FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219275. October 14, 2015.]
REMY ALFARO and ALEXIS BAUTISTA,petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 14, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219275 — REMY ALFARO and ALEXIS BAUTISTA, petitioners v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. — The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioners the excess amount of P270.00 paid for filing fees under O.R. No. 0123593-SC-EP dated August 5, 2015; and the People of the Philippines is IMPLEADED as party respondent, and the Court of Appeals is DELETED as party respondent in this case, pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated 28 August 2014 and Resolution 3 dated 28 May 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01177. In the said decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the conviction of herein petitioners Remy Alfaro (Remy) and Alexis Bautista (Alexis) for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 4
The facts are as follows:
On 3 May 2004, while receiving treatment at the St. Jude's Hospital in Aklan, one Lloyd Rebite (Lloyd) died as a result of stab wounds he received the night before. Before dying, Lloyd declared seven (7) times to the persons around him that it was "Alexis" who stabbed him.
Investigation into the stabbing of Lloyd led to the pressing of a homicide charge against Remy and Alexis before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan. During trial, the prosecution presented, among others, the testimonies of eyewitnesses Joy Rebite (Joy) and Linda Mengane (Linda). The two have similar recollections on what happened on the night of 2 May 2004:
1. At around 11:00 P.M., Lloyd was being chased by Remy who was then holding a knife.
2. When Remy caught up with Lloyd, the two grappled with each other. As a result of the ruckus, Lloyd was able to take Remy's knife.
3. Another chase then ensued between Remy and Lloyd, but this time it was the former who is being pursued by the latter.
4. Remy then passed by the place where Alexis and his companions — one Noli Dionesio (Noli) and a certain Honito Sucgang (Honito) — were waiting. When Lloyd reached that place, he was immediately restrained by Noli and Honito.
5. Remy then shouted "stab now!!!" at which point Alexis stabbed Lloyd.
For their defense, Remy and Alexis spoke of a different version of events. According to Remy and Alexis, what happened on the night of 2 May 2004 was this:
1. Remy and Alexis were confronted by Lloyd and his brother Randy Rebite (Randy). Randy stabbed Remy.
2. Remy and Alexis ran away from Randy and Lloyd.
3. Randy then ordered Lloyd to run after Remy. Randy, on the other hand, pursued Alexis.
4. When Lloyd caught up with Remy, the two grappled with each other. As a result of the ruckus, Remy was able to take Lloyd's knife. Remy stabbed Lloyd once.
5. Alexis, on the other hand, continued to run away from Randy until barangay tanods were able to restrain the latter. Alexis was not able to see Remy or Lloyd again that night.
Thus, according to Remy and Alexis, the killing of Lloyd was but a product of a bona fide self-defense on the part of Remy.
On 14 November 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding Remy and Alexis guilty of homicide, but considered in their favor the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. In coming to such decision, the RTC gave full faith and credence to the version of the prosecution. As penalty, the RTC sentenced Remy and Alexis to suffer imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum up to 8 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. The RTC also ordered Remy and Alexis to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P80,000.00.
Remy and Alexis appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On 28 August 2014, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying the appeal of Remy and Alexis. The appellate court, however, noted the following errors in the decision of the RTC:
1. The Court of Appeals struck down the RTC's appreciation of incomplete self-defense in favor of Remy and Alexis, ratiocinating that the evidence establishes that the two, along with Noli and Honito, had acted under conspiracy; and that a finding of conspiracy is inconsistent with the claim of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.
2. The Court of Appeals also found that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was duly established by the evidence but was ignored by the RTC. Though such aggravating circumstance may not qualify the killing of Lloyd to murder, as it was not alleged in the information, the appellate court opined that the same may nevertheless be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance against Remy and Alexis.
3. The Court of Appeals also noted that the RTC's award of civil indemnity is excessive per latest jurisprudence on the matter. The appellate court also scored the RTC for not awarding moral damages.
Verily, the Court of Appeals modified the decision of the RTC as follows:
1. Increasing the term of imprisonment for Remy and Alexis to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum;
2. Reducing the award of civil indemnity from P80,000.00 to P50,000.00;
3. Adding an award for moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
Hence, this appeal by Remy and Alexis.
OUR RULING
We deny the appeal. However, we modify the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals.
The present appeal raises issues that insist upon the primacy of Remy and Alexis' version of events over that of the prosecution's as well as on the application of incomplete self-defense to the case at bench. We, however, find such issues to have already been adequately addressed in the decision of the appellate court. There is, to our minds, no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the Court of Appeals on such issues.
Be that as it may, we deem it necessary to adjust the penalty that was imposed by the Court of Appeals. As can be recalled, the appellate court meted upon Remy and Alexis an indeterminate prison sentence of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The appellate court arrived at such sentence — particularly the maximum period of 20 years of reclusion temporal — after it had considered the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength against Remy and Alexis.
We find that the appellate court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior in fixing the penalty of Remy and Alexis to be erroneous.
It must be emphasized that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure5 now require aggravating circumstances — whether qualifying or not — to be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. In People v. Bragat, 6 we held that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules actually precludes courts from giving consideration to any aggravating circumstance that had not been alleged in the information even if such circumstance was subsequently proven during trial. Hence, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 rendered defunct the old rule that allowed appreciation of generic aggravating circumstances that were not alleged in the information but were proven during trial.
In this case, it was clear that the information charging Remy and Alexis of Homicide did not contain any allegation concerning the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Thus, under our Revised Rules, such circumstance cannot be considered in determining the proper penalty for the accused.
Consequently, the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence fixed by the Court of Appeals i.e.,20 years of reclusion temporal, needs to be adjusted.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum period of an indeterminate sentence for a felony punished under the RPC shall be the penalty imposable under the said code. 7 Since there was, in this case, no aggravating and no mitigating circumstance that can be taken against or be considered in favor of Remy and Alexis, the penalty imposable for their homicide under the RPC is only reclusion temporal in its medium period8 — which has a duration of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day up to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months only. 9 The maximum period of the indeterminate sentence then cannot exceed seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
It is in these lights that we modify the prison sentence of Remy and Alexis to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 August 2014 and Resolution dated 28 May 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01177 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION: that the prison sentence for each of the petitioners shall be 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann A. Maxino concurring; rollo, pp. 11-26.
3. Id. at 38-44.
4. Act No. 3815, as amended.
5. Took effect on 1 December 2000. The provisions read:
RULE 110
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute; aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
6. 416 Phil. 829, 843-844 (2001). See also People v. Costales, 424 Phil. 321, 332 (2002); People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 409, 427 (2003); Catiis v. Court of Appeals, 517 Phil. 294, 305-306 (2006).
7. Section 1 of Act No. 4103.
8. See Article 249 in relation to Article 64 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
9. See Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code.