THE PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 174477
Present: *YNARES-SANTIAGO, **CARPIO-MORALES, Acting Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 2, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D E C I S
I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
This
is an appeal from the
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant
and Jessie Boy Bercasio (Bercasio) before
the RTC with the crime of murder under an Information that states:
That on or about the 30th day of October 1994 at more or less 4 o’clock in the early morning, at Barangay Cabasan, Municipality of Bacacay, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with bolos, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, motivated with hate and ill-feeling, with evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength and nocturnity, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, hack and stab RESTITUTO BARCEBAL, JR. who was on his way home, thereby inflicting several mortal hack and stab wounds: stab wound, 8.5 x 4.5 cm. penetrating, back, (R) - 8.5 cm. from superior iliac crest; stab wound, 4.5 cm. x 2 cm., umbilical area, penetrating, 5 cm. above the umbilicus; hacked wound, 11 cm. long cutting the pinna of right ear, from the area of external auditory canal, extending to the face, with fracture of zygomatic bone, right; and eighteen (18) other hacked, incised and stab wounds at the back and front side of the body of the latter, which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The appellant and Bercasio pleaded
not guilty to the charge upon arraignment.[4]
The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the trial on the merits that
followed: Edgar Constantino (Edgar);
Dr. Merlie Gomez Beltran (Dr. Beltran);
Fr. Rally Gonzales (Fr. Gonzales);
Salvacion Burce vda. De Barcebal (Salvacion);
SPO4 Antonio Bermundo (SPO4 Bermundo);
SPO4 Marciano Berdin (SPO4 Berdin);
and Eddie Belen (Eddie). The
appellant, Hipolito Panong (Hipolito),
Maura Bracia (Maura), and Erwin
Besmonte (Erwin) took the witness
stand for the defense.
Edgar testified that in the early
morning of
They arrived at the convent at around
On cross examination, Edgar testified
that Restituto was a resident of Barangay
Calambog; and that the appellant’s house was located beside a road leading to
Restituto’s house.[19] He explained that he entered the convent two
minutes after he arrived, and then went inside Fr. Gonzales’ room to sleep.[20] He
was unable to sleep and heard Fr. Gonzales snoring after 30 minutes.[21]
After a while, he heard Restituto shout for help.[22]
Dr. Beltran, the Rural Health
Physician of Bacacay, Albay, declared on the witness stand that she conducted
an autopsy on the remains of the victim on
FINDINGS:
1. General Survey: The whole body is in curved position with flexion of both upper and lower extremities.
2. Hacked wound, 11 cm. long, cutting the pinna of right ear, from the area of external auditory canal, extending to the face, with fracture of zygomatic bone, right.
