SECOND DIVISION
|
ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA, |
|
G.R. No. 172896 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO, J., Chairperson, |
|
|
|
BRION, |
|
-versus- |
|
|
|
|
|
ABAD, and |
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
April 19, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
In a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court
are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such
findings are supported by substantial evidence on record.[1] It is only in exceptional circumstances, such
as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this
Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court
below. In this case, we hold that the
trial court did not overlook such factual matters; consequently, we find no
necessity to review, much less, overturn its factual findings.
This petition for review on certiorari
assails the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
Factual
Antecedents
On
That on or about November 25,1995, in the
municipality of Gonzaga, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA alias
Ranio, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and box one Lucrecio Seguritan, inflicting upon the
latter head injuries which caused his death.
Contrary to law.
During the arraignment, petitioner
entered a plea of not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Version of
the Prosecution
In the afternoon of
Lucrecio lost consciousness but was
revived with the assistance of Baltazar.
Thereafter, Lucrecio rode a tricycle and proceeded to his house in the
neighboring barangay of Calayan,
Cagayan. Upon his arrival, his wife
noticed blood on his forehead. Lucrecio explained that he was stoned, then went
directly to his room and slept.
At around
After the burial
of Lucrecio on
On
At the time of Lucrecio’s death, he
was 51 years old and earned an annual income of P14,000.00 as a farmer.
The Version of
the Defense
Petitioner denied hitting Lucrecio
and alleged that the latter died of cardiac arrest. Petitioner claimed that he suddenly stood up
during their heated argument with the intent to punch Lucrecio. However, since the latter was seated at the
opposite end of the bench, Lucrecio lost his balance and fell before he could
be hit. Lucrecio’s head hit the improvised stove as a result of which he lost
consciousness.
Petitioner presented Joel Cabebe,
the Assistant Registration Officer of Gonzaga, Cagayan, and Dr. Corazon Flor,
the Municipal Health Officer of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, to prove that Lucrecio
died of a heart attack. These witnesses
identified the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio and the entry therein which
reads: “Antecedent cause: T/C cardiovascular disease.”[8]
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide and sentences the accused to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and
1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal as maximum. The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the late
Lucrecio Seguritan the amount of P30,000.00 as actual damages and the
amount of P135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The Decision of
the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the Judgment of the RTC.
Thus:
WHEREFORE,
the judgment appealed from is partly AFFIRMED, WITH MODIFICATION, to read as
follows: The Court finds the accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentences the
accused to an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. The accused Roño Seguritan is ordered to pay the
heirs of the late Lucrecio Seguritan the amount of P 30,000.00 as actual
damages, the amount of P135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity, P
50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Petitioner filed
a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution
dated
Issues
Thus, this petition for review
raising the following issues:
I
The Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
II
The Court of Appeals erred in
convicting the accused of the crime of homicide.[11]
Our Ruling
The petition is denied.
Petitioner disputes the conclusion
that the fracture on the right middle fossa
of the skull, beneath the area where a hematoma developed was due to the blow he
delivered because according to the testimony of Dr. Vertido, the fracture may also
be caused by one falling from a height. Petitioner also maintains that the punches he
threw at Lucrecio had nothing to do with the fatal head injuries the latter
suffered. According to him, Lucrecio
sustained the head injuries when he accidentally hit the hollow block that was used
as an improvised stove, after falling from the opposite end of the bench. Petitioner
insists that Lucrecio died due to a fatal heart attack.
In fine, petitioner contends that
the appellate court, in affirming the judgment of the trial court, overlooked
material and relevant factual matters which, if considered, would change the
outcome of the case.
We are not persuaded.
It is on record
that Lucrecio suffered two external injuries and one internal injury in his
head. The autopsy report showed that
Lucrecio died of internal hemorrhage caused by injuries located at the upper
right portion of the head, left side of the center of his head, and a
“fracture, linear, right middle fossa,
hemorrhage, subdural, right and left cerebral hemisphere.”
We find no reason to doubt the
findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that
petitioner punched Lucrecio twice causing him to fall to the ground. Melchor categorically testified that petitioner
punched Lucrecio twice and as a result, Lucrecio fell to the ground and lost
consciousness. Melchor would not have
testified falsely against petitioner, who was his nephew. He even hesitated to testify as shown by his
execution of a sworn statement just after the autopsy of Lucrecio which
revealed that the cause of death was traumatic head injury attributed to
petitioner.
Melchor’s eyewitness account of the
fist blows delivered by petitioner to Lucrecio and the manner by which the
latter fell from the bench and hit his head on the improvised stove is consistent
with the autopsy findings prepared and testified to by Dr. Vertido. Thus:
x x x x
Court:
Q: What is the right parietal area?
