw� the� killing� of� her� son� Delfred,� and� not Alfred and Chrocila.�� Nevertheless,� the RTC found sufficient circumstantial evidence pointing at the conclusion that accused-appellant� killed the two (2) other children as well.²⁰

In convicting accused-appellant of the children's� murder, the RTC appreciated the circumstance of treachery considering the age of the victims. As for Carmen's� wounding, the trial court found abuse of superior strength and treachery to be present.²¹

Ruling of the CA
In its Decision� dated 19 December� 2017, the CA affirmed accused� appellant's conviction and disposed of his appeal in this manner:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 16 November 2015 Joint Decision� rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch� 31,� Dumaguete� City� convicting� accused-appellant�� Cresenciano Enojo, a.k.a. "Olpok" of Murder in Criminal Case Nos. 14900, 14902, and 14903�� and�� of�� Frustrated�� Murder�� in�� Criminal�� Case�� No. 14617�� is AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS:

For the killing of the minors Delfred A. Cuevas, Alfred A. Cuevas and� Chrocila� A.� Cuevas,� accused-appellant�� is� sentenced� to� suffer� the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with all its accessory penalties, for EACH COUNT of Murder.� Appellant is ordered to pay the following amounts, as his civil liability: Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. Accused-appellant� is likewise ordered to pay the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages.

For his conviction for Frustrated Murder, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum of the indeterminate� penalty, to (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, the� medium� period� of� reclusion temporal,� as� maximum.� Appellant� is likewise ordered to the following[:] to pay the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.

An� interest� at the� rate� of� six� percent� (6%)� per� annum� shall� be imposed� on� all� damages� awarded� from� the� date� of� the� finality� of� this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.²²

The CA did not find merit in accused-appellant's claim that fatal inconsistencies plague the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.� If at all, the� appellate� court� found� these� inconsistencies� to� be� trivial� and inconsequential.�� The CA also agreed with the trial court's� appreciation of the� circumstance� of� treachery� in qualifying� the� killing� of the children� to murder, and abuse of superior strength and treachery in the wounding of Carmen.��� The� appellate� court,� nevertheless,� ruled� that� abuse� of� superior strength was already absorbed by treachery.²³ Finally, the award of damages was modified to conform with recent jurisprudence.²⁴��� Hence, this appeal.

Issues
In his appellant's� brief, accused-appellant insists that abuse of superior strength and treachery were not present to qualify the crime against Carmen to frustrated murder.� Also, the inconsistencies in Carmen's and Montiil's recollection� of the events surrounding� the children's� attack� cast doubts on their credibility and on their identification of the accused-appellant as the assailant.

Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.

At the onset, We affirm accused-appellant's conviction for the murder of� Delfred,� Alfred,� and� Chrocila.���� Accused-appellant's� defense,� which centers� on� his� challenge� to� the� credibility� of� the� prosecution� witnesses, cannot�� be�� sustained�� considering�� that�� the�� RTC's�� assessment�� of� these witnesses were affirmed by the CA.� As such, these findings are now given great respect and conclusiveness.� It is settled that trial courts are in the best position to decide issues of credibility of witnesses, having themselves heard and�� seen�� the�� witnesses�� and�� observed�� firsthand�� their�� demeanor�� and deportment� and� the� manner� of� testifying� under� exacting� examination,²⁵ making� their� assessment�� of� a� witness's�� credibility�� far� superior� to� that of appellate tribunals.

The CA and RTC were also correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance�� of�� treachery.�� "The�� killing�� of�� a�� child�� is�� characterized by treachery even�� if� the�� manner�� of� the�� assault�� is� not�� shown�� in� the Information,� as the weakness� of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.²⁶��� Hence, the mere allegation of the victim's minority is sufficient to qualify the crime to murder.

