THIRD DIVISION
|
Raymund madali and rodel madali, Petitioners, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 180380 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, petitioners Raymund Madali (Raymund) and Rodel Madali (Rodel) seek the
reversal of the 29 August 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27757; and its 23 October 2007 Resolution,[2] affirming
with modifications the 28 July 2003 Decision[3] of
the Romblon, Romblon, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, in Criminal Case
No. 2179, finding petitioners guilty of homicide.
For the death of AAA,[4] Raymund,
Rodel and a certain Bernardino “Jojo” Maestro (Bernardino) were charged before
the RTC with the crime of Murder. The
accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 13th day of April
1999, at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in the Barangay XXX, Municipality
of Romblon, province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there by means of
treachery and with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault, strike with a coconut frond and “llave inglesa” and strangle
with a dog chain, one AAA, inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds in
different parts of his body which caused his untimely death.[5]
During the arraignment on
On trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses,
namely: (1) Jovencio Musa (Jovencio), 16 years old, the victim’s cousin and the
alleged lone eyewitness to the killing; (2) Senior Police Officer (SPO) 3
Rogelio Madali, the designated Deputy Chief of Police of the Romblon Police
Station; (3) Police Officer (PO) 3 Nicolas Molo, the police investigator
assigned to the case; (4) BBB, the mother of the deceased victim; (5) Dr.
Carmen Lita P. Calsado, Chief of the Romblon District Hospital, the physician
who issued the death certificate of AAA; (6) Emerson de Asis, the alleged
companion of witness Jovencio on the night in question, who later became a
hostile witness; (7) Michael Manasan, also a companion of witness Jovencio
before the killing of the victim occurred; (8) Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., a
forensic expert from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Manila, who
conducted the examination of the corpse of the victim after the same was
exhumed.
As documentary and object evidence,
the prosecution offered the following: (1) Exhibit “A” – Affidavit of Jovencio
executed on 22 April 1999, detailing the circumstances prior to, during and
after the killing of the victim perpetrated by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino;
(2) Exhibit “B” – Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jovencio dated 8 May 1999, a recantation of
the 22 April 1999 Affidavit; (3) Exhibit “C” – Amended Affidavit of Jovencio
dated 28 May 1999, which was substantially the same on material points as the 22
April 1999 Affidavit; (4) Exhibit “D” – Undated Reply Affidavit of Jovencio
insisting that the death of the victim was authored by Raymund, Rodel and
Bernardino; (5) Exhibit “E” – Joint Affidavit of prosecution witnesses SPO3
Rogelio Madali and a certain SPO2 Teresito M. Sumadsad; (6) Exhibit “F” – the
coconut frond recovered by the police officers from the scene of the incident;
(7) Exhibit “G” – a dog chain used as part of a strap that was tied to the victim’s neck while he
was hanging from a tree; (8) Exhibit “H” – the handkerchief that was tied
around the victim’s neck; (9) Exhibit “I” – empty bottles of gin; (10) Exhibit
“J” – cellophanes with rugby; (10) Exhibit “K” – pictures taken from the crime
scene including the picture of the body of the victim tied to a tree; (11)
Exhibit “L” – Letter of Request for the NBI to conduct an examination of the
body of the victim; (12) Exhibits “M” to “O” – NBI routing slips; (14) Exhibit
“P” – Death Certificate issued by Dr. Carmen Lita P. Calsado; (15) Exhibit “Q”
– Exhumation Report issued by Dr.
Floresto P. Arizala, Jr.; (16) Exhibit “R” – the Autopsy Report submitted by
Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr.; (17) Exhibit “S” – Sketch of the head of the
victim showing the injuries thereon; and (18) Exhibit “T” – handwritten draft
of the exhumation report.
Taken together, the evidence offered
by the prosecution shows that at around
At about
Not satisfied, Raymund placed his
handkerchief around the neck of AAA, with its ends tied to a dog chain. With the contraption, the three malefactors
pulled the body up a tree.
Stunned at the sight of his cousin
being ill-treated, Jovencio could only muster a faint voice saying “Enough”
every single-time AAA received the painful blows. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest finishing
off the victim, remarked, “Since we’re
all here, let’s get on with it.” Before
leaving the scene, the three assailants warned Jovencio not to reveal the
incident to anyone, or he would be next.