A: This is the right parietal area,
sir.
(Witness
pointing to the upper right portion of the head).
: And then the left occipital area,
this is left occipital area with a hematoma again measuring 5.0 x 4.0 centimeters,
sir.
(Witness
pointing to the back left part, middle back portion)[12]
x
x x x
Fiscal Feril:
Q: What
about this which reads “Fracture, linear, right middle fossa”, where is this
injury located?
x x x x
Court:
Q: Will
you point that from your head?
A: x x x
[A]t the base of the brain of the skull, sir.
If
you look at the head at the cut portion, the fracture is located on the base of
the brain, particularly on the right mid-cranial fossa, sir.[13]
x x x x
Fiscal Feril:
Q: Could
it be possible that the victim suffered the injuries specifically the fracture
while he was falling to the ground, hitting solid objects in the process?
A: Well,
with regard to the hematomas there is a possibility [that it could be caused
by] falling from a height x x x although
it produces hematoma, sir.
Court:
Q: Falling
from a height?
A: Yes,
sir.
Fiscal Feril:
Q: If
an external force is administered to such victim, such as x x x fist blow[s]
would it accelerate this force and cause these injuries?
A: Definitely
it could accelerate, sir.[14]
We find no merit
in petitioner’s argument that he could not be held liable for the head fracture
suffered by Lucrecio. The height from which he stood to deliver the fist blows
to Lucrecio’s head is sufficient to cause the fracture.
The testimony of
Dr. Vertido also ruled out petitioner’s contention that Lucrecio died of a
heart attack. The fact that Lucrecio’s
cause of death is internal hemorrhage resulting from the head injuries suffered
during his encounter with the petitioner and the certainty that he had no heart
problem are evident in the following portion of Dr. Vertido’s testimony:
Atty. Antonio:
Q: Did you notice anything unusual in the heart of Lucrecio
Seguritan?
A: Well, with regard to our examination of the heart Your
Honor I limit only the examination on the atomic portion, gross findings, when
we say gross findings that can be seen by the eyes and so if for example other
that the findings on the brain, if I have not seen my injury from the brain then
my next examination to contemplate would be to bring a portion of each
particular organ to Manila and have it subjected to a hispathologic examination
over the microscope. But then we found
out that there is an injury to the brain so why should I now perform a
hispathologic examination on the heart, when in fact there is already a gross
finding on the brain, meaning that the cause of death now is of course, this
traumatic injury, sir.
Court:
Q: Supposed the victim had a heart attack first and then
fell down later, can you determine then x x x the cause of death?
A: Well, your Honor as I said a while ago I opened up the
heart, I examined the heart grossly and there was no findings that would find
to a heart attach on its function, the heart was okay and coronaries were not
thickened so I said well – grossly there was no heart attack.[15]
x x x x
Court:
Q: Since you were conducting just a cursory examination of
the heart, my question again is that, could you have determined by further
examination whether the victim suffered a heart attack before the injuries on
the head were inflicted?
A: That is why sir, I said, I examined the heart and I found
out that there was noting wrong with the heart, and why should I insist on
further examining the heart.[16]
The notation in
the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio that he died of a heart attack has no
weight in evidence. Dr. Corazon Flor,
who signed said document testified that she did not examine the cadaver of
Lucrecio. She stated that a circular
governing her profession did not require her to conduct an examination of
Lucrecio’s corpse, as long as the informant tells her that it is not a
medico-legal case. Renato Sidantes
(Renato), the brother-in-law of Lucrecio who applied for the latter’s death
certificate, had no knowledge of the real cause of his death. Thus, Dr. Flor was mistakenly informed by
Renato that the cause of Lucrecio’s death was heart attack.
The petitioner
belatedly contends that the delay in the autopsy of Lucrecio’s body and its
embalming compromised the results thereof.
To substantiate his claim, he quotes the book entitled Legal Medicine
authored by Dr. Pedro Solis, viz:
“a dead body must not be embalmed before the
autopsy. The embalming fluid may render
the tissue and blood unfit for toxilogical analyses. The embalming may alter the gross appearance
of the tissues or may result to a wide variety of artifacts that tend to
destroy or obscure evidence.”
“the body must be autopsied in the same condition
when found at the crime scene. A delay
in the performance may fail or modify the possible findings thereby not serving
the interest of justice.”[17]
Petitioner’s
reliance on this citation is misplaced. Petitioner
failed to adduce evidence that the one month delay in the autopsy indeed modified
the possible findings. He also failed to
substantiate his claim that the embalming fluid rendered the tissue and blood
of Lucrecio unfit for toxilogical analysis.
