Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ANTONIO BALDOMAR y LISCANO, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 197043
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February
29, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
We decide the appeal, filed by
Antonio Baldomar y Liscano (appellant),
from the December 22, 2010 decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 03815. The appealed decision affirmed the December 22, 2008
decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In its December 22, 2008 decision,
the RTC found the appellant guilty of murder for the death of Eulogio Leguin,
and of frustrated murder for the serious wounding of German Irasga. It gave
credence to the testimony of German that the appellant stabbed him in the chest
while he was sleeping, and also at the back while he was running out of the
house. It also believed Germans declaration that the appellant stabbed
Eulogio.
According to the trial court, Germans
testimony was supported by the testimonies of Nena Baldomar, Lita Leguin and
Edgar Leguin, who all declared that they saw the appellant holding a dagger and
standing near the head of the bloodied Eulogio. The RTC disregarded the
appellants denial in light of the positive identification by the witnesses. It
likewise held that treachery attended the commission of the crimes, as the
attacks on the victims were sudden and unexpected.
In Criminal Case No. 125677-H
(murder), the RTC ordered the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay Eulogios
heirs the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as
temperate damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case
No. 125678 (frustrated murder), the trial court ordered the appellant to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision. It held that German positively identified the appellant as the person
who stabbed him and Eulogio. The appellate court also sustained the trial
courts finding that treachery attended the attack on the two victims.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal, but modify the
awarded indemnities.
It is settled that this Court will
not interfere with the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court
overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, especially
where, as in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the CA. In the present
case, we see no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the courts
a quo.
German positively identified the
appellant as the person who stabbed him in the chest while he was sleeping, and
also at the back while he was running out of the house. He also pointed to the
appellant as the person who stabbed Eulogio, causing the latters death.
Germans testimony was supported by the testimonies of Nena, Lita and Edgar,
all of whom testified that when they went to the sala, they saw the appellant
holding a bloodied knife in his right hand while standing near Eulogios head.
As the lower courts did, we see no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these
prosecution witnesses; their narrations were straightforward and replete with
details that jibed on material points.
The lower courts correctly ruled that
treachery attended the stabbing of the victims. The attacks were swift and
sudden; the unsuspecting victims had no expectation of the coming assault, as
they were asleep when they were attacked.
We are unpersuaded by the appellants
defense of denial. It is elementary that the defense of denial is
outweighed by a positive identification that is categorical, consistent and
untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the
matter. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[3]
The Penalties
The crime of murder qualified by
treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
with reclusion perpetua to death. For
the death of Eulogio, the lower courts correctly sentenced the appellant to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
only, since there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances that attended
the commission of the crime.
The courts a quo also imposed the correct penalty for frustrated murder in
Criminal Case No. 125678. Under Article 61, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower
than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion
temporal has a range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the
indeterminate penalty should be taken from the medium of reclusion temporal, since no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime. The minimum of the
indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor
which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Prescinding from the
foregoing discussion, the imposed indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, was
proper.
The Proper Indemnities
In
Criminal Case No. 125677-H, we affirm the awards of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages to
Eulogios heirs, as these amounts are in accord with current jurisprudence on
murder cases when the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua only. We additionally award P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
to Eulogios heirs, as this award is granted to the victims heirs without need
of proof other than the commission of the crime. We also increase the amount of
the awarded exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 to
conform to prevailing jurisprudence.[4]
In
Criminal Case No. 125678, we order the appellant to pay the following amounts
to German: P40,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate
damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.[5]
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 22, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 03815 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Antonio Baldomar y Liscano is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder in Criminal Case No. 125677-H and of
frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 125678.
In Criminal Case No. 125677-H, the
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and is ordered to pay the victims heirs the
following amounts: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. In Criminal Case No. 125678, the
appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and
is ordered to pay the victim the following amounts: P40,000.00 as moral
damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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 Courts 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, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Franchito N. Diamante.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 37-50.
[3] See Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 451, 465-466.
[4] See
People of the
[5] See People v. Mokammad, G.R. No. 180594, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 497.