SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230150. July 19, 2017.]
ELEUTERIO T. BAYLEN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 July 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230150 — Eleuterio T. Baylen v. People of the Philippines
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the May 13, 2016 Decision 1 and the January 10, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City (CA), in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00539.
On June 11, 2002, the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo indicted petitioner Eleuterio T. Baylen (Eleuterio) and his co-accused Lamberto T. Baylen (Lamberto) and Fernando T. Baylen (Fernando) for the crime of Homicide with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm, in an Information which reads:
That on or about March 31, 2002, in the Municipality of Cabatuan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another, armed with a knife and an unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and shoot Aurelio Pacifico, Jr. with a knife and unlicensed firearm which the accused were then provided, hitting the victim on the different parts of his body which caused his death thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, Eleuterio pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Version of the Prosecution
On March 30, 2002, at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Eleuterio, Lamberto and Fernando, together with Aurelio Pacifico, Jr. (Aurelio), were at the house of Mamerto Jatiba in Barangay Tinio-an, Cabatuan, Iloilo attending the wake of Corazon Jatiba. They were playing "Lucky Nine" with three (3) others.
Before the game began, Eleuterio announced his bet of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00). Aurelio told Eleuterio to place his bet on the table, and Eleuterio's wife answered that her husband had money but he did not place his bet on the table. Instead, Eleuterio picked up Aurelio's money and placed it in front of him. Thereafter, Eleuterio allegedly pulled out a big knife from his waist, which prompted Aurelio to pull out his firearm, which in turn, caused Lamberto to pull out his shotgun and pointed it at Aurelio's head. The latter fired his gun downward as a warning shot.
Thereafter, Aurelio ran towards the back portion of the house and was chased by Eleuterio, Lamberto and Fernando. When Aurelio was cornered by his pursuers, Eleuterio stabbed him on the side, which caused Aurelio to fight back and shoot Eleuterio in the face. When Lamberto saw his brother fall, he shot Aurelio with his shotgun, and the latter fell on the ground. Afterwards, Fernando joined in by striking Aurelio with a bamboo pole and a rock.
Version of the Defense
Aurelio was drunk when he arrived at the wake. The "first deal" was made by Eleuterio, and Aurelio made a bet of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), which Eleuterio accepted without showing his own money. Aurelio demanded that Eleuterio lay down his money, and the latter was about to comply when an argument ensued. Then, Aurelio took out his firearm and knife and threatened everyone. The people at the wake scampered away, including Eleuterio and his wife. They were, however, followed by Aurelio who then shot Eleuterio. Thereafter, Nestor Bergonia, the chain saw operator of Eleuterio, shot Aurelio.
RTC Ruling
In its April 12, 2006 Decision, the RTC found Eleuterio and Lamberto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. In imposing the penalty, the RTC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense. The RTC disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, accused ELEUTERIO BAYLEN and LAMBERTO BAYLEN are declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Both accused are likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Aurelio Pacifico, Jr. in the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P20,000 as temperate damages.
Accused FERNANDO T. BAYLEN being at large, let an alias warrant of arrest issue against him and this case in the meantime be placed in the archives until his arrest.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.3
Aggrieved Eleuterio appealed to the CA.
CA Ruling
In its assailed May 13, 2016 Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision. It agreed with the findings of the RTC that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of homicide with moral certainty. It also found that there was conspiracy as Eleuterio and his co-accused chased and attacked Aurelio in concert. It did not give weight to Eleuterio's reliance on his presumption of innocence. According to the CA, the presumption was overcome as his guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The 12 April 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 02-55848 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows:
1. The civil indemnity is increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00);
2. The amount of temperate damages is increased to Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00); and
3. Moral damages is awarded in the amount of P75,000.00.
All the awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 4
Eleuterio moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied in the assailed January 10, 2017 Resolution of the CA.
Hence, his petition.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING ELEUTERIO'S CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.
Eleuterio faults the CA for not considering a questionable fact relative to where and when Aurelio sustained the fatal gunshot wound in upholding his conviction. He further argues that the CA also ignored the fact that he was hit right there in the gaming table. The determination of these factual issues, he insists, could have established his innocence.
The Court's Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Eleuterio's petition raises questions of fact. Time and again, the Court has consistently declared that questions of facts are beyond the pale of a petition for review under Rule 45. Moreover, as a general rule, findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court; the Court will not normally disturb these factual findings unless they are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or unless the judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts. 5
In this case, the Court finds no reason to overturn the RTC's factual findings that Eleuterio was guilty of the crime charged.
The crime of Homicide is defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
The elements of Homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide. 6
In this case, the prosecution has clearly established all these elements. As correctly found by the CA, Aurelio's death was not a disputed fact. The assault against Aurelio authored by Eleuterio and his co-accused brothers caused his death, and no justifying circumstance was appreciated in his favor. Moreover, the intent to kill is presumed from the attendant circumstances. The circumstances which would qualify the crime to murder, parricide, or infanticide, however, were not obtaining.
Anent the monetary awards, the Court deems it proper to retain the award of civil indemnity in the original amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) awarded by the RTC, and the amount of temperate damages must be increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in order to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 7 In addition, the amount of moral damages must be modified to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation. These damages must be understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant; and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. 8 The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. 9
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 13, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00539 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of civil indemnity, temperate and moral damages be modified to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each.
SO ORDERED. (Leonen, J., on official leave)''
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-31. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
2.Id. at 15-16.
3.Id. at 21.
4.Id. at 31.
5.Edwin Taboo y Perez v. People of the Philippines, 669 Phil. 486 (2011).
6.Guillermo Wacoy y Bitol v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015, 760 SCRA 259, citing Villanueva v. Caparas, 702 Phil. 609, 616 (2013).
7.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
8.Id., citing Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 367, 376-377 (1995).
9.Id., citing Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, 492 Phil. 384, 395 (2005).