Tormented and torn between the desire
to come clean and the fear for his life, Jovencio hardly slept that night. He did not divulge the incident to anyone for
the next few days. BBB, the victim’s
mother, was worried when her son did not come home. She started asking relatives whether they had
seen her son, but their reply was always in the negative.
It was three days later that a
certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to the police authorities about a dead man
found in Barangay ZZZ near the
The provincial hospital refused to
conduct an autopsy, since AAA’s corpse was already decomposing and stank so
badly. It was through the intercession
of the NBI that the body was eventually exhumed and examined by medico-legal
experts. Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr.,
who conducted the examination, opined that the victim died due to head injuries
and not to asphyxiation by hanging. He
declared that the victim was already dead when he was tied to the tree, and
that the variety of injuries sustained by the victim could be attributed to
more than one assailant.
Upon investigation, Jovencio narrated
the incident and pointed to Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino as the perpetrators
of the crime. Thereafter, Jovencio executed
his first affidavit, which was dated
The accused, on the other hand,
advanced the defense of denial and alibi. They claimed they had nothing to do with the
death of AAA, and that they were nowhere near the locus criminis when the killing occurred.
According to Rodel, 16 years old, he
was with his father Rodolfo Madali in the house of a friend named Noel Mindoro,
located more or less 14 kilometers from the place where the victim was slain
where they spent the whole evening until the following morning. Rodel’s testimony was corroborated by his
father and Noel Mindoro.
On their part, Raymund, 14 years of
age, and Bernardino declared that they were in their respective houses on the
night in question. Raymund’s place was
allegedly five kilometers away from the scene of the crime, while Bernardino’s
was one kilometer away. Bernardino’s
testimony was supported by his father Bernardino Maestro, Sr. and by his
neighbor Diana Mendez. Raymund’s friend,
Pastor Mario Fajiculay backed up the former’s alibi.
Convinced by the version of the
prosecution, the RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the three accused. On account of the prosecution’s failure to
prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, they
were only convicted of homicide. The RTC
observed that the incident was a sort of initiation, in which the victim
voluntarily went along with the perpetrators, not totally unaware that he would
be beaten. The RTC also appreciated the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three accused. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused BERNARDO (sic) Jojo MAESTRO,
JR., RODEL MADALI AND RAYMUND MADALI GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide, they are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and
to indemnify the heirs of AAA jointly and severally the amount of PhP 50,000.00.[9]
On
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
1)
Appellant Raymund
Madali is declared EXEMPT from criminal liability and the case, insofar as he
is concerned is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to R.A. No. 9344.
2)
Appellant Rodel
Madali is found guilty of homicide, the proper penalty for which is fixed at
six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Imposition of this penalty should, however, be
SUSPENDED, also pursuant to R.A. No. 9344.
3)
In addition to
the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00), moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) is hereby awarded in
favor of the heirs of the victim, AAA.
4)
x x x x
5)
Finally, this
case is referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DWSD) for
further proceedings in accordance with R.A. No. 9344.[10]
Hence, the instant case.
Petitioners Raymund and Rodel assail both
the RTC and the Court of Appeals’ findings, which gave weight and credence to
the account of the incident given by prosecution witness Jovencio, whose testimony
according to them was replete with patent and substantial inconsistencies. First, petitioners set their sights on the
conflicting affidavits executed by Jovencio. The first affidavit implicated the three
accused in the death of AAA, which was controverted by the second affidavit
where Jovencio denied having seen the three accused butcher the victim, while
the third affidavit restated the material points in the first affidavit. Petitioners also pointed out the discrepancy between
the first and the third affidavits, as the former stated that Jovencio was not
seen by the three accused when they executed the victim; whereas in the latter
affidavit, Jovencio stated he was with the three when the killing took place. Second, petitioners assert that the testimony
of Jovencio relating to the alleged fact that his companions, Michael Manasan
and Emerson de Asis, saw the three accused and the deceased during the night in
question was debunked by the very testimonies of Michael Manasan and Emerson de
Asis wherein they declared otherwise.
Moreover, petitioners contend that
both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in disbelieving the defense of
alibi they interposed, considering that the prosecution failed to muster the
required quantum of proof, and that said defense was corroborated by
testimonies of the other defense witnesses.
