CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
RODRIGuez LUCERO y PAW-AS alias "Kikit," Appellant.

TOPIC:

On appeal is the November 29, 2006 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals

(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00340 which affirmed with modifications the
July 19, 2002 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig City, Surigao
del Sur, Branch 29, finding appellant Rodriguez Lucero y Paw-as guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

FACTS:

On October 20, 1998, Information was filed charging appellant with the
crime of murder committed as follows:

That on or about 1:30 a.m. of July 21, 1998, at Purok 6, Barangay

Sta. Cruz, Municipality of Tagbina, Province of Surigao del Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused with treachery and evident premeditation
and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and hack one Edgar Aydaon, a Barangay
Kagawad, with the use of a bolo, thereby hitting the victims head,
which wound and injury caused the instantaneous death of the
victim, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Aydaon.

The defense presented appellant as its lone witness who could only offer
denial and alibi. He alleged that he had no prior disagreement with the
victim or any of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he could not
understand why he was being implicated in the crime.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The trial court found appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. It

noted that appellant "beguiled the victim by pleading for help" but after
walking a distance of about 10 meters, suddenly hacked him on the head
leaving him with no opportunity to defend himself.

The trial court however found that the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation was not present. It noted that the prosecution failed to
prove:
 (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to his
determination; and
(3) Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act."

The trial court disregarded appellant’s denial and alibi for being
uncorroborated. The appellant himself admitted that the distance between
his farm and the scene of the crime is only 10 kilometers and could be
traversed by motorcycle in one hour or even less and he failed to prove
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
time it was committed.

The appellant’s alibi could not stand scrutiny vis-à-vis the testimony of
the eyewitness positively identifying appellant as the author of the crime.

Finally, the trial court found the inconsistencies in the testimony of the
eyewitness only minor and trivial as they did not touch on the elements of
the crime.

The dispositive portion of the Decision of the trial court reads:

 Wherefore, finding the accused RODRIGUEZ LUCERO Y PAW-AS

alias "KIKIT" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, this Court
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
with all the accessory penalties provided for under Article 41 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 To pay the heirs of the victim the sum of fifty thousand pesos
(₱50,000.00) as civil indemnity and ten thousand pesos
(₱10,000.00) as exemplary damages.
 To pay the costs.
 The accused shall serve his sentence at the National Penitentiary
now New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed with modifications the Decision of the trial court, thus:

 FOR THE REASONS STATED, the appealed Decision convicting

RODRIGUEZ LUCERO Y PAW-AS alias "Kikit" of Murder is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that he is ORDERED to pay the
heirs of the victim:

o ₱50,000.00 as indemnity;
o ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
o ₱3,000.00 as actual damages; and
 o ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

 Costs de officio.

As did the trial court, the appellate court found the alleged inconsistencies
adverted to by the appellant minor and did not impair the credibility of
the eyewitness. According to the CA, there was no inconsistency in "the
narration of the principal occurrence or the positive identification of the
assailant."

The appellate court also affirmed the findings of the trial court that
treachery attended the commission of the crime. According to the CA,
treachery was –

clearly demonstrated when appellant suddenly attacked and

stabbed the victim who offered the accused to sleep in his house
and having conversation at that time, with absolutely no inkling of
the impending danger as the accused suddenly and without
warning, hacked and stabbed the victim, giving the victim no
chance to defend himself.

ISSUES:

Appellant raises the following assignment of errors:

I. DOES THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND

CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION
WITNESS LEONITO MACEDA AND IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE
INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT?

II. DOES THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS
GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

RULINGS OF THE COURT:

The appeal lacks merit.

The defense basically assails the credibility of prosecution eyewitness. As

it did before the CA, the defense claims that credence should not have
been given to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness as it bore several
inconsistencies.

The contention is untenable. Basic is the rule that the Supreme Court
accords great respect and even finality to the findings of credibility of the
trial court, more so if the same were affirmed by the CA, as in this case.
Besides, upon the review of the records of the case, it was found that
both the trial court and the CA did not overlook or misunderstand any
substance or fact which would have materially affected the outcome of
this case.

The fact remains that the eyewitness positively identified appellant as the
person who hacked the victim on the head and stabbed him on the waist.
No ill motive could be attributed to the eyewitness for testifying against
the appellant. In fact, appellant even admitted that he had no quarrel or
previous misunderstanding or disagreement with the eyewitness.

"Pertinently, the absence of such improper motive on the part of the

witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that
no such improper motive exists and that his testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit. Indeed, there is no reason to deviate from the factual
findings of the trial court."

Finally, it is agreed with both the trial court and the CA that treachery
attended the commission of the crime. Records show that appellant lulled
the victim into believing that he was being pursued by somebody.
Believing in the tale being spun by the appellant, the victim even offered
appellant the security and protection of his house. However, appellant
reciprocated the victim’s trust and hospitality by suddenly hacking him on
the head and stabbing him on the waist.

The Penalty

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death for the crime of murder. In this case, the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were both alleged
in the Information. However, only the qualifying circumstance of
treachery was found to have attended the commission of the crime which
nevertheless qualified the killing to murder. There being no other
aggravating or mitigating circumstances, both the trial court and the CA
therefore correctly imposed upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

The Damages

"Based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Thus, when death occurs due to a
crime, the following damages may be awarded:

(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim;

(2) actual or compensatory damages;
(3) moral damages;
(4) exemplary damages;
(5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and
(6) Interest, in proper cases.
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity must be increased to ₱75,000.00. The award of ₱25,000.00 as
exemplary damages is likewise increased to ₱30,000.00.

Anent the actual damages, it is noted that the CA awarded ₱3,000.00

representing the amount spent for the embalming as shown by the
receipt. However, the prosecution also presented a list of expenses such
as those spent for the coffin, etc., which were not duly covered by receipt.

"Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be

recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered
pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved."

"The award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in murder cases is

proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in
the trial court."

Thus, the award of ₱3,000.00 is deleted as actual damages given by the

CA. In lieu thereof, the heirs of the victim are awarded with the amount of
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 29, 2006 Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00340 which affirmed with
modifications the July 19, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Bislig City, Surigao del Sur, Branch 29, finding appellant Rodriguez Lucero
y Paw-as guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the awards of civil indemnity is
increased to ₱75,000.00, exemplary damages is increased to ₱30,000.00;
the award of ₱3,000.00 as actual damages is deleted and in lieu thereof,
appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages.