SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255319. December 6, 2021.]
NESTOR BENO BELLEZA, Jr., petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255319 (Nestor Beno Belleza, Jr. a.k.a. "Boy Liwoy" v. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Nestor Beno Belleza, Jr., a.k.a. "Boy Liwoy" (petitioner) assailing the Decision 2 dated September 16, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated January 11, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 43711. The CA affirmed the Judgment 4 dated May 24, 2019 of Branch 17, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tabaco City, Albay which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined and punished under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedents
On April 21, 2015, an Information 5 was filed charging petitioner with Homicide as follows:
"That, on October 18, 2014 at about 7:30 o'clock in the evening, in Bangkilingan, Tabaco City, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did then and there, attack, assault and stab Joseph Berras, inflicting upon him stab wounds on the trunk, which caused his subsequent death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
When arraigned on November 9, 2017, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. 7
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that at around 7:50 p.m. of October 18, 2014, Barangay Tanod Gerardo Brito Cao (Gerardo) was inside his house when he heard a commotion. When he went out to investigate, he met Anthony Breva Cas (Anthony), his neighbor and a fellow barangay tanod. They both searched the nearby areas until they arrived at the backyard of their neighbor, Evelyn Calosor, where they heard a rustling of leaves. 8 When Gerardo, who was about three meters away, illuminated the area with a flashlight, he and Anthony saw petitioner on top of Joseph Berras (victim) stabbing him with a knife. Gerardo then focused the flashlight on petitioner. When petitioner was about to stab the victim again, Anthony shouted: "Boy" (petitioner's name). 9 Gerardo also called petitioner by shouting his name, "Boy Liwoy." The shouts prompted petitioner to turn his head towards Anthony and Gerardo. 10 When petitioner noticed them, he immediately ran away carrying the knife with him. 11 Thereafter, Gerardo and Anthony brought the victim to Ziga Memorial Hospital of Tabaco City where he was declared "Dead on Arrival." The Medico-Legal Report No. MLB-191-14 issued by Police Superintendent James Margallo Belgira (P/Supt. Belgira) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Forensic Service showed that the victim sustained five stab wounds. 12
Version of the Defense
Petitioner narrated that at around 6:55 p.m. of October 18, 2014, he decided to go to the house of Miguel Cas (Miguel) and invite him for drinks. However, petitioner ended up drinking with Anthony Boticario and Witty Bayaban outside of Miguel's house because Miguel was busy. Afterwards, he excused himself to urinate and went outside the back portion of Miguel's comfort room, which was about 2.5 meters away from where they were drinking. All of a sudden, he saw the victim pointing a .38-caliber gun at him. The victim pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire. He did not run away or call his drinking buddies; instead, he ran towards the victim, who threw away his gun and pulled out a knife from his waist. The victim thrust the knife towards him but failed to hit him. At that point, he got hold of the victim's right wrist, and both of them grappled for the possession of the knife. In the process, the victim accidentally stabbed himself once on the left side of his abdomen. Thereafter, he immediately ran away from the scene of the incident. 13
RTC Ruling
In the Judgment 14 dated May 24, 2019, the RTC found petitioner guilty of Homicide and sentenced him to super the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. It likewise ordered petitioner to pay the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,225.00 as actual damages plus the costs of suit. CAIHTE
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision 15 dated September 16, 2020, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction with modification as to the monetary awards. It ordered petitioner to pay P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the P15,225.00 actual damages and imposed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the damages awarded to be computed from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied on January 11, 2020. 16
Hence, the instant petition. 17
Issue
The issue is whether petitioner's guilt for homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Petitioner admits to killing the victim. However, he raises the justifying circumstance of self-defense. 18
To successfully invoke self-defense, the accused needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself. 19
The Court is not convinced with petitioner's contention that the victim was the unlawful aggressor in the stabbing incident and that the victim accidentally stabbed himself once after he pulled petitioner towards him. 20 Petitioner's defense that the stabbing incident was a mere accident is belied by the five stab wounds sustained by the victim: one on his head and four on his trunk. 21 The knife pierced the middle lobe of the victim's right lung twice. 22 Moreover, Gerardo and Anthony testified that petitioner was on top of the victim when petitioner stabbed the victim with a knife. Furthermore, both the RTC and the CA pointed out that no gun was ever seen or recovered from the crime scene. 23 Thus, petitioner's statement that the victim pointed a .38-caliber gun at him 24 is self-serving. Further still, despite his allegation that the victim was the unlawful aggressor, petitioner failed to show that he suffered any injury. 25 Such a bare claim falls short of being clear and convincing.
