292017 GR.No. 188128 ‘THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 186128 Plaintiff: Appell Present CARPIO MORALES, J, Chairperson, versus - BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD, and VILLARAMA, IR, J SUSAN LATOSA y CHICO, ‘Accused-Appellant Promulgated: June 23, 2010 DECISION VILLARAMA, JR, J ‘This is an appeal from the Decision’ dated April 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR, CR-H.C, No. 02192 which 2 affirmed the Apri 12,2006 Decision! of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasi City, Branch 159, Chico of paricde. ‘onvieting appellant Susan Latosa y Appellant was charged with parricide in an information’ which reads, “That, on or about the 5" of February 200, inthe Municipality of Taguig, Metro Mani, Philipines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Cour the above-named accused, being ten the legiimate wife of one Felixberto Lata yJaudalso, armed with and using en wmlicensed gn, with inten to kil did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and felonious shoot her husband, Felixberto Latosa yJaudalso, hing him on the head, ‘ersby causing the later o sustain gunshot wound which directly cause his death CONTRARY TO LAW ‘Upon arraignment on June 25, 2002, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. Tal thereafter ensued. The prosecutions evidence established the following version: (On February 5, 2002, at around 2:00 in the aftemoon, appellant and her husband Major Felixberto Latosa, St. (Felixberto) together ‘with two (2) of ther children, Sassymae Latosa (Sassymae) and Michael Latosa (Michael), were at their house in Fort Bonifacio. Felixberto, Sr. was then asteep!! when Sassymae saw appellant take Felixberto Sr.s gun from the cabinet and leave. She asked her mother where she ‘was going and if she could come along, but appellant refused. i Moments later, appellant returned and told Sassymae to buy ice cream at the commissary. Appellant gave her money and asked her to 6 teave Aner Sassymae left, appellant instructed Michal to follow his sister, but he refused as he was hungry. Appellant insisted and further told Michael not to make any noise a his father was sleeping. Nevertheless, appellant went back inside the house and tured up the Volume of the television and the radio to full shortly afte: erocery, that, she came out again and gave Michael some money to buy food at the Instead of buying food, Michael bought ice candy and returned tothe barracks located at the back of their house. Michsel thereupon saw his friend Mac-Mae Nisperos who told him that he saw appellant running away from their house, Michael did not pay any attention to his friends comment, and simply continued eating his ice candy. Moments later, a certain Sgt. Ramos arrived and asked if something had happened in their house, Michael replied in the negative then entered their house. At that point, he saw his father Iying on the bed with a hole in the left portion of his head and a gun at his left hand, Michael immediately went ouside and informed Sgt. Ramos about what happened. Set. Ramos told him that appellant had reported ‘the shooting incident to the Provost Marshall office. iat Then, Sassymae arrived and saw her father with a bullet wound on his head and a gun near his left and? hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him 16292017 GR.No. 188128 Felixberto Latosa, Jz, one (1) of the legitimate sons of appellant and the victim, also testified that sometime in December 2001, their father told him and his siblings over dinner about a threat to their lives by a certain Efren Sta, Inez. Appellant, testifying on her own behalf, on the other hand claimed that when Felixberto, Sr. woke up, he asked her to get his service pistol from the cabinet adjacent to their bed. As she was handing the pistol to him it suddenly fred, hitting Felixbert, Sr. who was still lying down. Shocked, she ran quickly to Felixberto, Sr.s office and asked for help. a ‘She also claimed that when Felixberto, Sr. asked her for his. rn, she was on her way out ofthe house to fllow her children who lef forthe market on an errand she had earlier given Sassymae. She claimed that she wanted to drive for thm because it was hot, She ran after them but after afew minutes, when se realized that she di not ave with her the Keys to therjeep, she went back to ther house, Flixbero, i then asked again for hs gon and it was then tha i fied x 12 she was handing i to him. Appellant further described herself as « good mother and a good provider for their six (6) children whom she raised by herself while Felixberto, Sr. was in Mindanao. She claimed that they testified against her because they were manipulated by her brothe aw, Francisco Latosa. bal ‘She denied that Sassymae saw her holding a gun when she asked her to buy ice cream, alleging that Michael and Sassymae saw her holding the gun only when she placed it inside the cabinet before they proceeded tothe hospital. [Appellant also denied her childrens testimony! that she was having an affair with a certain Col, Eten Sta. Inez (Sta Inez), a policeman, She claimed that she First met Sta. Inez when her youngest brother was killed on June 6, 2001 by unidentified men. Sta. Inez was the one (1) who assisted her. She was alone at that time since her husband informed her that he could not leave his post in Mindanao for he hhad to tush some papers. She allegedly only saw Sta, Inez twice but admitted that Sta, Inez went to the precinct when he learned of the 6. shooting incident.“ She also denied that she was terminated from her jab at the Philippine Public Safety College due to immorality for having said affair. She claimed that she was terminated because she had incurred numerous absences from her work as she grieved the death ua ‘of her youngest brother and had lost interest in her work after his death ‘The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing her husband Felixberto, Sr. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view ofthe foregoing this Cour finds the accused SUSAN LATOSA ¥ CHICO GUILTY beyon rime of partici under Ar. 246 ofthe Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 in rl to Sec. 1, 3% par PD 1866 as emended by RA 8294 Snd Sec. 5, RA 8204 and hereby sentences the said accused to sulfer the penalty of reclusion perpen and to farther indemniy the ies the ‘mount oF PS0,000 a civil indemaiy,]P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages ust ‘SO ORDERED. sonable doubt ofthe The RTC held thatthe claim of accidental shooting was inconsistent with the evidence considering the location of the gunshot wound, ‘which was at the let temple of Felixberto, Sr, and the fact that the gun was found near Felixberto, Sr left hand despite his being right- hhanded. The tial court found that appellant planned the killing by asking her two (2) children to leave the house and, after the shooting, placing the gun near the victims left hand to suggest that the death was suicide. But appellant overlooked the fact that Felixberto, Sr. was right-handed. The wial court noted that despite the grueling cross-examination of the defense counsel, the Latosa children never wavered in their testimonies about what they knew regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting incident. Their testimonies bore the hallmarks ‘of outh as they were consistent on material points. The RTC found it inconceivable thatthe children would testify against their own mother 19 ‘or concoct a story of parricide unless they were impelled by their passion to condemn an injustice done to their father. 1st ‘The RTC, in finding appellant guilty, considered the following circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution: (1) shortly before the shooting, appellant asked her two (2) children to do errands for her which were not usually asked of them; (2) atthe time of the shooting, only the appellant and Felixberto, Sr. were in the house; (3) appellant was seen running away from the house immediately after the shooting; (4) when Michael went inside their house, he found his father with a hole in the head and a gun in his left hand; (5) the medieo- legal report showed thatthe cause of death was intracranial hemorthage due to the gunshot woud on the head with the point of entry atthe left temporal region; (6) the Firearms Identification Report concluded that appellant fired two (2) shots; (7) Felixberto, Sr. was right-handed and the gun was found near his lef hand; (8) Sassymae testified that she heard Sta, Inez tell appellant bakit mo inamin. Sana pinahawak mo say Major iyong baril saka mo pinutok; (9) appeliants children testified that they were formed by Felixberto, St. regarding the threat of ‘appellants paramour, Sta, Inez, to the whole family; and (10) Francisco Latosa pre 20 terminated from her teaching job by reason of immorality. Bol ed a memorandum showing that appellant was hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him 26292017 GR.No. 188128 ‘On appeal, the CA upheld the decision of the RTC. The CA held that since appellant admitted having killed her husband albeit allegedly by accident, she has the burden of proving the presence of the exempting circumstance of accident to relieve herself of criminal ‘esponsibility. She must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if this be weak, it 2 ‘cannot be dis lieved after the appellant has admitted the killing ‘The CA, however found appellants version of accidental shooting not credible, Citing the ease of People, Reyes, the CA held that apellants claim of accidental shooting was negated by the following fats: (1) a revolvers nt prone to accidental fring a pressure on the tigger is necessary to make the gun fire, cocked or uncocked; and (2) when banding a gun to person, the barrel or mule is never pointed to that person In this