The elemental question in this case
is the credibility of the parties and their witnesses.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the
matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates,
can weigh such testimonies in light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and
position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[11] This is especially true when the trial court’s
findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown
that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and
circumstances of significance in the case.[12]
The RTC and the Court of Appeals did
not overlook any significant facts in the case.
This Court itself, in its effort to
ferret out the truth based on the evidence on records has diligently pored over
the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and, like the RTC, finds the
testimony of Jovencio credible. Subjected
to the grueling examinations on the witness stand, Jovencio steadfastly pointed
to Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino as the persons who slaughtered the victim. He testified as follows:
Q: Mr.
Witness, will you tell us where were you on
x x x x
A: I was
at the Rizal standing by.
x x x
x
PROS. BENEDICTO continuing:
Q: While
you were at Rizal on
A: Only
Michael.
Q: And
what were you doing with Michael?
A: Only
standing by there.
Q: Did
anything happen while you were standing by with Michael?
A: None,
sir.
Q: Did
anyone arrive while you were there?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who?
A: Jojo
[Bernardino] followed by Raymund then AAA, then Rodel.
Q: And
what happened when they arrived?
A: They
were also standing by there.
Q: How
long did they stand by in that place?
A: I do
not know how many hours?
Q: Then,
what happened next?
A: Around
Q: When
you said we, to whom you are referring as your companions?
A: Jojo
[Bernardino], Rodel, Raymund and AAA.
Q: What
happened to Michael?
A: He went
home.
Q: When
you said you went there, to which place are you referring?
A: Near
the high school at hagdan-hagdan.
Q: There
are three (3) main streets in the Poblacion of Romblon, which street did you
take in going to hagdan-hagdan near the high school?
A: In the
middle.
Q: Did you
climb the stairs?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who was
ahead?
A: AAA.
Q: And who
came next?
A: Rodel.
Q: Then,
after Rodel, who?
A: Raymund.
Q: Then?
A: [Bernardino].
Q: [Bernardino]
who?
A: Maestro.
Q: What is
the relation of this Jojo Maestro to Bernardino Maestro you pointed a while
ago?
A: That
Jojo is his alias.
Q: Did you
reach the top of the stairs?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Upon
reaching the top of the stairs, what did you do, if any?
A: [Bernardino]
blindfolded AAA.
Q: With
what?
A: Handkerchief.
Q: Where
did he get that handkerchief?
A: From
Raymund.
Q: After AAA,
what is the family name of this AAA?
A: AAA.
Q: After AAA
was blindfolded, what happened next?
A: Then [Bernardino]
told him “Join the rugby boys!”
Q: Did AAA
make any reply?
A: AAA
said “That’s enough.”
Q: What
happened after Jojo Maestro said you join the rugby boys?
A: AAA was
struck by a coconut frond three (3) times.
Q: Who
struck him with the coconut frond?
A: [Bernardino].
Q: What
happened to AAA when he was struck three (3) times with the coconut fronds?
A: He was
made to stand.
Q: After
standing, what happened next?
A: AAA was
again struck with the coconut frond byRaymund.
Q: Was AAA
hit?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where?
A: Here
(witness is pointing to the posterior aspect of his right thigh).
Q: What
happened to AAA when he was hit by the coconut frond?
A: As if
he became weak.
Q: How
about Rodel, what did Rodel do, if any?
A: He
boxed the body and the head.
Q: Of
whom?
A: Of
Rodel.
Q: Who was
boxed by Rodel?
A: AAA.
Q: In
Exhibit C you mentioned about llave
inglesa, what is this llave inglesa?
A: Lead llave inglesa.
Q: And how
does it look like?
A: I
forgot already but it was a brass knuckle.
Q: Did
Exh. C mention that Rodel punched him in different parts of his body with a llave inglesa causing him to fall to the
ground, how did Rodel use this llave
inglesa?
A: Worn in
his hand (witness raising his right hand and motioning the left as if wearing
something in his right hand), then punched him.
Q: When he
was punched on different parts of his body by Rodel using llave inglesa, what happened to AAA?
A: He lost
consciousness.
Q: When AAA
lost consciousness, what did Bernardino Maestro, Raymund Madali and Rodel
Madali do, if any?
