@ Republic of the Whilippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE GAR. No. 233108 PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelice, Present PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Chairperson, = versus = HERNANDO, CARANDANG,” DELOS SANTOS. and BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J EDDIE MANANSALAy ALFARO, Promulgated Aveuseu- Appellant. oz DECISION HERNANDO, J: Before Us is an appeal! filed by herein accused-appellant Eddie Manansala y Alfaro (Manansala)assailing the January 5, 2017 Decision? ofthe Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07893 which found him bbeyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of Murder. The Information’ by which Manansala was charged, alleged: ‘Thatono about November 2.2013 inthe City of Manila, Pippin, the sid accuse i then an thee wilfully unlawfully and felonious with intent kill an with teahery and evident premeditation, tack. ssa nd tse personal violence upon one ARMANDO RAMOS y SANTOS, by then ‘ata, p20 pepe by Asoc ice arene Gz and cnc by Asoc sesGR No.233104 snd there shooting him wih «handgun iting the et potion of his uppet body (ack) thereby inflicting pon kim mortal gunshot wound which ras ‘the direst and immediate ease of his death thereat, Contrary t a During arraignment, Manansala pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.‘ Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued, The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of Edward Reyes (Edward? and Renato R. Mananguil (Mananquil). It likewise presented the testimonies of Corazon Ramos (Corazon) the vitims wife; Asas Ramos (Asas).' the victim's son; Barangay Kagawad Jume Piojo (Piojo}” Police Officer | Leopoldo N. Tuazon (PO! Tuazon):" Dr, Romeo T. Salen (Dr. Salen), medico-legal expert; and Senior Police Officer 1 Jonathan L. Moreno (SPO1 Moreno). the investigating officer. ‘The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimony of Manansala!™ and his daughter, Kiera Noreen Manansila (Kiera)! Version ofthe Prosecution: On November 2, 2013, at around 8 o'clock in the evening, brothers Edvard and Elmer Reyes were in front oftheir rented apartment owned by the vietim Armando Ramos (Ramos) at No. 2637 Severino Reyes Street, Tondo, Manila, where the latter also resides. The Reyes brothers were watching, Mananguil play his auitar beside the door of their rented apartment when suddenly they heard a gunshot inside the house, Edward then Saw Manansala facing towards the direction of the stirs and holding a gun aimed upwards. ‘Thereafter, Manansala hurviedly left towatds Lico Street while sil holding a gun. Shouts and commotion soon followed upstairs. Edward also saw Ramos fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his lett chest." Corazon, for her part, testified that she was taking a bath atthe second {oor oftheir house when Manasala came and shot her husband. When she heard the gunshot, she immediately ran and saw her husband lying atthe bottom of the stairs covered with blood. Asas, the victim's son who was also inside the house, ikewise heard the gunshot and his fathers shout, He quickly ran towards the door and saw his father falling down the stair.” TSN Fabry 26,201, pp 224 few ISN, Ap 30,20. 2:11 TSN. 28.2014 9p 28 ‘argoDecision 3 GR. No, 235104 Several onlookers rushed Ramos to the Chinese General Hospital, Corazon immediately followed but upon her arrival, she was told that her husband had already expired." ‘A concemed citizen reported the shooting incident 10 the police authorities. POI Marinito Daya and POI Tuazon went to verify the report, Upon confirmation, Police Superintendent Roderick Mariano formed a team headed by Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alvin Balagat (PSI Balagat) 10 conduet an extensive follow-up and hot pursuit operation for the apprehension of Manansala.”” ‘Meanwhile, upon Corazon’s request, Ramos’s cadaver was examined by Dr. Salen. The medical findings indicated thatthe entry point ofthe gunshot ‘wound was atthe vietim’s back, pantcularly atthe lambar region, while the exit point was atthe front portion of the body. The trajectory ofthe bullet From the entrance to the exit was upward andthe distance between the muzzle ofthe gun and the vietim’s body was about two feet or more The gunshot wound fatally lacerated the lungs and the heart which caused the vitim’s death,” (On November 6, 2013, the team of PSI Balagat received an information that Manansala was hiding in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. They immediately coordinated with Chief PSupt Jel Estris (CPSupt. Estaris). The nextday, PSI alagat and his team went to San Jose Del Monte after receiving information from CPSupt. Estaris that Manansala is already in their custody. PSI Balagat and his team verified the identity of Manansala and thereafter brought him 10 Jose Abad Santos Police Station (PS-7), Manila Police District (MPD) for verification. Manansals was then turned aver to MPD’s Crime Against Person Section During trial, the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages ofthe crime scene were presented in court where a man appearing to be Manansala was seen entering the house while armed with a gun and proceeding upstairs. The man then aimed his gun, shot the vitim and immediataly thereafter left the house Asas testified that he was the one who transferred the video footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their