3. Stab wound, 3 cm. long, superficial, from eyebrow to superior orbital area, left.
4. Stab wound, 8.5 x 4.5 cm. penetrating, back (R) - 8.5 cm from superior iliac crest.
5. Hacked wound with incomplete avulation of skin, 13 cm. long x 7 cm proximal third, arm, left, posterior area.
6. Hacked wound, 6.5 cm x 5 cm. proximal third, antero-lateral area, arm, left.
7. Hacked wound, 13 cm long, proximal third, posterior area, arm, left
8. Stab wound, 3.5 cm x 2 cm, 1.2 cm in depth, posterior axillary line, (4.5 cm below the axilla, left)
9. Hacked wound with fracture of metacarpal bone, hypothenar area, hand, right
10. Hacked wound,6cm x 2 cm, lateral area, distal third, forearm, left
11. Amputation, middle third, third digit, right hand.
12. Incomplete amputation, second digit, right hand.
13. Hacked wound, with fracture of wristbone, left hand.
14. Incised wound, 6 cm., palm, left
15. Incised wound, 2 cm. superficial, dorsal area, wrist left.
16. Hacked wound, 8 cm x 2.5 cm. antero lateral area, 11 cm above the knee, left thigh.
17. Hacked wound, 7 cm. x 2.5 cm., antero-lateral area, 8 cm above the knee left thigh.
18. Incised wound, base of thumb, left.
19. Incised wound, 2 cm x 0.5 cm. lateral area, middle third, forearm right.
20. Stab wound, 4.5 cm. x 2 cm. umbilical area, penetrating 5 cm above the umbilicus.
21. Stab wound, 2 cm x 1 cm, superficial, epigastrium, left.
22. Incised wound, 4 cm superficial, middle third, thigh, left.
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
1. Stab wound, 4.5 cm. large intestines with involvement of the mesentery and mesenteric vessels.
2. Stab wound, 4.5 cm. head of pancreas.
3. Stab wound, vena cava.
4. Hemoperitoneum – more than 1 liter
5. Presence of fecal material outside of the intestines
FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
Hypovolemia
Stab wound, abdomen
Multiple Hacked wound.[23]
According to Dr. Beltran, the victim
suffered 21 external injuries and 5 internal injuries.[24] She
opined that due to the number of injuries, the wounds could have been inflicted
by more than one (1) person.[25]
Fr. Gonzales narrated that he said
mass in
At around
Fr. Gonzales recalled that while he,
Restituto, and Edgar were walking towards the convent in Calambog, he saw two
people following them. When he asked Restituto who these people were, Restituto
answered, “Renato Bracia.”[29]
Fr. Gonzales also narrated that on
October 19, 1994, while he, his brothers and sisters, and Restituto were
walking in Cabasan, the appellant suddenly shouted at them, “Maski sampolong Granada an ipasabog sakuya
dai aco natatatkot” (Even if ten grenades are thrown at me, I’m not afraid).
The appellant further uttered, “Jun, kaya
kong inumon an dugo mo.” Fr. Gonzales advised Restituto to ignore the
appellant.[30]
On cross examination, Fr. Gonzales
stated that he reported the killing to the police on
Salvacion, the widow of Restituto, narrated
that on P28,000.00.[34]
She admitted not knowing how much was spent for the wake because somebody took
care of it. She added that she spent P200.00 for every mass during the
wake; P6,000.00 for the cemetery lot and tomb; P2,000.00 for
transportation during the funeral procession; and P5,000.00 for the last
prayer or “katapusan.”[35]
Salvacion further testified that her husband was 29 years old when he died; and
that he worked as a farmer and earned P5,000.00 a month as administrator
of his parents’ land.[36]
On cross examination, Salvacion
recalled that Fr. Gonzales and Restituto arrived at her house at around
SPO4 Bermundo testified that at
around
Thereafter, they went to the
appellant’s house and asked for his whereabouts from his grandmother. The latter
told them that the appellant was out gathering firewood. They were skeptical
because it was not customary to gather firewood on Sundays, and thus waited for
the appellant’s arrival. They finally saw the appellant at around
On cross examination, SPO4 Bermundo
stated that they talked to Fr. Gonzales and to other people at the convent when
he and SPO2 Barcebal arrived there. They toured the vicinity, and then returned
to the convent at around
SPO4 Berdin, the Property Evidence
Custodian and Chief Administrative Officer of the Bacacay Police Station,
identified the bolo (“guinunting”)
and knife presented in court as the same bolo and knife given to him by SPO4
Alfredo Base.[45]
Hipolito, a barangay tanod of Cabasan, declared on the witness stand
that the appellant went to his hut at around
On cross examination, Hipolito
maintained that the appellant was alone when he went to his hut. He admitted
knowing Bercasio but did not see him with the appellant on
Maura, the appellant’s grandmother,
testified that the appellant slept in her house in Cabasan, Bacacay, Albay on
On cross examination, Maura confirmed
that she suffered from flu on
The appellant testified that he did
not intend to kill his victim.[54]
He narrated that in the early morning of
The appellant proceeded to the house
of barangay tanod Panong and
saw him about to bathe. He told barangay
tanod Panong of his intention to surrender and was advised that it would
be better to surrender to the police. The appellant requested permission from barangay tanod Panong to gather firewood
for his grandmother before surrendering to the police. He returned to his grandmother’s house after
gathering firewood and saw three policemen – SPO4 Bermundo, Jimmy Barcelona and
Polito Barcoma – there. These policemen handcuffed him and brought him to kagawad Belen.[59]
The appellant further stated that the
bolo he used in gathering firewood was different from the one that he used in
fighting Restituto. The police brought the bolo he used in cutting firewood to
the police headquarters; he surrendered the bolo he used in fighting Restituto
to the chief of police the day after his detention. He added that the knife
recovered by the police was owned by Restituto; he grabbed it from him during
their fight.[60]
According to the appellant, he fell
down during the fight and it was at this point that Restituto tried to stab
him. He hit back causing Restituto to lose his grip on his knife. He reiterated
that he had no intention of killing Restituto during the fight.[61]
He also denied that he followed Restituto, Edgar and Fr. Gonzales on their way
to the convent in the early morning of
On cross examination, the appellant
maintained that he slept at around
He recalled that when his grandmother
woke him up to check on the identity of the person throwing stones, he went outside
and saw Restituto standing on the yard and holding a wooden pole;[70] he
was not then within Restituto’s striking stance. Restituto went near him and
struck him. He raised his right arm holding a guinunting to parry the blow; Restituto’s pole hit the edge of the roof
and thus he was not hit. Restituto struck him again and hit him in the chest as
he was moving backwards. Immediately after, he ran away.[71]
Eddie, testifying as a rebuttal
witness for the prosecution, narrated that at around
On cross examination, Eddie explained
that he and his companions met at a bridge near the house of barangay tanod Panong and then proceeded
to Bonga to attend a barangay-sponsored
dance.[73] They went home as the rain became heavy at
around
Erwin, on sur-rebuttal, testified
that indeed, he, Jerry Batalla, Sandy Belen and Eddie Boy Belen went to a dance
at Barrio Bonga, Cabasan. The appellant was not with them.[76] On
the prosecution’s further questioning, he declared that he believed that the
appellant killed Restituto.[77]
The RTC convicted the appellant of
the crime of murder in its decision of
WHEREFORE,
from the totality of the evidence presented before us, the Court finds accused,
Renato Bracia, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of Restituto Barcebal, Jr. the amount of P50,000.00
for his death; to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P42,300.00
in actual damages; P100,000.00 for the unearned income of the deceased;
and, to pay the costs.
With respect to accused, Eddie Boy Bercasio, who died after his escape from his detention at the Albay Provincial Jail, the case against him is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[78]
The
appellant directly appealed his conviction to this Court in view of the penalty
of reclusion perpetua that the RTC
imposed. We referred the case to the CA for intermediate review pursuant to our
ruling in People v. Mateo.[79]
The
CA, in its P100,000.00 to P1,020,000.00.
In his brief,[81] the
appellant argues that the RTC erred –
1.
in convicting him of the crime of
murder;
2.
in giving credence to the incredible
and inconsistent testimony of Edgar;
3.
in not considering the justifying
circumstance of self-defense; and
4.
in ruling that conspiracy, evident
premeditation and treachery attended the killing of Restituto.
THE COURT’S RULING
We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
An established rule in appellate
review is that the trial court’s factual findings, including its assessment of
the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies,
as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded
respect, if not conclusive effect. These
factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by
the CA. Despite the RTC and the CA’s unanimity
on the findings of fact, we nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records of
this case, as the penalty of reclusion
perpetua demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.[82]
A distinguishing feature of the
present case is the presence of an eyewitness – Edgar – who provided positive
identification of the appellant in his
x x x
Q: All right, while you were talking with
Father Gonzales in the early morning at
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you tell this court what was that unusual incident?
A: When I heard Restituto Barcebal shout, “Please help me.”
Q: Where did you hear that voice of Restituto Barcebal shouting asking for help?
A: Inside the convent.
x x x
Q: So what did you do after you heard that shout of Restituto Barcebal?
A: I went outside of the convent.
Q: Then what happened next?
A: When
I went outside the convent, that was the time I saw Renato Bracia and Jessie
Boy Bercasio hacking.
Q: Who
was being hacked by these two (2) accused, Renato Bracia and Jessie Boy
Bercasio?
A: Restituto
Barcebal.
Q: How far were you from this hacking incident?
A: More or less ten (10) meters.
x x x
Q: Now,
look around inside this courtroom if any of these two (2), Renato Bracia and
Jessie Boy Bercasio are present inside this courtroom?
A: There is one here.
Q: Who is present inside this courtroom today?
A: Renato
Bracia.
Q: Will you kindly stand and point to him where is this Renato Bracia?
(Witness is pointing to the man in a dark green t-shirt answering to the name of Renato Bracia.)
x x x
Q: What happened to Restituto Barcebal on that occasion of the hacking incident?
A: Restituto Barcebal ran away.
Q: Where did Restituto Barcebal go when he ran away?
A: To the other side of the road.
Q: How about you? What did you do?
A: I hid behind the altar.
Q: What else did you do?
A: I
again saw Restituto Barcebal being hacked by Jessie Boy Bercasio and Renato
Bracia.
x x x
Q: How were you able to see the second hacking incident when you said you were already hiding behind the altar?
A: The church had no walls.
Q: Then what happened after the second hacking incident?
A: Restituto Barcebal, Jr. fell down.
x x x[83] [Emphasis ours]
Time and again, we have ruled that the credibility of witnesses is
a matter best left to the determination of the trial court which observed the
witnesses firsthand and which noted their demeanor, conduct, and attitude. The
trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is binding upon this
Court, except when the lower court overlooked facts and circumstances of weight
and influence that can alter the result.[84]
We carefully scrutinized the records of this case, and found no
reason to disbelieve Edgar’s straightforward narration of the events
surrounding Restituto’s death. Nor did we see anything on record indicating any
improper motive that would lead Edgar to testify as he did. In fact, in his
testimony of
The Appellant’s Plea
of Self-Defense
The appellant sought to exculpate himself by claiming that the
hacking was an act of self-defense. He maintained that he did not intend to
kill Restituto, and that he merely defended himself when the victim struck him
with a wooden pole.
The appellant’s arguments fail to convince us.
As a rule, the prosecution bears the
burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However,
when the accused admits the killing and by way of justification pleads
self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts; the accused must then show by
clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense. For that purpose, he must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s
evidence.[85]
Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal
Code spells out the elements that the accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence to successfully plead self-defense. The Article provides:
Art. 11. Justifying Circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
x x x x
There is
unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either
actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a
weapon. It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that, for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, unlawful aggression as a condition sine qua non must be present. There can
be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits an
unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.[86]
In the present
case, we find that the appellant failed to prove that he had to defend himself
against an unlawful aggression. Aside from his own claim (which we find under
the circumstances to be unreliable and self-serving), the appellant did not
present any other evidence to corroborate his claim that there was an actual or
imminent peril to his life or limb, i.e., that Restituto struck him with
a wooden pole when he (appellant) went outside his grandmother’s house to check
on the identity of the person throwing stones at their house. The appellant also
failed to present any evidence to show that the victim hit him on the chest. On
the other hand, the number of wounds the victim suffered, 26 in all (a number
of which were located in vital parts of the body), belies the appellant’s claim
that he acted in self- defense. The
location and severity of these wounds also negate the claim
of self-defense; these circumstances point to a determined effort to kill, and
not simply to defend.