A: Raymund
used his handkerchief in tying the neck of my cousin.
Q: Who is
this cousin of yours?
A: AAA.
Q: What is
the family name?
A: AAA.
COURT:
How
about Bernardino as part of the question?
PROS. BENEDICTO continuing:
Q: Bernardino,
what did he do, if any?
A: The
chain for the dog was tied to the handkerchief.
COURT:
How
about Rodel?
A: They
helped in lifting him and making him stand and hooked the tie to the tree.
Q: What is
this tie which was hooked to the tree made of?
A: The
chain.
Q: Referring
to the dog chain?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: While
all these things were happening, what was Jovencio Musa doing who is a cousin
of AAA?
A: I got
shock upon seeing it.
Q: Did
Jovencio Musa utter anything or do something?
A: Everytime
AAA was being struck I said “Enough!”
(Tama na!).
Q: How
many times did you say that is enough?
A: Twice.
Q: How did
the three (3) react to your saying “Tama
na, tama na!”?
A: “It is
already here so we will proceed.”
COURT:
Translate
that.
A: “Yari na ini, idiretso na.”
x x x
x
Q: After
tying the dog chain to the tree, what happened next?
A: I was
told by the three (3) that if I would reveal I would be the next to be killed.
Q: After
that, what happened?
A: No
more, we went home already.[13]
Jovencio saw at close range the
incident as it was unfolding before his very eyes as he was there when it
happened. He was in the company of the
perpetrators and the victim. Thus, the
incident could not have escaped his attention. The prosecution adequately established in graphic
detail, through the eyewitness, the circumstances that transpired before,
during and after the killing of AAA. At
around
The perpetrators warned Jovencio not
to divulge to anyone what he saw, or he would be the next victim. Then they all left the place, leaving the
victim’s body hanging from a tree.
The testimony of Jovencio was
substantiated by the medical findings indicating that the victim was hit in the
head by hard blows, causing his death. Other
pieces of evidence such as the coconut frond, the dog chain and the
handkerchief found in the scene also supported Jovencio’s account.
Against the damning evidence adduced
by the prosecution, petitioners Raymund and Rodel could only muster mere denial. Unfortunately for them, their defense was
much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution.
Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence that deserves no
weight in law. It cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies
on affirmative matters.[14] Between the self-serving testimonies of petitioners
and the positive identification by the eyewitness, the latter deserves greater
credence.[15]
Petitioners’ alibi, which was
supported by the testimonies of close relatives and friends, cannot overcome
the convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of relatives
and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the Court.[16]
Furthermore, for alibi to prosper,
two elements must concur: (a) the accused was in another place at the time the
crime was committed; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time it was committed. In the case under consideration, Raymund was
within a 5-kilometer distance from the scene, while Rodel was within a 14-kilometer
distance. Even assuming arguendo that Raymund and Rodel’s defense
were true, still, it was not physically impossible for them to be at the crime
scene and to be participants in the gruesome crime. It was not difficult for them to travel from
where they allegedly were and arrive at the scene during the killing episode.
Petitioners made an issue of the
affidavit of recantation repudiating the earlier one laying the blame on them. The affidavit of recantation executed by a
witness prior to the trial cannot prevail over the testimony made during the trial.[17] Jovencio effectively repudiated the contents
of the affidavit of recantation. The
recantation would hardly suffice to overturn the trial court’s finding of guilt,
which was based on a clear and convincing testimony given during a full-blown
trial. As held by this Court, an
affidavit of recantation, being usually taken ex parte, would be considered inferior to the testimony given in
open court.[18] A recantation is exceedingly unreliable,
inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through
intimidation or for monetary consideration.[19] Considering the age, the social standing and
the economic status of witness Jovencio, it is not far-fetched that the
combination of these factors impelled him to affix his signature to the
recanting affidavit. Besides, Jovencio
explained why he executed the second affidavit or the affidavit of recantation,
which supposedly exonerated petitioners. He had been threatened by a certain Wilson,
who was a relative of petitioners. Jovencio
testified:
Q: Alright,
in Exh. C specifically C-1, you mentioned that, you said that somebody fetched
me in the evening of May 7, 1999 who told me that Rey Andrade wanted to talk to
me regarding the incident, who was that somebody who fetched you in the house?