ease, appellant held the gun in one (1) hand and extended it towards her husband who was sill ying in ed. Assuming that appellant was not aware of the basic frearm safety rule thatthe firearms maze is never pointed to a person, she filed to explain why the gun would accidentally fire, when it should not have fired unless there was pressure on the trigger. The location of Felixberto, Srs wound also showed that the shooting was not accidental, Appellant didnot dispute that Felixberto, St. was lying down during the shooting and that aftr the incident, the gun was found near his Tet hand. The CA found that it was contrary to human nature tht ‘newly awakened military man would suddenly ask his wife, who was busy doing other things, to bring his firearm, and patiently wait for aa her to come back to their house, when the gun was just inside an adjacent cabinet only two (2) meters away from his bed. fal ‘The dispositive portion of the CA docision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed devsion of the Regional Tiel Cout of Pasig City, Branch 159, in Criminal Case No. 122621-Hi finding SUSAN LATOSA y CHICO guilty heyond resonable doubt of the crime of parce under Article 246 ofthe Revised Penal Code and seniencing her to sufer the penalty of rectus perpetua and ardring bet to pay the hets of elixbert Latosa the aunt of PS0,000.00 38, indemnt,PS0,000,00 as moral damages, and 25,000.00 as exemplary damages is AFFIRMED. so onpenen 24! Undaunted, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on May 12, 2008.7 ‘Appellant argues thatthe circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that she intentionally killed hher husband, She insists that the gun fired accidentally while she was giving it to Felixberto, St. Since she had no experience in handling arms, she was not able to foresee that it would fire accidentally and hit her husband. After her husband was hit, she immediately rushed ba this office and asked for assistance. ‘The only issue the Court has to resolve in this ease is whether the exempting circumstance of accident was established by appellant, ‘The basis of appellants defense of accidental shooting is Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Cade, as amended, which provides: ART, 12, Circumstances which exp rom eriminal laity, Te following are exept fom criminal ibility 4. Any person who, while performing a lawl act with du cre causes an injury by mere accident without fault or inteation of causing it ‘Thus, it was incumbent upon appellant to prove with clear and convincing evidence, the following essential requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident, to wit: 1. She was performing a lawful act; 2. With duc eae, 5. She eaused the injury to her husband by mere accident, 4, Without flor ntention of eusing ‘To prove the circumstance she must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not on the weakness ofthat of the prosecutio even if this be weak, it can not be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. pat However, by no stretch of imagination could the pointing of the gun towards her husbands head and pulling the trigger be considered as performing a lawful act with due care. As correctly found by the Ci whieh we quote in ful: Appellaots version that she accidentally shot her husband is nt credible. Appellants mane of caryng the caliber 4S pistol negates her aim of du care i the performance ofan at. The locaton ofthe wound sustained by the victim shows thatthe shooting was not merely aceident “The victim was lying down ard the fact thatthe gun was found ea his left band was not dizelly disputed by her. We find t contrary to human satue that a newly awakened military man would suddenly ask his wife or his Twearm, and even pie wait for he return co the hose, when the Said ream was jst inside the cabinet which, according to appellant, was jst about two meters away from his bed hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him 36292017 GR.No. 188128 Inthe cae at bench, appellant held the gun in one and and extended it toward her husband who was sil lying in bod, Assuming arguendo ‘at appellant bas never learned how to fre agin and was merely handing the firearm over othe deceased, the muzzle ts never pointed toa person & ‘sie teams safety rule which appellant is deemed to have aeady known sce she admitted, during al, tat she somatines handed ove the BUS ther husband. Assuming further that she was not aware ofthis Basic rl, st needod explaining why the gun would accidentally fr, when i should ‘ol unless there was pressure onthe riggs ‘There is no merit in appellants contention that the prosccution failed to prove by circumstantial evidence her motive in killing her Inusband. Intent to kill and not motive is the essential element ofthe offense on which her conviction rests, Evidence to prove intent to killin crimes against persons may consis, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the