Treachery was not� present�� �when
accused-appellant attacked� Carmen

It is well to point out that the Information� for the crime of frustrated murder committed against Carmen is insufficient for failure to allege factual averments constituting treachery.²⁷�� We take this as an opportunity to remind our�� public�� prosecutors�� that�� general�� allegations�� of�� the�� existence�� of aggravating� or qualifying circumstances� in the Information� are not enough. Factual averments constituting not only the offense charged, but also the circumstances that may increase the accused's� liability, must be made in the Information� in order� to ensure� that the accused� is fully� afforded� his right to� be� apprised� of� the� nature� and� cause� of� the� accusation� against� him.²⁸ Failing� in� this� regard� would� prevent� the� Court� from� appreciating�� the circumstances insufficiently alleged.

Even� assuming�� the� sufficiency�� of� the� Information�� for� frustrated murder, We remain unconvinced that accused-appellant� employed treachery when he attacked Carmen. "Treachery is present when the attack was carried out in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, the purpose of which is to deny the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or herself.� To sustain a finding of treachery, it must be shown that the offender must have planned the� mode� of� attack� to� ensure� its� execution� without� exposing� himself� to any danger which may come from the victim's act of retaliation or self� defense.²⁹

Here, Carmen was aware of accused-appellant's hostile intentions.� In fact, upon learning about accused-appellant's threat, she sought to confront him.� While accused-appellant's attack on Carmen was described as sudden, there is no treachery when the suddenness was not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused� as a result of a provocative� act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment.³⁰

Accused-appellant�s abuse�� of�� his
strength over Carmen qualifies his
crime to frustrated murder

We rule that abuse of superior strength is present and could be appreciated� as� a� qualifying� circumstance� against� accused-appellant, considering�� that�� it�� is�� no�� longer�� absorbed�� by�� the�� now�� nonexistent circumstance� of treachery.�� In several� cases, We consistently� held that an attack� made� by� a� man� with� a� deadly� weapon� upon� an� unarmed� and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.³¹� The pieces of evidence show that at the time of her attack, Carmen was unarmed and without any means to fend off accused-appellant's attacks with his bolo.

In this regard, the CA still correctly adjudged accused-appellant's criminal liability for the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.� Resultantly, We find proper the imposition of penalty and award of damages by the CA.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 19 December 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA� G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02161 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo,* Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, ** and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

*On leave.

**Designated as Additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728.

¹ Rollo, pp. 24-26.

² Id. at 4-23;� penned� by Associate� Justice Geraldine� C. Fiel-Macaraig,� with�� Associate� Justices� Pa� d'Ja Ann Abella Maxino and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.

³ CA rollo, pp. 43-96; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Mercedita U. Sarsaba.

⁴Rollo,� pp. 6-7.

⁵See Records, p. 361; the RTC indicated that the name of the child should be "Alfred."

⁶ Rollo, pp. 7-8.

⁷See Records, p. 361; the RTC indicated that the name of the child should be "Chrocila."

⁸Rollo, pp. 8-9.

⁹ Id� at 9-10.

¹⁰ Id. at 11.

¹¹� Records, p. 322

¹²� Rollo, p. 11.

¹³Id.

¹⁴ Records, p. 317.

¹⁵Id.

¹⁶ Id. at 13, TSN dated 30 January 2014.

¹⁷ Id. at 14.

¹⁸ Records, pp. 363-364.

¹⁹�� ld. at 358-359.

²⁰� Id. at 361-363.

²¹ Id. at 364.

²²Rollo, pp. 22-23.

²³ Id. at 18-19.

²⁴Id. at 21-22.

²⁵� Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, 08 October 2014, 737 SCRA 567, 580.

²⁶ People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114,29 November 2017, 847 SCRA 300, 318.

²⁷ See People v. Dasmari�as, G.R. No. 203986, 04 October 2017, 842 SCRA 39.

²⁸ See People v. Petalino,� G.R. No. 213222,� 24 September� 2018; People� v. Detector, G.R. No. 200026, 04 October 2017, 841 SCRA 647; People v. Mercado. G.R. No. 218702, 17 October 2018.

²⁹People v.� Reyes, G.R. No. 227013,17 June2019.

³⁰People v. Ca�averas,-G.R.� No. 193839, 27 November 2013, 711 SCRA I, 12.

³¹People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 215320,28 February 2018, 856 SCRA 610,623.