Further, it is
settled that courts will only consider as evidence that which has been formally
offered.[18] The allegation that the results of the
autopsy are unworthy of credence was based on a book that was neither marked
for identification nor formally offered in evidence during the hearing of the
case. Thus, the trial court as well as
the appellate court correctly disregarded them.
The prosecution was not even given the opportunity to object as the book
or a portion thereof was never offered in evidence.[19]
A formal offer
is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and
judgment only – and strictly – upon the evidence offered by the parties at the
trial. To rule otherwise would deprive
the opposing party of his chance to examine the document and object to its
admissibility. The appellate court will
have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court
below.[20] Any evidence which a party desires to submit
to the courts must be offered formally because a judge must base his findings
strictly on the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.[21]
We are not
impressed with petitioner’s argument that he should be held liable only for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill
Lucrecio. When death resulted, even if
there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries,
since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.[22] Accordingly, Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
Art. 4.
Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
x x x x
Petitioner committed an unlawful act
by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much older than him, and even if he did
not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must be held guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused.[23]
Considering the foregoing
discussion, we find that both the trial court and the appellate court correctly
appreciated the evidence presented before them.
Both courts did not overlook facts and circumstances that would warrant
a reevaluation of the evidence.
Accordingly, there is no reason to digress from the settled legal
principle that the appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of
the trial court on factual matters considering that the latter as a trier of
facts, is in a better position to appreciate the same.
Further, it is settled that findings
of fact of the trial court are accorded greatest respect by the appellate court
absent any abuse of discretion.[24]
There being no abuse of discretion in
this case, we affirm the factual findings of the trial court.
Penalty and
Damages
The penalty for Homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal the range of
which is from 12 years and one day to 20 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor the range of which is
from six years and one day to 12 years. In
this case, we find that the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed, attended the commission of the crime. Thus, the appellate court correctly imposed
the indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As regards the amount of damages, civil
indemnity must also be awarded to the heirs of Lucrecio without need of proof
other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the
victim and that petitioner was responsible therefor.[25] Accordingly,
we award the sum of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[26]
The
award of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order.[27] The prosecution satisfactorily proved that
the victim was earning an annual income of P14,000.00 from the harvest
of pineapples. Besides, the defense no
longer impugned this award of the trial court.
However, the other awards of damages
must be modified. It is error for the
trial court and the appellate court to award actual damages of P30,000.00
for the expenses incurred for the death of the victim. We perused the records and did not find
evidence to support the plea for actual damages. The
expenses incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of Lucrecio
cannot be sustained without any tangible document to support such claim. While
expenses were incurred in connection with the death of Lucrecio, actual damages
cannot be awarded as they are not supported by receipts.[28]
In lieu of actual damages, the heirs
of the victim can still be awarded temperate damages. When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate
damages may be recovered. Temperate
damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite
proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that
the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[29] In this regard, the amount of P25,000.00
is in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[30]
Moral damages was correctly awarded
to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact that a
crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the accused
was responsible therefor.[31] The award of P50,000.00 as moral
damages conforms to existing jurisprudence.[32]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 25069 finding petitioner Roño Seguritan y Jara guilty of
homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of six years and one day of prision
mayor as minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as
maximum, and to pay the heirs of Lucrecio Seguritan the amounts of P50,000.00
as moral damages and P135,331.00
as loss of earning capacity is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
that petitioner is further ordered to pay P25,000.00 as temperate
damages in lieu of actual damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE
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.
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, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] People v. Narca, 341 Phil. 713-714 (1997).
[2] CA rollo, pp. 155-164; penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mario L. Guariña III.
[3] Records, pp. 186-194; penned by Judge Rolando R. Velasco.
[4] Rollo, p. 33.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 164-175.
[6] Records, p. 1.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] CA rollo, p. 163.
[11] Rollo, p. 15.
[12] TSN,
[13]
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] Rollo, p. 21.
[18] Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 34.
[19] Candido v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 95, 99 (1996).
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] People v. Ural, 155 Phil. 116, 123 (1974).
[24] People v.
[25] People v. Diaz, 443 Phil. 67, 90-91 (2003).
[26] People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233,
[27] See People v. Nullan, 365 Phil. 227, 257-258 (1999).
[28] People v.
[29]
[30] People v. Bascugin, G.R. No. 184704,
[31] People v.
[32] People v. Satonero, supra note 26.