Decision Pp vs. Vhon Martin Tanto

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL」 UDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch XIV,MaFlila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPHNES PIcin電

“ …versus‐

CRIMo CASE NO. 16-328114

FOR: Murder under Article 248 ofthe Revised Pcnal COde

DECISION ln a world where mobile phones and close circuit television (CCTV) recording systems have become prevalent, we have now insight of the different'features of human nature. The influence of rage can make people commit acts they would soon regret. Take the case af bar: A very minor altercation between a drivei and a cyctist turned fatal. The bloody end of the victim would not have happened if anger did not get into their heads,

For the Decision of this court is the Informationl fited by the Department of Justice accusing vHoN MARTIN TANTO of Murder, committed as follows: That on or about the 25tt day of July 2016 at about 9:4O o'clock in the evening, in the Cify of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a Philippine Army Reservist who had sufficient training in handling firearms, took advantage of his superior strength and expertise in handling firearms, with evident intent to kill, did then and 1

Record, page

1

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision

x-----------*----------x there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with treachery, unexpectedly attack MARK VINCENT M. GARALDE by firing his Norinco Caliber .45 firearm at victim GARALDE. Victim GARALDE, who was not afforded any chance to defend himself, was initially hit by two (2) bullets and when he fell on the ground, accused, in order to eradicate any risk to himself from the possible defense that victim GARALDE might make, shot him again twice or using two (2) bullets in order to effectively ensure his demise, thus, causing the instantaneous death of victim GARALDE. CONTRARY TO LAW.

Hence, this Decision.

ANTECEDENT FACTS Culled from the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents submitted, the follorring facts were presented to tJ:is Court for appreciation:

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

Bryan Yu g Bautistaz Ｕ Ｐ。 Ｙ

On 25 July 2OL6 at around 9:4O P.M., witness BRYAN y BAUTISTA (YU) was outside the house he was renting in Casal Street, Quiapo, Manila, when he noticed in the street a person riding a bicycle was being blocked by a red car. The driver of the red car alighted the vehicle. YU later on learned that the owner of the bicycle was MARK VINCENT GARALDE (MARK VINCENT) while the owner of the car was VHON MARTIN TANTO (Accused).

An argument between the two ensued; though the witness did not see who started it, a fistfight happened and was only stopped when the two appeared to have gotten tired. The Accused returned to his vehicle, while MARK VINCENT picked his bike up.

2lbid, pages 295-309

Page 2 of2ァ

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision

x------

― ―

X

While MARK VINCENT was walking with his bicycle, and was only two meters away from YU, the latter stopped in front of the Accused's car and heard him say "O, ano pre?" At tlris point, the Accused again stepped down from his vehicle, holding a gun, pointed it at MARK VINCENT, and shot him twice. MARK VINCENT fell down and the Accused shot him again twice.

The Accused returned to his car,left MARK VINCENT alld sped going to Ayala Bridge.

S.PO2 Chalrles John

lhtran3

When this incident was reported, the case was assigned to SPO2 CHARLES JOHN DURAN (DURAN). DURAN was assigned as the Investigator-On-Case and prepared the affidavits of YU and MARILOU GARALDE (MARILOU).

As part of his duties as the Investigator-On-Case, DURAN also prepared a Progress Report, Advance Information, the Affidavit of Arrest of the aresting officers, the Booking Sheet of the Accused, several photographs relative to the crime, Letters to the Firearms and Explosive Office. These were all admitted by the Defense, subject to a counter-stipulation that DURAN has no personal knowledge as to how the incident happened.

PCl.liselle Cui B alugot+

On the matter of the autopsy of the body of

MARK VINCENT, PCI JISELLE CUI BALUYOT (BALUYOTI, MedicoLegal Officer from the Philippine National Police, testified on the

following material points:

Based from the autopsy conducted by BALUYOT, the cause of death of MARK VINCENT was multiple gunshot wounds were identified: [a] Two (2) in the head; [b] One (1) in the body; and [c] One (1) in the left cheek region.

