THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233186. November 6, 2017.]
ROMULO BALANCAR y ERNAL, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 6, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. NO. 233186 — ROMULO BALANCAR Y ERNAL, Petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The Case
The case pertains to a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by accused-appellant Romulo E. Balancar (Romulo) seeking to reverse the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) — Special Twenty-Third Division in CA-G.R. CR NO. 01408-MIN. The assailed CA Decision upheld the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City-Branch 8 in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18135 which convicted Romulo of the crime of homicide.
The Charge
An Information 3 was filed before the RTC against Romulo which reads:
That on February 17, 2013 at 6:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Purok 4, Matam, Diwan, Dipolog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill a person, without justifiable cause or reason thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously stab one CHARLITO MOHAMETANO with the use of a knife, a deadly weapon, which resulted to his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (With aggravating circumstance of recidivism, accused having been convicted in Criminal Case No. 2899, in RTC Branch 6, Dipolog City).
The Facts
On February 17, 2013 at around 6:30 P.M., Romulo, Rogelio P. Paler (Rogelio), Wilfredo Ambao (Wilfredo), Charlito Mohametano (Charlito) and a certain person casually identified as "Dodong" had a drinking session at Rogelio's sari-sari store. 4
After consuming a whole bottle of Tanduay Rhum, Charlito went home ahead of the others as it was already getting late for him. 5 After a while, however, he returned to the sari-sari store and challenged Romulo (who was upstairs in Rogelio's house where the same store was also located) to a fight. 6
Taking on the challenge, Romulo proceeded to descend the stairs but he was blocked by Rogelio who tried to prevent the fight from ensuing. 7 Despite Rogelio's effort, he managed to elude the obstruction but fell down the stairs and landed on the floor. 8 Consequently, Romulo and Charlito engaged in a scuffle where they were being separated, albeit unsuccessfully, by Rogelio and Wilfredo.
Charlito, with his bleeding mouth and chest, managed to run a few feet away from Romulo, Rogelio and Wilfredo but only to fall lifeless on the ground moments later. 9 After which, Rogelio heard Romulo uttering the statement: "Bisan unsa-on ninyo na, patay naman na" (Whatever you do, he is already dead). 10 Thereafter, Romulo rode a motorcycle and went home. 11
Wilfredo then left and called for help where the police officers responded and arrived at the scene. 12 It was during this time that Rogelio told the police officers that it was Romulo who stabbed Charlito to death. 13 Upon learning the assailant's identity, the police officers proceeded to Romulo's house, arrested him and detained him at the Dipolog Police Station. 14
On February 18, 2013, Rogelio saw a knife with blood stains beside his sari-sari store which was allegedly used by Romulo to stab Charlito. 15
Meanwhile, Dr. Cecilio P. Siglos (Dr. Siglos) examined Charlito's body where he concluded that the cause of death was cardio-pulmonary arrest due to a massive intra-thoracic hemorrhage caused by a penetrating stab wound on the latter's left chest. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On October 26, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision 17 with the dispositive portion which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused is hereby found guilty of HOMICIDE attended by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and sentenced to suffer the penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Furthermore, he is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00; moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages — with interest at the legal rate of 6% (sic) percent from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Here, the RTC found that, although Rogelio did not see the stabbing as the place was only lighted by a kerosene lamp, it is safe to deduce that there is no other person who could have done the stabbing since it was only Romulo and Charlito who had a quarrel that night. 18 Moreover, it also rejected Romulo's defense of denial for being unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 19 Finally, it also shunned Romulo's claim that Rogelio's testimony cannot be given credit for being uncorroborated because there were no reasons to warrant a suspicion that the latter falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On July 10, 2014, the CA promulgated a Decision 21 with the decretal portion as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED.
The Decision dated 26 October 2015 issued by Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City in Criminal Case No. 18135 is hereby AFFIRMED with the sole modification of increasing the amount of exemplary damages from Php10,000.00 to Php50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
In upholding the RTC's Decision with modification, the CA reasoned that: (a) all the elements of the crime of homicide were successfully proven by the prosecution; 22 (b) Romulo cannot successfully invoke self-defense because Charlito's aggression was neither actual nor imminent and, in fact, the latter was drunk and even unarmed; 23 (c) Romulo's intent to kill was established by the nature of Charlito's wound as well as his utterances displaying his confidence that the victim would eventually die; 24 (d) non-presentation of the bladed weapon used is not indispensable to Romulo's successful prosecution because it is not one of the elements of homicide; 25 (e) Romulo's defense of denial is weak and inconsistent with his claim of self-defense; 26 and (f) the ruling in People v. Jugueta27 had already increased the amount of exemplary damages to P50,000.00. 28
On September 22, 2017, Romulo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari29 before this Court insisting that: (a) Rogelio never saw him stab Charlito nor did the prosecution present in open court the bladed weapon that was used during the incident; 30 (b) the discovery of the knife stained with blood was merely the prosecution's afterthought to establish a case against him; 31 (c) since Wilfredo's affidavit attested that Charlito came back and challenged all of them (including Rogelio) to a fight, it is possible that anyone of them may have taken the challenge seriously; 32 and (d) the prosecution's evidence is merely circumstantial and is insufficient to convict him of homicide. 33
The Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED CAN BE ACQUITTED BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT
The Court's Ruling
The Court denies Romulo's Petition for Review on Certiorari for the following reasons: (a) the RTC is in the best position to decide on questions involving credibility of witnesses for having heard them as well as observed their demeanor and attitude under grueling examination; 34 (b) it is a settled rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction and that direct evidence is not always necessary; 35 (c) presentation of the murder weapon is not even essential for a conviction; 36 and (d) it is a well-settled rule that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 37 More importantly, the CA and the RTC cannot be faulted for accepting the prosecution's position that it was indeed Romulo who stabbed Charlito to death because Rogelio's testimony was direct, straightforward and consistent. 38 Finally, the Court also agrees with the RTC's lucid finding that no other person could have done the stabbing since only Romulo and Charlito were observed to be in a scuffle moments before the latter dropped dead. 39
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari of accused-appellant Romulo Balancar y Ernal is DENIED for absence of reversible errors and the July 10, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals — Special Twenty-Third Division in CA-G.R. CR NO. 01408-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-45; penned by: Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
2.Id. at pp. 51-57; penned by: Presiding Judge Ric S. Bastasa.
3.Id. at p. 51.
4.Id. at p. 30.
5.Id. at pp. 30-31.
6.Id. at p. 31.
7.Ibid.
8.Ibid.
9.Ibid.
10.Ibid.
11.Ibid.
12.Ibid.
13.Ibid.
14.Ibid.
15.Ibid.
16.Ibid.
17.Id. at pp. 51-57.
18.Id. at p. 54.
19.Id. at pp. 54-55.
20.Id. at p. 55.
21.Id. at pp. 30-45.
22.Id. at pp. 34-35, citing: Wacoy v. People, G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015.
23.Id. at pp. 35-37, citing: People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015.
24.Id. at pp. 37-41, citing: Guevarra, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014.
25.Id. at p. 41, citing: People v. Dimacuha, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 191060, February 2, 2015.
26.Id. at p. 43, citing: People v. Dimacuha, Jr., et al., supra.
27. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
28.Rollo, p. 44.
29.Id. at pp. 11-24.
30.Id. at p. 20.
31.Ibid.
32.Ibid.
33.Id. at pp. 21-23.
34.People v. Diu, et al., G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013, citations omitted.
35.Zabala v. People, G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015.
36.People v. Badriago, G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009.
37.People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013.
38. See Rollo, pp. 38-43.
39.Id. at p. 54.