house 1 the compact ise that was submitted in court as evidence. When the footage was played in court and the enlarged screenshot was presented, he identified said person as ‘Manansala and the perpetrator of the crime, ‘The prosecution also presented the testimony of Barangay Kagawad Piojo who confirmed the location of the CCTV. He also impressed upon the ‘rial court that prior to the killing incident, there were several complaints filed against Manasala conceming the ‘installation of illegal electricDecision ‘ GR No, 233106 cconnections/jumpers. These complaints became the subject of the altercation between Manasala and Ramos one day before the latter was killed Version ofthe Defense: Manansala, on the other hand, averred that on November 2, 2013, at around 7 o'clock inthe evening, he was on his way to Bulacan to visithis fiend, ‘Allan Bautista (Bautista). While on his way, he passed by the house af Ramos then took the bus bound for Bulacan and arrived thereat past 8 o'clock in the evening, ‘On November 3, 2013, he was surprised upon being informed by his daughter, Kiera, that he was_the suspect in the killing of Ramos and that the {ulling was all over the local news. He denied killing Ramos and planned to surrender to a certain “Col. Pascual", Kiera's godparent. However, on [November 5, 2013, he was suddenly arrested in Bautista's home by the police forces of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. ‘Manansala claimed that he had known Ramos since he was 13 years old and that he was the one doing the rpsits for his eletrcity and water supply, However, Ramos hac! ill-feelings towards him because of the jumpers he installed which Manansala claimed even benefitted Ramos and his tenants, He denied the allegations against him, as well as of owning a gun. Kiera corroborated his sory ling of the RIC: In its October 20, 2015 Decision * the RTC adjudged Manansala guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads WHEREPORE, in the light ofthe foregoing the proseeuion having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ofthe exime of ‘Marder, he accused EDDIE MANANSALA y ALFARO, alias “Ee Pus", alls “Bulag” hereby sentenced to RECLLUSION PERPETUA, [Aso te evil Tibi, the cused serch’ onre to pay the bits ofthe deceased Armando Ramos, the following 1 107,286.17 a actual damages) 2875.60.00 asi inde; and) 3, B50,000.00 as moral danas ‘so onpenen: ‘The RTC relied heavily on the accounts of the eyewitnesses pointing to Manansala as the author of the crime, especially since their accounts were corroborated by the CCTV footages. 23.5 pena ty sige Martin M NanDecision s GR. No, 233108 ‘The RTC found that treachery attended the commission of the crime because the shooting was sudden and unexpected, leaving the vietim no chance to defend himself. As revealed by the medieal finding, the entrance ofthe fatal {gunshot wound was at the back ofthe vietim’s body.** The tral cout also found the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation to be present, The RTC noted that there was a prior public confrontation and altercation between the vietim and Manansala on the alleged installation of eletrc jumpers, The tial court surmised that Manansala must have harbored resentment against the vietim and resolved to kill him asa form of retal All inall, the trial court held thatthe prosecution satisfactorily established the guilt of Manansala beyond reasonable doubt and successfully proved all the clements of Murder. Ruling ofthe Ca: Upon review, the CA. sustained the finding of the RTC that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Murder and has proved the guilt of Manansala beyond reasonable doubt. ‘The CA gave credence to the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution which reasonably and positively pointed to Manansala asthe person ‘who shot the vitim as the same was corroborated by the CCTV footages played and viewed in open court.” ‘The CA held that the RTC correctly admitted the CCTV footages as evidence as well as the competency of Asas in attesting tothe accuracy ofthe footages. The appellate court rejected the argument of Manansala that Asas was hot qualified to authenticate the footages as he was not the one who made the recording and that the CCTV was owned by the barangay. The CA held thatthe Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that the one who made the recording can authenticate the video, as well as any other person competent to testify on the accuracy of the video.” Finally, the CA held that considering the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the proper imposable penalty is death However, due to its proscription, the CA imposed instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The CA also modified the monetary awards by increasing the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages to P100,000.00 each and awarding exemplary damages for the same amountDecision 6 GR. No, 235104 ‘Thus, the dispositive portion ofthe January 5, 2017 Decision” of the CA states: WHEREFORE, the assiel cision dato October 20,2015 ofthe Regional Trial Cour, Branch 25, Mania finding scewsed-appetart EDDIE MANANSALA y ALFARO @ “Eddie Psa" “Bulag” gully beyond ‘essonnble doubt of the cine of muse is AFFIRMED without iis for parole. Te cv abies accusd-appelian are hereby MODIFLED, ant hes orered 1 pay the heirs of decetaed Armando Ramos teflon Pip 100.00.00 by way of ii indemnity ex dere: Pp 100,000.00 