Quoting the medical exanniner, she stated during direct examination that "Al1 the first three gunshot wounds and the two other gunshot wounds on the head and another on the back of the body are fatal with the vital organs in the body''.

3 1bid,pages 273-282 4 1bid,pagcs 284-293

Pagc3ol′

L― :り ,ノ

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision X―

― ―

― ―

X

―

BALUYOT further testifred that the distance between the shooter and the victim was more than two (2) feet.

SPO3 Richard Escarlczns SPO3 RICHARD ESCARLAN (ESCARLAN) testifred that he is from the Homicide Section, Tracker Team of the Manila Police District. As a member of the Tracker Team, ESCARLAN was able to obtain a CCTV footage of the shooting incident from BRGY. CH. ARMANDO AQUINO

When the team received an information that the car of the

Accused was recovered

in Nueva Yizcaya, ESCARLAN

immediately proceeded to the area; however, along the way, pSI

ROMMEL S. ANICETE, Chief of the Homicide Section, instructed the team to proceed to Masbate because an information was received that the wife of the Accused has relatives there.

Upon arrival

in

Masbate, the team learned that the Accused was already in the custody of the Milagros, Masbate Municipal Police Station, and thereafter, the Accused was brought to Manila.

PCI Jobermon

Vide*

PCI JOBERMAN VIDEZ VIDEZ) is the Officer-In-Charge of

the Aritao Police Station in Nueva Yizcaya. As the Oflicer-InCharge, a red Hyundai Eon with Conduction Sticker No. MO3745 was turned-over to him by the brother-in-law of the Accused, and that such turn-over was reduced in writing; VIDEZ subsequently turned-over the report to DURAN, which was again reduced in writing.

PO3

Jeneff

Vibann

PO3 JENEFF VIBAR [VIBAR), at the time of his testimony,

was assigned at the Fifth Regional Crimina-l Investigation and 5 1bid, 6 1bid, 7 1bid,

pages 311-323 pages 325-328 Pages 325-337

´ ´ ´ ´ ― ′

Page 4 oゥ ::ヶ

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

Detection Group (CIDG) stationed at Carnp General Simeon A. Ola, Legaspi City.

During his dlcct and cross examinadon,VIBAR testiied that he,together、 、 ■th several members of the CIDG and the A/1anila Policc District caused■ e arrest of the Accuscd on 29 」uly

2016 at ll:30A.M.

Prior to the arrest of the Accused, VIBAR narrated that the officers from the Manila Police District were looking for the Accused. A confidential informant of VIBAR called him up and informed the latter that the Accused and his wife have relatives in Masbate. VIBAR then requested the confidential informant to update him if the Accused will show up in their barangay.

On 28 July 2016, at around 6:00 P.M., VIBAR received another communication from the confidential informant that the Accused and his family were sighted in Barangay Bangad, Milagros, Masbate.

On 29 Jwly 2OL6, the confidential informant relayed to VIBAR that the Accused was by the seashore. Sensing that the Accused might flee, the team formed by VIBAR immediately proceeded to the barangay, and upon reaching the area, the Accused was already "under the custody and escorted by the

Brgz. Captain and one of the escorts of Vhon Tanto was one of my [Vibar] informants."

SPOT

Adrrcl Barrientoss

SP02 ADHEL BARRIENTOS(BARRIENTOS)waS,at the tilnc of his tcstillnony, assigned to Calnp BOnny serrano, Masbate City and a member of the tealn that arrested the Accused.

During his cross-examination, BARRIENTOS testified that the Accused was a-lready under the care and custody of the Barangay Captain of Barangay Bangad, Milagros, Masbate, when the arresting team arrived.

e

Ibid, pages 338-341 Page 5,1::;フ

ア ´

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision x-

------

---

---------

--

-x

Mr. Regnaldo De Guzman MR. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN (DE GUZMAN) was the assigned ballistician from the Firearms and Explosive Of{ice of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory (FEO-PNP), who was tasked to examine the firearms registered in the name of the Accused.

