 |
|||
|
| |||
Hence, this appeal. 28 In the Resolution dated January 28, 2015,29 this Court required the parties to file their supplemental briefs; but both parties manifested30 that they would no longer file the pleadings and opted to replead and adopt the arguments submitted before the CA. Issue Consequently, the only issue for the Court's consideration is whether the CA erred in affirming Roque's conviction for the crime of murder. The Court's Ruling In the instant appeal, Roque essentially questions the credibility of Alex and the veracity of his accusations. Roque insists that Alex is a biased witness considering his relationship with the victim. He further avers that Alex exhibited a propensity to lie when he stated in his affidavit that there were other witnesses who saw the commission of the crime, and later admitted in open court that he was the sole witness to the crime. Roque also claims that the testimony of Alex that his father had been shot four (4) times runs counter to the postmortem report of Dr. Amido, which indicates that there were seven (7) gunshot wounds. The appeal fails. Time and again, the Court has held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. 31 Hence, it is a settled rule that appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. 32 The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the RTC are sustained by the CA. 33 In the present case, both the RTC and CA found the testimony of Alex straightforward and worthy of belief. Alex identified Roque as the one who shot his father at the back and his positive declaration was never destroyed even after cross-examination in court. 34 For his part, Roque failed to identify any significant factor circumstance which would justify the reversal of the RTC's and CA's findings on Alex's credibility. The imputation of bias to Alex because of his relationship with the victim must necessarily fail. In People v. Montemayor,35the Court ruled that relationship by itself does not give rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility of witnesses or tarnish their testimonies. 36 The relationship of a witness to the victim would even make his testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to charge and prosecute another person other than the real culprit. 37 Relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack for remembering the faces of the attacker and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by having the felon brought to justice and meted the proper penalty.38 Where there is no showing of an improper motive on the part of the prosecution's witnesses for testifying against the appellant, their relationship to the victim does not render their testimony less credible. 39 In this case, since there is no showing of any ill or improper motive on the part of Alex to testify against the accused, his relationship with the victim even made his testimony more credible and truthful. Furthermore, the alleged discrepancy between Alex's testimony and the postmortem report of Dr. Amido as to the number of gunshot wounds is more imagined than real. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the postmortem report showing that there are four (4) entry gunshot wounds and three (3) exit wounds, which means that there are three (3) perforating gunshots and one (1) penetrating gunshot, coincides with Alex's declaration that his father was shot four (4) times.39-a The Court also agrees with the CA that the inconsistency between Alex's affidavit and his testimony in open court as to whether there are other witnesses to the crime is immaterial to affect his credibility, because it does not detract from the fact that Alex saw and identified Roque as the assailant of his father.40 In People v. Yanson, 41the Court held:
Under Article 24843 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), murder is committed when: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 248; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.44 All elements of the crime of murder have been established in this case beyond reasonable doubt. Through the testimony of Alex, the eyewitness to the crime, it was established that Basilio was killed and it was Roque who had killed him. As to the presence of qualifying circumstances, the Court sustains the CA's finding that treachery attended the killing of Basilio. There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused without warning, as when the accused attacks the victim from behind, or when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant. 45 Here, the evidence unequivocally shows that the attack against Basilio, which came from behind, was sudden, deliberate and unexpected. The victim was completely unaware of any threat to his life as he was merely walking home with his son. The use of a firearm showed deliberate intent to kill Basilio and the location and number of gunshot wounds rendered him defenseless and incapable of retaliation. Hence, treachery was evident in the case at bar, sufficient to qualify the crime to Murder. Penalty, Civil Indemnity and Damages Under Article 248 of the RPC, the penalty for murder qualified by treachery is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that, apart from treachery, the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and illegal possession of firearms, as alleged in the Information, were not duly proven, the RTC correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. As to the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to modify the CA's award pursuant to the Court's recent ruling in People v. Jugueta.46Therefore, in addition to the amount of ₱30,000.00 as reasonable actual expenses for the wake and burial and the costs of suit, the victim's heirs are entitled to ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity; ₱75,000.00 as moral damages; and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00887-MIN, finding accused-appellant Roque Dayaday y Dagooc GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are each increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) and all monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED. ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes 1 Also spelles as "Dago-oc" in some parts of the records. 2 Rollo, pp. 3-11. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo T. Lloren. 3 CA rollo, pp. 33-43. Penned by Presiding Judge Roberto L. Ayco. 4 Records, pp. 1-2. 5 Id. at. 1. 6 Rollo, p. 4. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 5. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 42-43. 20 Records, pp. 122. 21 CA rollo, pp. 14-32. 22 Id. at 53-66. 23 See rollo, p. 8. 24 Id. at 10. 25 Id. at 9. 26 Supra note 2. 27 Id. at 10. 28 CA rollo, pp. 79-80. 29 Rollo, pp. 24-25. 30 Id. at 26-27 and 33-35. 31 People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 556 (2012). 32 People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658 (2014). 33 Id. 34 CA rollo, pp. 40-41. 35 452 Phil. 283 (2003). 36 Id. at 299. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id. 39-a CA rollo, p. 74. 40 See rollo, p. 8. 41 674 Phil. 169 (2011). 42 Id. at 180, citing Mercado v. People, 615 Phil. 434, 448 (2009), further citing Decasa v. Court of Appeals, 554 Phil. 160 (2007). 43 ART. 248. 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 perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
44 People v. De Castro, G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 566, 573. 45 People v. Carpio, 346 Phil. 703, 716-717 (1997). 46G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
