SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, - versus - ROBERTO LOPEZ y CABAL, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 188902 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 16, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
This is an appeal from the 12 May
2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03199. The 12 May 2009 Decision affirmed with modification the 15
February 2008 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 73, Malabon City
(trial court), finding accused-appellant Roberto Lopez y Cabal (Lopez) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The Court of Appeals also ordered Lopez
to pay the heirs of the victim Prudencio Melendres (Melendres) as follows:
P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as
moral damages, P33,000 as actual damages and P200,000 for loss of
earning capacity.
On 10 August 2006, Lopez was charged with the murder of Melendres.
Lopez pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
During the trial, prosecution witness Leo Acibar (Acibar) testified that on 31 July 2006 at about 8:30 a.m., he saw Melendres buying cigarettes from a store when Lopez suddenly appeared and shot Melendres from behind with a caliber .38 revolver, hitting him on the right side of the head. Acibar added that Lopez again shot Melendres on the chest and on the lower abdomen. Lopez then fled from the scene. Acibar immediately reported the incident to the barangay authorities.
Ma. Liberty Francisco Melendres (Liberty), Melendres’
wife, testified as to the civil liability of Lopez. Liberty presented receipts
to show that she spent P33,000 for the burial
and the interment and P7,500 for the wake.3
She also presented a certification from Tanod
Publishing, Inc. (Tanod Publishing), Melendres’ employer, as to his monthly salary range,4 honoraria and transportation
allowance.5 She also sought to recover moral
damages.
For the defense, Lopez maintained his innocence and claimed that he was working on Jaime Domingo’s (Domingo) house on 31 July 2006.
Domingo testified that Lopez worked for him from 26 to 31 July 2006 to repair the pipelines in his house. However, on cross-examination, Domingo said that Lopez worked for him only until 30 July 2006.6
Maritess Padilla (Padilla) also testified that she saw two hooded men with guns tucked in their waist draw their guns and shoot Melendres. Padilla said the first assailant was dark-skinned and stood about five feet five inches, while the second assailant was only about four feet eleven inches. Padilla stated that Lopez was not one of the assailants and that she would be able to identify the assailants if she saw them again.
On 15 February 2008, the trial court
rendered its decision finding Lopez guilty of murder and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
trial court also ordered Lopez to pay the heirs of Melendres
as follows: P50,000 as death indemnity, P50,000
as moral damages, P40,000 as actual damages and P7,570 per month
for six months as lost income.
Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals. Lopez insisted that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lopez also questioned the monetary awards made by the trial court.
In its 12 May 2009 Decision, the Court of Appeals denied Lopez’s appeal and affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals said that Acibar’s failure to accurately describe Lopez as the perpetrator did not affect his credibility. Moreover, no ill motive can be attributed to Acibar to conclude that he would falsely testify against Lopez. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the trial court that the testimonies of the defense witnesses were vague. The Court of Appeals added that Lopez’s alibi is a weak defense and can easily be fabricated.
On the award of damages, the Court of
Appeals reduced the award of actual damages from P40,000
to P33,000, the latter amount having been substantiated by receipts. As
to the loss of income, the Court of Appeals
noted that there was no accurate way to
determine Melendres’ earnings since the certification
issued by Tanod Publishing did not reflect a fixed
amount but only a salary range. However, the Court of Appeals held that the
heirs of Melendres are still entitled to a reasonable
amount as a result of Melendres’ loss of earning
capacity and deemed it proper to increase the award from P45,420 to P200,000.
Hence, this petition.
We find the petition without merit. When the trial court’s factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, such findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.7 Moreover, where the credibility of the witness is in question, the findings of the trial court are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misappreciated, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the outcome of the case.8 The rationale for this rule is that the trial court has the advantage of observing first-hand the demeanor, behavior, and manner of the witness on the stand and, thus, is in a better position to determine the witness’ credibility.9
However, we modify the award for loss
of earning capacity. The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented
to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity.10
In this case, Liberty presented a certification from Tanod
Publishing which showed that Melendres was a photo
correspondent for Tanod Newspaper and that “his
monthly salary ranges from P1,780 to P3,570
on per story basis.”11 Liberty presented another
certification from Tanod Publishing which showed that
Melendres received the total amount of P24,990 representing payment of honoraria and transportation
allowance from 1 January to 31 July 2006.12
The Court notes that the defense did not object when the prosecution presented
these documents before the trial court. The rule is that evidence not objected
to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by
the court in arriving at its judgment.13
It was also established that at the time of his death, Melendres
was 41 years old.14
Thus, Melendres’ net earning capacity can be derived from two sources: (1) his monthly salary15 and (2) his honorarium and transportation allowance.16 Loss of earning capacity is computed as follows:
Net Earning
Capacity = Life expectancy x Gross Annual Income – Living Expenses
= [2/3 (80 – age at death)] x GAI – [50% of GAI]
=
[2/3 (80 – 41)] x P74,94017
– P37,470
=
[2/3 (39)] x P37,470
=
26 x P37,470
Net Earning
Capacity
= P974,220
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 12 May 2009
Decision of the Court of Appeals finding accused-appellant Roberto Lopez y
Cabal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with the MODIFICATION
that accused-appellant Roberto Lopez y Cabal is ordered to pay the heirs of Prudencio Melendres the amount of
P974,220 for loss of earning capacity.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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
CERTIFICATION
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
1Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Jose C. Reyes, concurring.
2CA rollo, pp. 16-21. Penned by Pairing Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr.
3Exhibits “N,” “N-1” and “N-2,” records, folder 1, pp. 52-54.
4Exhibit “N-3,” id. at 55.
5Exhibit “N-4,” id. at 56.
7Danofrata v. People, 458 Phil. 1018 (2003).
8People v. Ballesta, G.R. No. 181632, 25 September 2008, 566 SCRA 400.
9People v. Orio, 386 Phil. 786 (2000).
10España v. People, 499 Phil. 547 (2005), citing People v. Mallari, 452 Phil. 210 (2003).
11Exhibit “N-3,” records, folder 1, p. 55.
12Exhibit “N-4,” id. at 56.
13People v. Tigle, 465 Phil. 368 (2004).
14Exhibit “C,” records, folder 1, p. 51.
15Exhibit “N-3,” id. at 55. Since
only the range of Melendres’ salary was given, we
derived the average between the two amounts which is P2,675 and we multiplied this amount by 12 to get the annual
salary which is P32,100.
16Exhibit “N-4,” id. at 56. For the
computation of the gross annual income, we divided P24,990
into 7 to get the average honoraria and transportation allowance per month
which is P3,570 and then we multiplied this by 12 to get the yearly
honoraria and transportation allowance which is P42,840.