DE GUZMAN testified that he was able to examine three guns registered in the name of the Accused: (a) . pistol 45 Armscor M1911 A1 FS TAC; (b) Pistol40 Glock G22 Blue; and (c) Pistol 45 Norinco M1911 A1C HC. Based from the report issued by his ofhce, DE GUZMAN stated that the FEO-pNp examined the lirearm turned over by the Manila police District to establish whether the bullet and the four (4) empty shells recovered from the crime scene came from the Accused.

Initiallg, Firearms Identification Report No. FAID-363-

2ol6e indicated that the recovered bullets from the crime scene were fired from a caliber .45 ACp firearm, but not from any of the registered firearms of the Accused. Howeuer, upon a more in-depth exarnination, it appears that the gun submitted by the PNP, the characteristics of the barrel and of the slide producing the empty shells and the bullet perfectly matched with th; recovered bullet and casings. It therefore, appears, that there was a replacement made on the upper receiver of the firearm with Serial No. 8B10909-11-246, or to be more precise, the barrel and the slide.

DE GUZMAN concluded that there was tampering of the evidence. Quoting DE GUZMAN in his direct examination, "Under the provision of Republic Act No. 10591, specifically Section 24, tampering does not necessarily mean altering the seria,l number of the gun, altering the emboss or engrave character or font of the gun but when somebody or with you deliberately replaced the hring peel, the extractor, the ejector, it basically replaces the manual characteristics essential in forensic examination and under that law, Section 34 is tantamount to violating Section 34 if you replaced the barrel and other parts capable of using microscopic imperfection in forensic examination xor" 9 1bid,page 168[Exhibit T-ll

´ ´ ´

Pagei,そ 47'´

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x

PS, Rommel S. Anicete

PSI ROMMEL S. ANICETE (ANICETE) was

the

administering officer of the Affidavit executed by witness YU and that he signed the following documents: (a) Letter Requests to the FEo; and (b) Letter to the community Defense center.

BrgU. Chairman Artnando Aeuinsto BRGY. CHAIRMAN ARMANDO AQUINO (AQUINO) was, at the time of his testimony, the incumbent Barangay chairman of Brgz. 385, Quiapo, Manila. AQUINO testified that at the date and time of the shooting incident, the ccrv of the Barangay was functional and copies of the footages were transferred in a compact disc (cD) and a universal serial bus (usB). These copies were later on submitted to the Department of Justice and was later manifested by the Prosecution to be marked as Exhibit BB.

DEFENSE WITNESSES Vhon lWartin Tantotl

on the night of 25 July 2ot6, Accused was driving his car with his child. when the Accused was on his way to a gas station, a man riding a bicycle, later identified as the decedent MARK VINCENT, suddenly appeared causing him to almost hit

the latter. He honked his car horn twice and continued to drive.

The Accused then noticed that MARK VINCENT was at the right side of his vehicle. He stopped the car and asked MARK VINCENT " Kuya, bakiQ", to which MARK VINCENT replied "Ang yabang mo magmanetto, muntik mon a akong mabangga.,,

An argument ensued between the two, which led into a fistfight. when the fight ended, they each went to their

respective vehicles. While the Accused was talking to his child, the follo-ing conversations were made between him and MARK VINCENT: ATTY. TORRES: Did he say anything when he [Mark Vincent] peeped through the window?

10 1bid,pagcs 361-369 1l lbid,pages 370-410

Page

'

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision X

TANTO: He said, "Oh ano, ono, wala ka pala eh."

Q: Then what happened after that?

A: I said, " Hutuag kang sumiga anak ko."

u.t,

natatakot ang

Q: Then what happened?

A: " Sabi niya, okag na tdgo? (Witness showing. his hands with open palms) Q: Then?