A: I do
not know but he is known as Andrade.
x x x
x
Q: What
was the subject of your conversation with Andrade?
A: About
the Nephew of
x x x
x
Q: How
about this
A:
Q: Did
A:
Petitioners also place much premium on
the alleged contradiction between Jovencio’s narrative -- which claimed that
Emerson de Asis and Michael Manasan saw the victim in the company of the
malefactors immediately prior to the killing -- and the testimonies of these
two witnesses denying such allegation.
Unfortunately, this is just a minor
inconsistency. The common narration of
Emerson de Asis and Michael Manasan that they did not see the perpetrators with
the victim prior to the killing are too insignificant, since their narration
did not directly relate to the act of killing itself. Said inconsistency does not dilute the
declarations of Jovencio. Given the
natural frailties of the human mind and its incapacity to assimilate all
material details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in
the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value. It is well settled that immaterial and
insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and
significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants.[21] As long as the testimonies of the witnesses
corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein
cannot destroy their credibility.
Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a
prosecution witness.[22] The minor inconsistencies and contradictions
only serve to attest to the truthfulness of the witnesses and the fact that
they had not been coached or rehearsed.[23]
The declaration of Michael Manasan --
that he did not see the petitioners together with Jovencio and the victim immediately
prior the incident -- does not help a bit the cause of petitioners. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed
out, Michael could not have seen the malefactors in the company of the victim
because according to Jovencio, Michael had gone home earlier that evening.
In fine, this Court defers to the
findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there
being no cogent reason to veer away from such findings.
As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Raymund, who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime, should be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344, to wit:
SEC.
6. Minimum
Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or
under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
x x x
x
The
exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
SEC.
20. Children
Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. — If it has been determined that
the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority
which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately
release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the
absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice
to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the
appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having
custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot
be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any
of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization;
a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of
Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development officer; or, when and
where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to herein has been found by
the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or
abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with
the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be
filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth
Welfare Code."
Although the crime was committed on
Retroactive
effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as
this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time
of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
While Raymund is exempt from criminal
liability, his civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second
paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344.
As to Rodel’s situation, it must be
borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime. A determination of whether he
acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 9344, viz:
SEC.
6. Minimum
Age of Criminal Responsibility. – x x x.
A
child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child
shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
Discernment is that mental capacity
of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.[24] Such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case.
The Court of Appeals could not have
been more accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with discernment. Rodel, together with his cohorts, warned
Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone; otherwise, they would kill
him. Rodel knew, therefore, that killing
AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences of his
unlawful act.
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal
Code, the penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15 shall be
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the proper
period.
The penalty for homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
temporal. Pursuant to Article 68,
the maximum penalty should be within prision
mayor, which is a degree lower than reclusion temporal. Absent any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, the maximum penalty should be in the medium period of prision mayor or 8 years and 1 day to 10
years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum should be anywhere within the penalty next lower in
degree, that is, prision correccional.
Therefore, the penalty imposed by the
Court of Appeals, which is 6 months and one day of prision correccional to 8 years and one day of prision mayor, is in order. However,
the sentence to be imposed against Rodel should be suspended pursuant to Section
38 of Republic Act No. 9344, which states:
SEC. 38. Automatic
Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in
conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application.
Provided, however, That suspension of
sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18)
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the
various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law.
The Court of Appeals awarded P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages in favor of
the heirs of the victim. In addition, Rodel and Raymund are ordered to pay P25,000.00
as temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages for funeral expenses, which
the prosecution claimed to have incurred but failed to support by receipts.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; CA rollo, pp. 248-264.
[2]
[3] Penned by Executive Judge Vedasto B. Marco.
[4] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9] Rollo, p. 147.
[10]
[11] People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
[12] People
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912,
[13] TSN,
[14] People v. Morales, 311 Phil. 279, 289 (1995).
[15] People v. Baccay, 348 Phil. 322, 327-328 (1998).
[16] People v. Diaz, 338 Phil. 219, 230 (1997).
[17] Alejo
v. People, G.R. No. 173360,
[18] People v. Nardo, 405 Phil. 826, 843 (2001).
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21] People v. Emoy, 395 Phil. 371, 383 (2000).
[22]
[23]
[24] Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.