In an attempt to assail the credibility of Gerardo and Anthony as eyewitnesses, petitioner asserts that their testimonies are improbable and inconsistent. He contends that it is unbelievable that after Gerardo and Anthony witnessed the stabbing incident, neither of them ran after him. He argues that such behavior is inconsistent with the testimony of Gerardo that the latter and Miguel were just around three meters away from him when Gerardo focused his flashlight on him. However, Gerardo testified that they no longer chased petitioner as he was already far from them. 26
Contrary to petitioner's assertions, there is no inconsistency in the testimony of Gerardo regarding his and Anthony's distance in relation to petitioner. Although Gerardo and Anthony were just three meters away from petitioner, there was a fence made of corrugated iron and coco lumber that separated Gerardo and Anthony from petitioner; thus, it prevented Gerardo and Anthony to immediately chase petitioner. The fence gave petitioner a head start from them in escaping from the crime scene. 27 Moreover, it is settled that there is no hard and fast gauge to measure a person's reaction when confronted with a startling occurrence. 28 The fact that the eyewitnesses chose to help the victim instead of running after petitioner 29 does not militate against their credibility as eyewitnesses. There is also no evidence on record that Gerardo and Anthony had any ill motive to testify against petitioner and pervert the truth. 30
Well settled is the rule that "[f]indings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, if not finality by the appellate court, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings." 31 This is because the trial judge is in a better position to ascertain the conflicting testimonies of witnesses after having heard them and observed their deportment and mode of testifying during the trial. 32
It is also noteworthy that petitioner escaped arrest for three years until his apprehension on October 30, 2017. In numerous cases, the Court held that flight is indicative of guilt of the accused. 33 Here, petitioner gave no explanation as to why he left for Manila on the night of the stabbing incident and hid for years. 34 If it was true that the victim was the unlawful aggressor, then there was no reason for him to flee. DETACa
In fine, the prosecution duly established all the elements of the crime of Homicide. The candid testimonies of Gerardo and Anthony, together with the medico-legal findings of P/Supt. Belgira, produced a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 249 of the RPC provides that any person found guilty of Homicide shall be punished by reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be the medium period of reclusion temporal — fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Thus, the RTC properly imposed fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum term of the penalty. 35 However, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty imposed upon petitioner — eight (8) years — falls under prision mayor in its minimum period. The minimum term should be the medium period of prision mayor — eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, there being no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances present. Thus, the minimum term should be modified from eight (8) years 36 to eight (8) years and one (1) day.
As regards the damages for the crime of Homicide, the prosecution was able to provide receipts for the total sum of P15,225.00 incurred by the heirs of the victim by reason of his death. 37 The CA, however, aptly awarded P50,000.00 temperate damages in lieu of the P15,225.00 actual damages. "The settled rule is that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than the sum allowed by the Court as temperate damages, the award of temperate damages is justified in lieu of actual damages which is of a lesser amount." 38 This is in line with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 39 In that case, the Court awarded P50,000.00 as temperate damages 40 in lieu of the actual damages of P16,150.00. 41
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated September 16, 2020 and the Resolution dated January 11, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43711 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Nestor Beno Belleza, Jr., a.k.a. "Boy Liwoy" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Joseph Berras the following amounts: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED." (GAERLAN, J., and DIMAAMPAO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 122-138.
2.Id. at 140-157; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3.Id. at 159-160; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
4.Id. at 177-193; rendered by Presiding Judge Ignacio C. Barcillano, Jr.
5. As culled from the CA Decision id. at 143.
6. As culled from the CA Decision id.
7.Id. at 178.
8.Id. at 141.
9.Id. at 180.
10.Id. at 93.
11.Id. at 69-70.
12.Id. at 141-142
13.Id. at 142-143.
14.Id. at 177-193.
15.Id. at 140-157
16.Id. at 159-160.
17.Id. at 122-138.
18.Id. at 184.
19.Pascual v. People, G.R. No. 241901, November 25, 2020.
20.Rollo, p. 143.
21.Id. at 142-143, 183.
22.Id. at 142.
23.Id. at 149, 187.
24.Id. at 143.
25.Id. at 150.
26.Id. at 130.
27.Id at 92-93.
28.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224289, August 14, 2019.
29.Rollo, p. 152.
30.Id. at 155.
31.Pascual v. People, supra note 19.
32.People v. Aspa, 838 Phil. 302, 312 (2018).
33. See People v. Jamon, 459 Phil. 662 (2003); People v. Cabacan, 436 Phil. 397 (2002); People v. Babac, 281 Phil. 1074 (1991); and People v. Baluyot, 252 Phil. 591 (1989).
34.Rollo, p. 187.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 193.
37.Rollo, p. 192.
38.People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 685 (2017).
39. 783 Phil. 806 (2016). See also People v. Ukay, G.R. No. 246419, September 16, 2020; People v. Doca, G.R. No. 233479, October 16, 2019; People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 232380, September 4, 2019; People v. Albino, G.R. No. 229928, July 22, 2019; People v. Bagabay, G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018; and Barbosa v. People, 814 Phil. 16 (2017).
40.Id. at 853, 855.
41.Id. at 815.