A: I said, " okag na tago, pakikuha mo gung bisikleta mo dyan, hindi ako makaalis, nqgaga.sga's ang kotse ko.,'

xxx xxx

xxx

Q: What did he say to you?

A: He said, Ang gabang mo, mumurahin

lang rlaman kotse mo, gusto mo basagin ko salamin ng kotse mo, gago palakas ka muna, suntukan uli tayo." "

xxx xxx

xxx

Q: What did you do next?

A: "Nagdilim na po ang paningin ko", Sir.

Q: What did you do if you have done anything after experiencing that " nagdilim arLg paningin kd,?

A: Afterwards, I leamed that I killed that person, Sir.

(Emphasis supplied)

After shooting MARK VINCENT, the Accused returned to his car and drove off and went to Baliuag, Bulacan. Thereafter, the Accused proceeded to his brother-in-law in Aritao, Nueva Yizcaya. He left his car and gun in the area. He went to Ali Mall, Cubao, bought bus tickets and then proceeded to Bangad, Milagros, Masbate to accompary his wife to visit the latter,s ailing motJ:ler.

Pagé…˘

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision x------------ - --- - -----x

Upon arriving

in

Masbate, the Accused contacted his commanding officer with the intention of surrendering. Then on 09 July 2016, the Accused went to the barangay hall and then soldiers carne. In the blotter of the barangay, it was stated there that the Accused allegedly voluntarily surrendered himself.

Annesha Tanto ANNESHA TANTO (ANNESHA) is the wife of the Accused.

ANNESHA narrated that after her husband dropped her off at their house, the Accused drove to put gas in the car. suddenly, their daughter, who accompanied the Accused, arrived. in a tricycle cryrng and telling her that the face of the Accused is bleeding. After thirty (3o) minutes, the Accused called ANNESHA and informed the latter that " nakadisgrasaa. siga,, .

Upon learning this, the Accused and his family decided to go to Masbate.

In Masbate, and upon learning what happened, tJre couple thought of ways on how the Accused would surrender. when they decided on the course of surrender, the Accused went to Brry. Capt. Freddie Bolivar.

ISSUE The lone issue ibr resolution of this cOurt is whether Or

not Accused VHON MARTIN TANTO is guilty beyond reasOnable doubt of the crilne Of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING The Information charged the Accused for the crime of Murder penalized under Article 248 of the Revised penal Code.

Specifically, the said provision states that -

Article

24A, 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:

´ 一́

Page,夕

'l一

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x 1. With

treachery, taking advantage of superior

strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2.In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment

or assault upon a street car

or'

locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelt5r, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

(Emphasis supplied, Information)

as charged in

the

The Revised

Pena] Code requires that the following elements must be present to prosecute a person for the crime of

Murder: １■

That a person was killed;

2.

That the accused killed him or her;

3.

That the killing was attended by arry of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and

4.

That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.12

There is no question as to the identity of the assailant and the fact of death of the victim. In fact, during the Accused,s direct testimony, he actually admitted killing the victiml3: ATTY. TORRES: What did you do next?

TANTO: Nagdilim na pa ang paningin ko, sir.

12 Pcople of the Philippines vs.Alex Casemiro and Jose Catalan

No.231122,」 anuary 16,2019

Jr.,

G.R.

13 Rccords,pagc 379

Page101ク

´ ア́

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision x- - -- - ----- ---- ------

-

-x

Q: What did you do if you have done anything after experiencing that "nagdilim ang paningin kd'?

A: Afterwards, I learned that I killed that person, sir.

Q: What do you mean?

A: That

I killed that person, I shot that person,

sir.

Q: You mean you have a gun

at that time?

A: Yes, sir.

(Emphasis supplied)

This was also supported by the positive identification made by YU when he was asked about the person who shot the

victim14:

SACP VICTORIO: How far were you from these two (2) persons who boxed each other as you said?