Even
if we assume that the victim was indeed the unlawful aggressor, the appellant’s
plea of self-defense would still fail for lack
of rational equivalence between the means of attack and the means of defense that
would characterize the defense as reasonable. The fact that Restituto
suffered 21 external wounds and 5 internal wounds on various parts of his body
belies the appellant’s claim that he was simply warding off the victim’s attack
by a wooden pole and used his “guinunting”
as a means commensurate to the thrusts he avoided. We stress that among the
injuries the victim suffered were: a stab
wound, 8.5 x 4.5 cm., penetrating
the back; amputation, middle third,
third digit, right hand; stab wound,
4.5 cm. x 2 cm., umbilical area,
penetrating, 5 cm. above the umbilicus; stab wound, 4.5 cm. large
intestine with involvement of the mesentery and mesenteric levels; and stab wound, 4.5 cm. head of pancreas. The depth of these
wounds shows the force the appellant exerted, while the locations indicate that
the thrusts were all meant to kill, not merely to disable the victim.
In addition,
the presence of these multiple stab
and hack wounds shows that two
weapons were used in assaulting the victim, belying another claim the appellant
made – that he was alone (wielding only a guinunting)
when he fought Restituto. The number and severity of these wounds in fact confirm
Edgar’s testimony that two persons – the appellant and Bercasio – attacked and
assaulted Restituto, and likewise validate Dr. Beltran’s statement that more
than one person could have inflicted the wounds. In People v. Carriaga,[87]
we held that self-defense is negated where the nature of the victim’s
injuries undeniably shows that he was attacked by several assailants armed with
weapons of various kinds that were not wielded by the accused alone.
Self-defense, like alibi, is an inherently
weak defense for it is easy to fabricate. Self-defense must be proven by
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. This type and nature
of evidence simply do not obtain in this particular case.[88] Therefore,
the appellant’s plea of self-defense must fail.
The Crime Committed
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
defines the crime of murder as follows:
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:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength x x x
x x x x
5. With evident premeditation; x x x
In
convicting the appellant of murder, the courts a quo appreciated treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense
that the offended party might make. This definition sets out what must be shown
by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely: (1) the employment of
such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for
self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of
the means of execution.[89] The essence of this qualifying circumstance
is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack would
take place, thus depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense
while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[90]
The evidence in this case shows that the appellant and another person (later identified as Bercasio) followed Restituto, Edgar, and Fr. Gonzales as they were walking towards the convent situated in Cabasan. The victim himself in fact recognized the appellant, as the former uttered “Renato Bracia” when asked by Fr. Gonzales if he recognized the person following them. When they arrived at the convent, Edgar went inside the convent, while Restituto asked for permission to return home. While the unsuspecting Restituto was on his way home, the appellant and Bercasio attacked and assaulted him with a bolo and knife, respectively. Restituto initially succeeded in running away, but the appellant and Bercasio caught up with him and continued to hack him until he fell down and died. The manner and mode of attack by the appellant and Bercasio, to our mind, bespeak of treachery; they deprived the victim of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to themselves.
In People v. Vallespin,[91] we
explained:
The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on
the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and
without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. It can exist even
if the attack is frontal, if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no
opportunity to defend himself against such attack. In essence, it means that the offended party was not given an
opportunity to make a defense.
Abuse of
The
Information alleges that the crime was attended by abuse of superior strength.
We
agree.
Abuse
of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of
superior strength means to use purposely excessive force that
is out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[92]
In the present case, the evidence shows that Restituto was unarmed when he was attacked by the appellant and Bercasio who were both armed with deadly weapons.
The appellant and Bercasio took turns in hacking the victim; the victim was
able to momentarily free himself from the assault and run, but his assailants
eventually caught up with him. The appellant and Bercasio continued hacking him
until he fell down and died. Clearly, Restituto was overwhelmed by the combined
efforts of his two (2) assailants who did not only enjoy superiority in number,
but also of weapons. Under these circumstances, we
have no doubt that there was gross inequality of forces between the victim and
his two assailants and that the victim was overwhelmed by forces he could not
match.
While
evident premeditation was also alleged in the Information, the courts a quo were correct in not appreciating
this circumstance. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following
elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2)
an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution
to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
Significantly, the prosecution did not even attempt to prove the presence of
these elements.
