FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243448. March 27, 2019.]
MELCHOR ARIENZA Y FERRER, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 27, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243448 — Melchor Arienza y Ferrer, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, respondent.
This Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Melchor Arienza y Ferrer's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking for an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on January 2, 2019 within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38766 committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the Decision dated March 16, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case Nos. 14-303518-19.
It is worth stressing that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. Here, petitioner contends that the CA erred when it: (1) affirmed his conviction for frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries despite the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (2) found that he did not act in self-defense as he was the unlawful aggressor; and (3) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for frustrated homicide despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the element of intent to kill. In other words, petitioner directly raises as arguments the alleged errors of the CA in overlooking facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. It is, therefore, clear that the resolution of his arguments requires a review of the factual findings, which is not a function of this Court. It is not the duty of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the CA. CAIHTE
In any case, a re-examination of the merits of the case will not result in a different outcome. The CA did not commit reversible error in affirming the ruling of the trial court that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide against Ricky Licudine y Digman (Ricky). The prosecution's evidence established the elements of the crime, which were: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim; (2) the victim sustained a fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) no qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, was present.
The intent to kill Ricky was demonstrated when petitioner took out a kitchen knife and, for no apparent reason, used it to stab Ricky's torso while the latter was unarmed. Were it not for the immediate and adequate medical assistance given to Ricky when he was brought to the hospital, he would have died from the stab wound petitioner inflicted on him. Anent the third element, the qualifying/aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation stated in the Information that would qualify the crime to murder were not proved during trial.
The CA did not likewise commit any reversible error in ruling that petitioner could only be held criminally accountable for slight physical injuries with regard to the wound sustained by Rafael. There was no evidence that the gravity of Rafael's wound was fatal. He also failed to present competent proof as to the number of days he was incapacitated due to the said injury.
The CA correctly brushed aside petitioner's contention that the credibility of Ricky and Rafael was diminished by inconsistencies in their testimonies relating to whether Rafael was merely kicked or mauled by petitioner. These inconsistencies are not material or relevant since they do not relate to the elements of the crime. They are too trivial and inconsequential to merit a reversal of his convictions. Inconsistencies in minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the veracity or weight of their testimonies. 1 Minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility, as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed, such as in this case. 2
Petitioner's reliance on the justifying circumstance of self-defense to escape criminal liability was correctly cast aside due to his failure to establish its elements, which are: (1) unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Petitioner's assertion that he merely defended himself while being mauled by several men was not substantiated by evidence. He failed to present proof to support his claim. In the absence of evidence, petitioner's assertion of self-defense cannot prevail over his positive identification by Ricky and Rafael as the perpetrator of the crimes charged.
In the absence of unlawful aggression against petitioner, the other two requisites of self-defense cannot be appreciated. Unlawful aggression is the main and most important element of self-defense. "There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself." 3 Thus, in the absence of unlawful aggression, petitioner's claim of self-defense must fail.
In imposing the indeterminate penalty on petitioner, the CA did not err in determining that the maximum penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty must be taken from its medium period, which has a range from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. The CA also did not err in ascertaining that, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum sentence should be within range of the penalty next lower in degree, which in this case is prision correccional. However, the maximum penalty imposed by the CA should not be the entire range of prison mayor in its medium period but only a portion thereof. The same rule applies in establishing the minimum penalty, the medium period of which covers the entire period imposed by the CA. Thus, the proper indeterminate penalty for frustrated homicide shall be 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amounts of P30,000.00 are proper, but the award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be deleted, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. 4 Temperate damages can only be awarded in the event that the crime results in the death of the victim and there is no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses presented in court. 5 These circumstances do not exist in this case. DETACa
All monetary awards shall earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
On the other hand, the straight penalty of 20 days imprisonment imposed on petitioner for committing the crime of slight physical injuries is in order. The penalty provided by law is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 and a censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance. 6 The courts below opted for the penalty of arresto menor, which has a duration of 1 day to 30 days, and is exempt from the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as its maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.
The award of actual damages in the amount of P1,070.00 is proper but the award of moral damages, while correct, must be reduced from the amount of P10,000.00 to P5,000.00. 7
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRM the assailed May 18, 2018 Decision and December 6, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38766, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
I. In Criminal Case No. 14-303518
(1) Petitioner Melchor Arienza y Ferrer shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, for committing the crime of frustrated homicide against Ricky Licudine y Digman;
(2) The award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to private complainant Ricky Licudine y Digman is DELETED.
II. In Criminal Case No. 14-303519
The award of moral damages to Rafael Licudine y Digman is reduced to P5,000.00.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Tubat, 680 Phil. 730, 738 (2012).
2.People v. Magbanua, et al., 613 Phil. 647, 656 (2009).
3.People v. Roman, 715 Phil. 817, 831 (2013).
4.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846-847, 853 (2016).
5.Id.
6. Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.
7.Bongalon v. People, 707 Phil. 11, 22 (2013).