YU: When they were punching each around (witness is pointing at the corner of the courtroom

around 15 meters) 舞

輝

SACP VICTORIO: While Garalde was walking towards your direction and upon reaching two (2) meters from you where you are situated, what happened next?

YU: He suddenly looked at the red car and then it's as if they challenged each other, sir. =

簿

SACP VICTORIO: After alighting from his vehicle and holding a gun, what did this man do?

YU: That's just times, Sir.

14

it

he gunned the victim two

(2)

Ibid, pages 295-298

Page ll粋

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision x------ - - --- ---- --- --- -x SACP VICTORIO: Vlere

you able to see the face

of the assailaat?

YU: Yes, sir.

Q: How far were you when you saw his face?

A: Witness stepping down from the witness stand and demonstrating the distance.

COURT: Arouud Torres

two l2l meters,

agree Atty.

ATTY. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor.

SACP VICTORIO:

If he is present ia court, can

you identify him?

YU: Yes, sir.

Q: Please point to him.

A: Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his name as Vhon Martin Tanto.

Q: For the record, Your Honor, when the accused was identified he was sitting with three (3| other persons all wearing yellow shirt, Your Honor.

COURT: Noted.

(Emphasis supplied

On cross-examination, counsel for the Defense never disputed the identity of the Accused as the person who shot MARK VINCENT. As far as Defense was concerned, it dwelt more into matters that transpired prior to the shooting incident and the arguments that ensued between the Accused and the deceased.

３ 矛 ２ ｆ

Page 12 o

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x

As for the last element, the Accused and MARK GARALDE are not related to each other, nor is the latter an infant. Hence, this case neither falls under Parricidels nor Infanticidel6

Therefore, the only question to be resolved by this court is whether or not the state was able to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery and taking advantage of superior

strength.

Treachery Treachery is present when the offender employs mea.ns, methods or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense, which the offended party might make.17

For treachery to be appreciated, two requisites must be

presented:

1.

The accused must employ means, method, or manner of execution that will ensure his safety from defensive or

retaliating acts on the part of the victim, with no

opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and

2.

The accused must deliberately or consciously adopt such means, method, or manner of execution.

The first element of treachery requires that the victim should not be in a position to defend himsetf or that the Accused. made

o.

deliberate surprise or unexpected attack on the uictim.

ls Article 246. Parricid.e. - Any person who shall

kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or anv of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be SuilW of parricide and shall be

punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.

17 People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Japag and Alvin Liporada, G.R. No. 223155, July 23,2018, citing People vs. Alajay 16

Page 13 oă‚ż

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x

In the case at bar, YU testified seeing the Accused and MARK VINCENT having an argument, which resulted in a fistfight between the two. After the two finished their fight, MARK VINCENT went to his bicycle while the Accused returned to his vehicle. When MARK VINCENT was a few feet away from the car, the Accused suddenly alighted from his vehicle with

a gun in his hand and then shot the former four times. A11 of this happened in an instant when MARK VINCENT thought that the fistfight between him and the Accused was already over. Hencel8

-

xxx xxx

xx>(

SACP VICTORIO: When Garalde was about two (2) meters away from you where was the car then?

YU: It was

just there where he stopped, Sir.

Q: How far was hat car from you?

A: Ten (10) meters, Sir. Q: After Garalde looked at the car, what happened next?

A: The driver suddenly alighted from the vehicle, Sir.

Q: What happened after the driver alighted from the car?

A: When he went down from his vehicle he was holding a gun, Sir. Q: After alighting from his vehicle and holding a gun, what did this man do?

A: That's just it he just gunned the victim two times, Sir.

xxx xxx

(2)

xxx

Q: After this man fired two (2) shots, what happened next, Mr. Witness?

A: He approached the victim who felI, Sir. Q: What did he do when he approached Garalde who was lying on the ground?

18

Records, page 296 ３ ２ ｆ ０ ／

Page 14

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision x-- ----- - ---- - --- - --- --x

A: He shot him again two (2) times, Sir.