The Proper Penalty
The
crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659) with reclusion perpetua to death. The other
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is deemed absorbed in
treachery.
While
evident premeditation and nocturnity were alleged in the Information, these
circumstances were not adequately proven. Hence, in the absence of mitigating
and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the felony, the court a
quo correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised
Penal Code.
Civil Liability
The
grant of civil indemnity for the crime of murder requires no proof other than
the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant’s
responsibility therefor. While the RTC and the CA commonly awarded P50,000.00
as death indemnity to the murder victim’s heirs, prevailing jurisprudence
dictates an award of P75,000.00.[93]
Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity to this extent to be paid by the
appellant to the victim’s heirs.
The RTC awarded the amount of P42,300.00
to the victim’s heirs as actual damages. It appears that out of the said
amount, only P29,320.00 were duly supported by receipts. To be entitled
to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable to the injured party.[94]
The heirs of the victim are likewise
entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstances of treachery
and abuse of superior strength were firmly established. When a crime is
committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an
award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.[95]
We affirm the award of P1,020,000.00
as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to the victim’s heirs. As a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of
earning capacity. By way
of exception, damages may be awarded despite the absence of documentary
evidence provided that there is testimony that the victim was either (1)
self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
victim’s line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as
a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws.[96]
Given Salvacion’s testimony that her husband was a farmer who earns P5,000.00
monthly for administering his parents’ land,[97]
we hold that his heirs are entitled to an award representing the loss of the
victim’s earning capacity computed under the following formula:
Net Earning
Capacity = 2/3 x (80 less the age of
the victim at the time of death) x (Gross
Annual Income less the Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses)
The records show that the
victim’s annual gross income was P60,000.00 per annum computed from his
monthly rate of P5,000.00. His reasonable and necessary living expenses
are estimated at 50% of this gross income, leaving a balance of P30,000.00.
His life expectancy, on the other hand, is assumed to be 2/3 of the age 80 less
29, his age at the time of death. Applying the formula yields the net earning
capacity of P1,020,000.00.
We likewise affirm the
award of P50,000.00 as moral damages pursuant to current jurisprudence.[98]
WHEREFORE, in
light of all the foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM
the
(1) civil indemnity is INCREASED to P75,000.00;
(2) actual damages is REDUCED to P29,320.00;
and
(3) the appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of
the victim P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs against appellant Renato
Bracia.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice Acting
Chairperson |
|
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated
additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 691 dated
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Second Division per Special Order No. 690 dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion (separated from the service), and concurred in by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo; rollo, pp. 3-10.
[2] Penned by Judge Mamerto M. Buban, Jr.
[3] CA rollo, p. 6.
[4] Records, p. 64.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Records, pp. 4-5.
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] TSN,
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] TSN,
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47]
[48] TSN,
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54] TSN,
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72] TSN,
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76] TSN,
[77]
[78] CA rollo, pp. 32-33.
[79] Per our Resolution dated
[80]
[81] CA rollo, pp. 83-98.
[82] See People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 172696, August 11, 2008, citing People v. Garalde, 521 SCRA 327, 340 (2007).
[83] TSN,
[84] See People
v. Nueva, G.R. No.173248,
[85] See People
v. Santillana, G.R. No. 127815,
[86] See People
v. Ansowas, G.R. No. 140647,
[87] G.R. No. 135029,
[88] See People
v. Asuela, G.R. Nos. 140393-94,
[89] See People
v. Garcia, G.R. No. 174479,
[90] See People
v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142205,
[91] G.R. No. 132030,
[92] See People
v. Barcelon, Jr., G.R. No. 144308,
[93] People
v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173477,
[94] People
v.
[95] See People
v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385,
[96] See People
v. Algarme, G.R. No. 175978,
[97] These statements remain unchallenged and uncontroverted by the defense.
[98] See People
v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 157147,