vietim, the conduct of the malefactors before, atthe time, or immediately after the killing ofthe vietim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. Ifthe victim dies as a result ofa deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed, In the instant ease, the following circumstantial evidence considered by the RTC and affirmed by the CA satisfactorily established ‘appellants intent to kill her husband and sustained her convietion forthe erime, to wit: “The prosecution etblished the fllowing circumstantial evidence: (1) Susan Lato, the accused, asked er twine to do eands for her. She it asked Sesymae fo goto Commissary to buy ce eream,thereaer she asked Michael follow his sister atthe Commissary which acordng othe prosecution witnesses was not the usual ting the aeused would do; (2) Thereates, it was only she accused and the vet who were If alone in the house; (6) After th witness Miceel, son of he accused end the victim let and proceaded atthe baracks located atthe back oftheir house, Susan Latosa ‘was seen running away from the house by Michael rend named Macrae (4) lrmesiacly thereafter, Michael Latosa went inside the rom oftheir ba ‘ose and had a gun in his left hand (TSN, May 8, 2003, pp. 78, 12-13) cks and saw bis father with sort of a bole in the hea, blood on the (6) The cause of death ofthe vet PelibertoLatosa was intracranial hemorshage due to gunshot wound ofthe head (per Medico-legal Report No 2M-082-2002, Exh. Ph (6 Susan Ltosas paraffin test yielded postive result forthe presence of gunpowder nate in he night hand (8) The pont of entry ofthe gunsot wound found onthe victim was located tthe lef temporal region as evidenced hy Medico Legal Report No, 2082-2002 (Exhibit P) (0) The viet vasa right-handed andthe gun was found onthe ater eft hand (10) SassymaeLatosa [ested that she heard Col. Sta, Inez [el] ber mother, bakit mo namin, Sana pinahawak mo kay Major ong bari saka mo ‘Pntok (TSN, May 19, 2002, p13);and (11) The chidten testified tht they were informed by the vet regarding the heat of Sta. Inez to the whole family who allegedly] hs an amorous relationship with their mother, Francisco Latosa presented a memorandum that accused was terminated from her teaching job by reason of 31 immorality. ‘Moreover, the Court finds no cogent reason to review much fess depart now from the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA that appellants version is undeserving of credence. It is doctrinally settled that the assessments 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 to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These aro the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of ‘witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the tial court ean be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings of the tial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been avrloked, misepprchended or misinterpreted s sto materially ffs the disposition ofthe case We fnd none in tis as, ‘ne lst ot, On the matter of damages, the CA awarded exemplary damages in the amount of #25,000.00, We neeas he sward to £30,000 in light of prevailing jurisprudence! xing the award of exemplary damages to sad amount. WHEREFORE, the appeal of Susan Latosa y Chico is DISMISSED. The April 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- GR.CR-H.C. No, 02192 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The amount of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00. With costs against the accused appellant SO ORDERED. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him a6292017 GR.No. 188128 Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice ATTESTATION | attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion ‘of the Courts Division. ‘CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Seetion 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division, RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice soa meer pe Spal Onto. 843, 1 pateyp 2-17 Rea by Ansovte ois Roalings Ascion iene With ANOsine oie Remedi A SsnuFenand ad SxinadsE Vio once 2c egy 21-45. esd hy ge Rolf R. Bail, pcan 12 November 2005991041, 29, May 19,2003, 99. 4,20. Sus. Fr May 5.2008 pp 9 yas, 11,15 roy May 19,2003 9.5 Aly 15,208 99.3.5 dps, November 2005 pp 18-24 a2 eta. Sie earan A ears SL May 19,2003 4s SN, May 5,200 96178 AAs November ¥ 205,79. 2052 Aisa seat Bn tos hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him 86292017 GR.No. 188128 i was Bag wana 2 pato.p 14 2 no. 1.33154, Feb 3 pott,p.15 auger, Pig acts, 2 edo: People, OR No. S857, September 24,208,459 SCRA, 105 25 people Nepomucer Se, OR No, 17818, Nove 1, 198,298 SCRA 450,68 2 pate 15 24 nea Pape, No. 168525, aay 25,2005, $0 SCRA 188,197 ea ota pt 22 pope PU,GR. No. 124739, Api 15,1998, 289 SERA 14 13 25 prope Monte, GR, No, 18804, ps2, 2016 9.18 hepilsejucary.govhjurisprudence2010}une2010/186128.him