And when YU was cross-examined by the Defensele, he further stated that MARK VINCENT was already going his own way after the fighting incident -

ATTY. TORRES: You answered that awhile ago when you were asked by the Fiscal that he was provoking?

SACP VICTORIO: May we refer, Your Honor, to the record if there is such word provoke, because we object to the word provoking?

COURT: Considering that we cannot check refrain first from using the word provoking.

ATTY. TORRES So, could "ltinamorf?

it be in

Tagalog,

YU: In my opinion because after they punched each other they were talking before Mark Vincent went away, when he was already near me he looked back at the red car and then he said "arlo prd'.

Q: But the utterance by Garalde was in the fighting iustance?

A: No, Sir. Because he was already going away he was holding his bike.

(Emphasis supplied)

A1l of these were subsequently corroborated by the close circuit television (CCTV) that was obtained by the Prosecution

from the Barangay where the incident happened. In carefully reviewing and anilyzing the ccrv2o this court made the

following observations regarding the shooting incident: 19 1bid,page 306 20 Exhibit BB

Page15or'ア

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision x---- ---- -- -- ---- - -----x

1.

MARK VINCENT was riding his bicycle while the Accused was in his car when they had an altercation;

2.

Although it was not clear in the CCTV who threw the first punch, both ended having a fistfight;

3.

The fight lasted for more than a minute, after which the two separated and went to their separate rides;

4. It appearing that the fight was over, MARK VINCENT took his bicycle and walked a few feet away from the Accused's, with his back against the car;

5.

suddenly, the Accused stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in his hand. Bystanders quickly ran in different directions; and

6.

The Accused pointed his gun at MARK VINCENT, who was

clearly seen raising his hand as if in defense, and shot

him four (4) times, twice when the latter was standing, and twice more when the victim was already lyrng down.

During his cross-examination, the Accused categorically affirmedzt that the footages shown in the CCTV is a taithful representation of what actually transpired on that fateful night: SACP VICTORIO: Mr. Witness, you are always present in the hearings of this case?

TANTO: Yes, sir.

Q: And in fact when we presented an evidence of the CCTV footages of the shooting incident, you were also present?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And in fact, it was shown to all those present in Court and you were able to see it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you affirm that is the

faithful

representation of what actually transpired of that incident?

21

Records, page 39O Page 16 of

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x A: Yes, sir.

Q:

A11

of it?

A: Yes, sir.

At the time the Accused shot MARK VINCENT, the latter's hands were both in his bike. He was never in any position to have been able to defend himself as his hands were then occupied in steadying his vehicle; neither did he carry any weapon to repel the attack of the Accused. And when the Accused pointed his gun at the victim, the latter was even seen trying to raise his hand in a vain attempt to ward off the shooting. MARK VINCENT was defenseless. He even thought that the argument he had with the Accused was over and that was why it can be seen in the CCTV footage that he was already walking away from the fight and as testified by YU. Therefore, the suddenness in which the Accused alighted from his vehicle and shot the victim was clearly a surprise and was unexpected.

Furthermore, as the medico-legal officer who examined the body of MARK VINCENT, DR. BALUYOT testified22 that the deceased suffered four (4) gunshot wounds: (a) two (2) in the head; (b) one (1) in the cheek and (c) one (1) in the body. DR. BALUYOT also testified that the first three (3) gunshots were fatal and that there was no chance for MARK VINCENT to have survived the wounds even if he were attended to by a physician, and that the distance between the Accused and the deceased at the time of the shooting was at least two (2) feet. A11 of these medical facts clearly established that the intention of the Accused is to ensure the death of MARK VINCENT and prevent any attempt of defending himself.