by way of moral dager: Pap 100,000.00 byway of exemplay damages; Pp 107286.17 a acta damages an All monetary awards shal eam interest atthe ate of six erent (6) per anna fom dat of iyo this Dees uni ily pad. ‘SO ORDERED Undeterred, Manansala filed his appeal before Us. Assignment of Errors L ‘THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF TIM PROSECUTION'S FVIDENCE TO PROVE THATIT WaS THE FORMER WHO SHOT THE VICTIM. ‘THE COURT 4 OU0 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.” Our Ruling ‘The instant appeal is dismissed Settled is the rue that an appeal in a criminal ease throws the entire ease wide open for review. Thus, it becomes the duty of the appellate cour to correct any error that may be found in the appealed judgment, Whether assigned as an error of not. Inthe crime of murder, the elements of murder and the aggravating circumstances qualifying the killing must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” SP Ma, GR. No 21724, a 5,208Decision 7 GR. No, 233104 Here, Manansala was charged with Murder qualified by evident premeditation and teachery. Anicle 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states: Antcl 248, Murder. - Any person wh, ot filing within the provisions of Amticle 246 shall Kill another, shall be guy of murder and shal be ‘Punished by rectsion temporal nt axiom pei to death, reamed ‘with any ofthe Following tendut cnemstances 1. With weachery xxx 5. With evident pemesittion, Jurisprudence dictates thatthe elements of murder areas follows: () that 4 person was killed; (b) thatthe accused killed him; (c) thatthe killing was attended by any ofthe qualifying cireumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (@) that the killing isnot paricide or infanticide." ‘Thus, for the charge of Murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) the offender killed the vietim, (2) through treachery, or by any of the other five qualiiying cicumstances, dly alleged in the Information.” Inthe case at bar, the death ofthe victim Ramos is undisputed and there is no question that the killin is neither particide nor infanticide. The remaining points of contentions are wlnedier Manansala was the perpettator ofthe crime and whether the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation. ‘This Court agrees with the CA thatthe pieces of circumstantial evidence sufficiently support the finding that Manansala was the one who Killed the victim. It is an elementary rule in ctiminal law that absence of direct evidence will not bar conviction of the accused when pieces of circumstantial evidence satisfactorily prove the ime charged In People ». Evangetio,” this Cour elaborated on how circumstantial ‘evidence may be appreciated 10 support convietion, thus: Circumstantial evidence also known sine or nesumptive evidence, tefers to proof of collateral ais an circumstances whence te existence o the iain fort may be infeed according o reason and common experience Gireamstanal evidence is suicint ts sustincnvction i a) there B more ‘than one circumstance; (b) the fats from which the inferences are derived are proven; (€) he combination af ll circumstances such as to proce ‘conviction beyond reasonable doubt, A julgment of conviton Based on ‘ircumstantal evidence canbe sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results «far and reasonable conclusion Pointing tothe acuse, ro the exclusion of al ther. ns the perpet [mph supaDecision ‘ GR.No. 233104 Here, We are in agreement with the Office ofthe Solicitor General in its brief, as affirmed by the CA, thatthe prosecution was able to establish that Manansala was the author of the crime of murdet based on the following circumstantial evidence: 1. Upon hearing the gunshot, Eswand tuned around and sw appellant Dolding 2. When Edward saw appllant, the later ws fing the sis ofthe victim's house where he id hs gun amo onan the sir 3. Afler Edward saw appellant rinning towards Lio Sree, the former ‘went ek tothe place where the guns was sd aa these se the itn face down on the ground Blooded and unconciovs, Blood was coving from the victim's ect ‘4 Mananquil on the oe han, afer hearing the guns tured to his "ight and saw appellant coming out rm the house the vei '. When appellant was no longer inthe vicinity of the shooting. Mananguil went Bak tothe vit’ House. There es the vit Ing down, 6. The CCTV and its printouts conohoratng the testimonies of Edvard and Mananguil" ‘The inescapable conclusion based on the above circumstances lid out by the prosecution convincingly point to Manansala asthe killer Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the divest ‘employment of means, methods, o fons the exciton ofthe eime against {ore offender nsng from te defense which he offended pa night make The essence of teacher) is tat the aick is dlierte and without waning done in-a swift and unoxpocted ay, affording the hapless unarmed and ‘unsuspecting vitim ne chance resist or eseape. In onder for each to be ‘ropetly appreciated, evo clement mathe present (1) the tinea the tack the vicina not in'a positon to defend hinsel: and (2) the accused ‘consciously and deliberately adopted the pareulr means, metas, o forms fF atack employed hy hi, x33 ‘These elements are present in this ease as testified to by the prosecution ‘witnesses and corroborated by the CCTV footages. Manansala stealthily entered the house of the vietim and shot him while ‘he was going upstairs. The fatal wound was inflicted from behind since the entry point was located atthe back lumbar region while the exit point was atthe front portion of the victim’s body with the trajectory traversing upwards, These clearly indicate that the vietim was going upstairs with his back towards the assailant when he was shot. We ate thus in agreement with the OSG that treachery attended the killing ss the vietim’s position rendered him defenseless from the sudden attack from behind.