Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 197043 February 29, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO BALDOMAR y LISCANO, Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
We decide the appeal, filed by Antonio Baldomar y Liscano (appellant), from the December 22, 2010 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03815. The appealed decision affirmed the December 22, 2008 decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 262, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. 125677-H and 125678, respectively.
In its December 22, 2008 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of murder for the death of Eulogio Leguin, and of frustrated murder for the serious wounding of German Irasga. It gave credence to the testimony of German that the appellant stabbed him in the chest while he was sleeping, and also at the back while he was running out of the house. It also believed German’s declaration that the appellant stabbed Eulogio.
According to the trial court, German’s testimony was supported by the testimonies of Nena Baldomar, Lita Leguin and Edgar Leguin, who all declared that they saw the appellant holding a dagger and standing near the head of the bloodied Eulogio. The RTC disregarded the appellant’s denial in light of the positive identification by the witnesses. It likewise held that treachery attended the commission of the crimes, as the attacks on the victims were sudden and unexpected.
In Criminal Case No. 125677-H (murder), the RTC ordered the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay Eulogio’s heirs the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 125678 (frustrated murder), the trial court ordered the appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It held that German positively identified the appellant as the person who stabbed him and Eulogio. The appellate court also sustained the trial court’s finding that treachery attended the attack on the two victims.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.
It is settled that this Court will not interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, especially where, as in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the CA. In the present case, we see no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the courts a quo.
German positively identified the appellant as the person who stabbed him in the chest while he was sleeping, and also at the back while he was running out of the house. He also pointed to the appellant as the person who stabbed Eulogio, causing the latter’s death. German’s testimony was supported by the testimonies of Nena, Lita and Edgar, all of whom testified that when they went to the sala, they saw the appellant holding a bloodied knife in his right hand while standing near Eulogio’s head. As the lower courts did, we see no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses; their narrations were straightforward and replete with details that jibed on material points.
The lower courts correctly ruled that treachery attended the stabbing of the victims. The attacks were swift and sudden; the unsuspecting victims had no expectation of the coming assault, as they were asleep when they were attacked.
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s defense of denial. It is elementary that the defense of denial is outweighed by a positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.3
The Penalties
The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with reclusion perpetua to death. For the death of Eulogio, the lower courts correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only, since there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime.
The courts a quo also imposed the correct penalty for frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 125678. Under Article 61, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal has a range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the medium of reclusion temporal, since no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Prescinding from the foregoing discussion, the imposed indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, was proper.
The Proper Indemnities
In Criminal Case No. 125677-H, we affirm the awards of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages to Eulogio’s heirs, as these amounts are in accord with current jurisprudence on murder cases when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only. We additionally award ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Eulogio’s heirs, as this award is granted to the victim’s heirs without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. We also increase the amount of the awarded exemplary damages from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence.4
In Criminal Case No. 125678, we order the appellant to pay the following amounts to German: ₱40,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages.5
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 22, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03815 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.1âwphi1 Appellant Antonio Baldomar y Liscano is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder in Criminal Case No. 125677-H and of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 125678.
In Criminal Case No. 125677-H, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and is ordered to pay the victim’s heirs the following amounts: ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. In Criminal Case No. 125678, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and is ordered to pay the victim the following amounts: ₱40,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Franchito N. Diamante.
2 CA rollo, pp. 37-50.
3 See Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 451, 465-466.
4 See People of the Philippines v. Larry Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22, 2011; and People of the Philippines v. Rex Nimuan y Cacho, G.R. No. 182458, March 21, 2011.
5 See People v. Mokammad, G.R. No. 180594, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 497.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