In the case of People of the Philippines us. Marcial D. Pulg*s, the Supreme Court sustained the presence of treachery in the case because of the suddenness of the attack which prevented the victim from defending himself. Thus The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend 22 1bid,page 289

23G.R.No.218205,� uly 5,2017

Page 17 of所

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision x-- - -- -- - - -- ---- -- -- - --x

himself by reason of the suddenness and severity'

of the attack. This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. In fact, treachery fray still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned ofthe danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.

The suddenness of

accused-appellant's

attack and the circumstances under which it was committed made it impossible for the unsuspecting Romeo to put up a defense, ensuring accused-appellant's execution of ttre crime without risk to himself.

(Emphasis supplied)

On the second element of treachery, which is

the

deliberate and conscious use by the Accused of the mearrs, method, or manner of exeantion.

The CCTV footage would again bear out the deliberate and conscious use by the Accused of the means, method or marlner of the execution of shooting the victim. After MARK VINCENT removed his bicycle from the car, and walked a few feet away, it

took several seconds, or to be more precise, ten to twelve seconds, for the Accused to step out ofhis vehicle. Accused thereafter took a brisk walk towards the victim. When the Accused was just a foot or two away from MARK VINCENT, he slowly walked, pointed his gun and shot the latter.

This Court Iinds that the Accused had the time to

contemplate ou the use of his gun: .;firsf, while he was inside his car, and second, while walking towards MARK VINCENT. Further, the Accused is a Philippine Army Reservist who had

sufficient training in handling lirearms. He was

quite

deliberate when he shot the victim in the head four tirnes. There was no hesitation or pause in his act.

Furthermore, the Accused shot the victim not just once but actually four times, showing deliberate and methodical mearrs of ensuring that MARK VINCENT will not be able to Pagc 18ofi″

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x

defend himself. To add to this, the manner in which the victim was shot was highly advantageous to the Accused: The Accused shot MARK VINCENT twice while standing up and twice more when the latter was lyrng down.

In all, this Court finds that the Accused committed the

crime of murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery present.

Taking adaantage of superior strength However, with regard to taking advantage of superior strength, this court finds the ruling of the Supreme court in People of the Philippines us. Arnel KalipayarPa apropos in the instant case With this finding that treachery is present, the

conclusion that the circuastance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed therein necessarily follows. Even without a definite finding as to whether it exists in this case or not, it is beyond cavil that treachery, as a qualifying

circumstance, absorbs the

aggravating

circumstance abuse of superior strength even though the latter was alleged in the information.

Thus, the

circumstance of abuse should not be appreciated as a separate aggravating

of superior strength

circumstance.

(Emphasis supplied)

Voluntary Surrender on the other hand., this court cannot accept the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For voluntar5r surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur2s:

1.

The offender had not been actually surrendered

2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent.

24G.R.No.229829,」 anuary 22,2018

25 PcOple of the Philippines vs.Patrick」

Octobcr 17,2018

ohn MercadO,G.R.No.218702,

′ ′ ′ ′

Page 19 0f2:`,7′

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision

x----------------------x

3.

That the surrender was voluntary

As far back as People u. SakarrP,, the Supreme Court ruled that for voluntary surrender to be present, the same must be spontaneou.s in such a manner that it shows the interest of the

accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.

This Court finds that the surrender made by the Accused was not "voluntar5/'. In the case of People of the Philippines us.

Simplicio Geruacio, the Supreme Court did not appreciate the alleged voluntary surrender of the accused. In this. case, the accused fled to the province to evade arrest, necessitating authorities to go look for him. Thus The circumstances surrounding the surrender of Simplicio Gervacio do not meet this standard, for the record is clear that immediately after the commission of the robbery-slayings attributed to him and Atanacio Mocorro, they fled together to the province of Leyte which necessitated the authorities in Quezon City to go to the place and

search

for them. In fact, Simplicio

Gervacio surrendered to the Mayor of Biliran twelve days after the commission of the crime, and only after L:uzvirninda had been discovered in a far away sitio which led to the arrest of Atanacio Mocorro.