* Pe Rca 87 i s.r ars,Decision ° GR No 255108 Incidentally, treachery was also proven by the CTY footages presented in court and testifed on by witness Asas. Pertinent excerpts of Asas” testimony shows the following: ACP POSO: During te last bearing you were asked to produce the age mags extracted Inthe CCTY, do you have that copy ofthe picture or larger image of what ‘were marked ung the presentation of your festinony? WITNESS [ASA5): Yeesi ‘AcP POso ‘The wines handed 9 me these pictures. these pictues handed Yo me, vere isthe tart or the Bepianing of the video? WITNESS topo. ‘AcP POso ‘May {pray that this felage] picture rom the CCTV menor be {marked ‘sour exhibit U. Ths is prior tothe shooting your Honor. Another [tlaged] (se) copy of he pcre depiing some ping ears U-1 pour court Markit ace paso ‘Whos [depicted inthis pict? HTNESS Eddie Manassas Ace POsO. ‘While looking rhe door where the incident happened the person identified 1s Ee Manan be [marked] as exhibit V? court ‘kay how abot the first ne, the ist picture? cP POsO. ‘Also the accused your Honor. The accused your Honor, The aecused as inte toby the witness as V- your Honor? court Markit ACP PoSO. ‘Anoter picture ofthe accused while he was lead about fo paste door of the house where the incident happened as exhibit W your Honor ad the Picture othe accused looking ate doors W-1? court Mark iDesison 0 GR.No. 233108 ACP pOSO, Another picture showing the acu [csring| the door of the house and raising his arm while shooting the vsti a extubitX andthe location of the secused a ou exit X1? court Olay. ACP POO. “The picture showing the aceused after the shooting letving he door of the hows where the incident happened a exhibit ¥ andthe pete holding the um ight afer the shoting exhibit Y-1 your Honor? court, Marc i* ‘This Court agrees with the RTC jn 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 ease 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 t0 its accuracy. In the case at har, Asas was able fo establish the ‘origin of the recording and explain how it was transfered tothe compact dise and subsequently presented to the trial court! Hence, this Court finds 10 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, “[tJhe elements of evident premeditation ae: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt actor acts manifestly indicating thatthe accused clung to his determination; and (3) 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 ease at bar. The only basis forthe RTC and the appellate court in finding evident premeditation as attendant tothe crime was the confrontation between the victim and Manansala ‘one day before the killing. The trial court merely surmised that Manansala must hhave harbored feelings of resentment towatds the victim and has clung to that ‘thought and killed the vitim, ‘The essence of evident premeditation is tha the execution ofthe criminal ‘act mus be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry ‘out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arsive a a calm judgment. When itis not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched ‘or what time had elapsed before it was caried out, evident premeditation cannot Pegi Kain GR. NoDecision u GR.No. 253108 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 Cour modifies the penalty imposed in light with our pronouncement in People v Juguera™ and revert the penalty to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 248 of the RPC. Considering too that no ‘other agaravating 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 oss suffered by him as he has duly proved.” In this ease, the amount ‘ofP7,286.17" and P100,000.00" as hospital and funeral expenses, respectively, \were ‘duly supported by official receipts. The handwritten list of expenses amounting t0 #36,000.00 as shovn in Exhibit S* were not duly supported by receipts hence were properly disregarded. The heirs ofthe victim ate 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-GR. CR HC No. 07893 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in thot accused-appellant CDDIE 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. 75,000.00 as civil indemnity; 2. 75,000.00 as moral damages; 3. 75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 4 P107,286.17 a actual damages. Interest a the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be in agategate amount of the monetary awards computed from the fi Decision until full payment. «Pe at 6. 978 GHD. seh sein sn res,Desison 2 GR No.223104 SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: rsresasl fees senna Sites oe ight or, remo, ste natents fone hi pomeias haa on official Les PRISCILLA J. BALTAZARSPADILLA Associate Justice ATTESTATION 1 attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division este wifi as nema Sonor seas aie ‘hatnenDecision 8 GR No. 253104 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division (Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division, DIOSDADG M. PERALTA