And it is not farfetched to surmise that Simplicio Gervacio surrendered not because of his spontaneous desire of acknowledging his guilt or of saving the authorities the trouble and expense. of his capture, but because of his belief that his escape was already impossible under the circumstances

In the sarne ma.nner, this Court cannot also agree to the implication made by the Accused that he voluntarily surrendered. In this case, the Accused proceeded to Baliuag, Bulacan then to Aritao, Nueva Yizcaya. He then fled to Masbate, under the pretext of visiting his mother-in-1aw. The Manila Police District had to form a team of trackers just to look for him. The crime committed by the Accused has circulated in 26G.R.No.41566,December 7,1934

Pige20of2/

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision x----- - - ---- ---- - --- - --x

major news agencies. It is without a doubt that the Accused merely surrendered because law enforcement agents a_re already closing in on him.

Dannages

As to actual damages, at the time of his death, MARK VINCENT was thirty-six years old and was receiving an annual gross income of one Hundred Sixty-five Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty-eight Pesos (P 165,958.Oa1.22 Following the formula enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Vilta Rea Transit us. court of Appeals2s, this court arrived the amount as follows:

/ 3 (80-36) x [ 165,958- 1 32,766.401 2 /3 (44) x (33,191.60) 2

Net Earning Capacity 29.33 x 33.191.60 P 973,509.63

with regard to the other expenses incurred, this court can only justify the amount of Seventy-four Thousand six Hundred

Pesos (P 74,600.00) as evidenced by the receipts.

As to the other damages, the supreme court in people of the Philippines us. Ireneo Jugueta2e ruled that the heirs of the victim in Murder cases are entitled to the follo*ing damages: (a) civil damages in the amount of one Hundred Thousand pesos (P IOO,OOO.OO); (b) moral damages in the amount of One Hundred rhousand Pesos (P loo,ooo.oo); and (c) exemplar5r damages in the amount of one Hundred Thousand pesos (p 1OO,00O.OO).

WHERTF'ORE, premises considered, this Court finds Accused vHoN MARTIN TANTO guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Pena] Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

27

Records, page 214 31 SCRA 51 1, where the formula stands as: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x lGross Annual Income less Necessary Living Expenses] 2e G.R. No. 202724, Aprll5,2016

28

Page

2l of23

Y{

People vs. Tanto For: Murder Decision x- -- - -- ---

--

--- ---

--

--

-x

Accused VHON MARTIN TANTO is likewise, ORDERTD to indemnify the heirs of MARK VINCENT GARALDE:

1.

The amount of One Million Forty-eight Thousand One Hundred Nine Pesos and Sixty-three Centavos (P 1,O48,109.63) as actual damages;

2. One Hundred Thousand pesos indemnity ex delicto;

3.

One Hundred Thousand pesos

(P100,000.00) as civil (P1OO,OOO.O0)

damages; and

as moral

4. One Hundred Thousand pesos (p1OO,OOO.00) exemplary damages.

as

All damages awarded sha-Il be subject to the rate of six percent (6%o) per a,num from the linality of this Decision until

its full satisfaction, in line with the ruling of the Supreme court in Eastern Shipping Lines us. Court of Appeals.3o

S00RDERED. 29」 uly 2019,City of Manila,Philゎ pineS

BUENA

B会 ェTENORIO JR。 siding Judge

30G R No.97412,」 uly 12,1994 Page 22 of23

People vs. Tanto

For: Murder Decision x------ - ----------- --- -x

Copy fulllished:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Padrc Faura,Manila

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MANILA Manila City Hall Manila

ATTY.ABNER TORRES Lot ll,Block 31,Phasc H AFP Oficers Village,AguinaldolAvenuc Fort Bonifacio,Tagulg City

NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION UN Avenue,Errnita,Manila

ヽ ｌ ｌ

ι Itr**r,a 色 ｌ ｉ ︲

︲

︲

√ フ

Page 23

of23