SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246358. July 10, 2019.]
DING MARK BELLEZA y IGNACIO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246358 — DING MARK BELLEZA y IGNACIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Petitioner Ding Mark Belleza was indicted for frustrated homicide, thus:
On or about 8:30 PM on August 20, 2012 at La Purisima St., Poblacion Central, Ocampo, Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, while armed with a gun, did then and there willfully and feloniously shoot and fire at Ernesto Cleofe, Jr. y Pollos, thereby hitting him on the right lateral aspect of the thigh, thus said accused performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the felony of Homicide but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is because Ernesto Cleofe, Jr. fled, to his prejudice and damage.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
Prosecution's Evidence: Around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of August 20, 2012, petitioner confronted Ernesto Cleofe, Jr. regarding what the latter supposedly said about and did to petitioner's brother, Ryan. Ernesto told petitioner to ask Ryan, himself. Petitioner then suddenly punched Ernesto. When Ernesto turned, he saw petitioner's father Ricardo Belleza and petitioner's brothers Ryan and Richard approaching. 2
Ernesto ran towards the house of Juanito Briones for refuge. As Ernesto was running away, petitioner fired a shot hitting Ernesto in the right thigh. Before Ernesto could get inside the house, petitioner fired another shot but missed. As soon as he got inside the house, Ernesto hid in the comfort room. But petitioner and his five (5) relatives barged into the house and broke the door of the comfort room. 3
Petitioner pulled Ernesto out of the comfort room, dragged him outside, and, together with his father and brothers, mauled Ernesto. They only stopped when Letty Briones, Juanito's wife, threatened to call the police. 4
Defense's Evidence: Petitioner claimed he was on his way to fetch water when he saw Ernesto talking to Nelson Briones. He heard Ernesto say "Here comes the brother of the person we mauled last night." He approached the two (2) men and asked them what happened. Ernesto threw several punches at him, hitting him in the left ear. He retaliated but Nelson joined in to help Ernesto. 5
He ran toward Juanito's compound for protection. Juanito, in turn, went to his father to report that he was involved in a fight. His father Ricardo, his mother Nerissa, and his brothers Richard and Ryan went to the compound. There, they saw him and Ernesto exchanging blows. Ricardo pacified them and pulled him away. Ryan placed his hand on his shoulder and led him back to their house. 6
The Trial Court's Ruling: By Judgment 7 dated November 9, 2017, the trial court (RTC-Branch 31, Pili, Camarines Sur) found petitioner guilty of attempted homicide. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional, as maximum. It awarded Ernesto Cleofe, Jr. P855.55 as actual damages and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards were subject to legal interest (the rate was unspecified) until full payment. 8
The trial court noted that petitioner was not able to perform all the necessary acts to consummate the crime of homicide. It gave credence to the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarded petitioner's defense of denial. 9
Court of Appeals Ruling: By its assailed Decision 10 dated January 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals, nonetheless, deleted the award of actual damages and in lieu thereof, granted P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now faults the Court of Appeals for affirming his conviction for attempted homicide despite the alleged inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution's purported failure to prove intent to kill.
On this score, petitioner points to the testimony of Juanito Briones that he attempted to shoot Ernesto inside his (Juanito) house but the gun did not fire. On the other hand, Ernesto himself admitted that petitioner did no such thing while they were in Juanito's house. Further, while Ernesto testified that he sustained injuries after he got mauled, the same, however, was not corroborated by any medical certificate. Lastly, Ernesto could not have possibly identified the person who shot him because he was running and it was dark. 11
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that petitioner's conviction for attempted homicide was proper. Too, intent to kill was duly proven by Ernesto's testimony that petitioner was armed with a gun during the incident. In fact, Juanito Briones also saw petitioner carrying a gun when the latter entered his house. Further, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are inconsequential. Finally, petitioner's bare denial should not be given credence. 12
Ruling
The petition utterly lacks merit.
First. If the testimonial inconsistencies do not hinge on any essential element of the crime, such inconsistencies are deemed insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact or facts testified to. In fact, these inconsistencies even indicate that the witness was not coached or rehearsed. 13
Whether or not petitioner did attempt to shoot Ernesto inside the house of Juanito Briones is irrelevant to the essential fact that petitioner did shoot Ernesto, inflicting a non-fatal wound on the latter's right thigh. Also, whether or not complainant sustained injuries when he got mauled prior to the shooting does not bear on the fact that petitioner did shoot and hit him in the right thigh. Further, it was positively proved that petitioner, and no other, was the one in possession of the gun. On this score, the trial court keenly noted:
The Court's perusal of the record shows that a fight had ensued between Private Complainant and Accused when they encountered each other at about 8:30 p.m. of August 20, 2012. Irrespective of who started said fight, the evidence suggests that Accused had, indeed shot Private Complainant on the thigh while he was escaping towards Juanito's residence. The fact that it was Accused who inflicted said injury upon him was positively testified on by Private Complainant himself. The latter's testimony that two gunshots were fired at him was corroborated by Juanito who heard the same and testified that he even saw Accused holding a gun while inside his residence. When jointly appreciated, said testimonies combine to point to Accused as the perpetrator of the offense charged. Absent showing of any ill motive against Accused on the part of Juanito, the Court is inclined to accept his testimony. When there is no showing of any improper motive to testify falsely against an accused, the logical conclusion, after all, is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. 14
In Palaganas v. People15 we ruled that when the accused intended to kill his victim as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the nature of the wounds inflicted, albeit the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. Here, Dr. Jonathan Carlo Dancel who examined Ernesto concluded that no operation was needed because the usual practice was to wait for the bullet to surface. The wound though required medical attention from August 20 to 27, 2012. 16
The trial court's factual findings based on the evidence on record deserve the highest respect where there is no showing of any glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary or unsupported conclusions committed by the trial court. These factual findings carry even more weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 17 as in this case.
Second. Intent to kill is a state of mind which courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. The factors to determine intent to kill are: 1) the means used by the malefactors; 2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; 3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during or immediately after the killing; and 4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. 18
Here, intent to kill was duly established when petitioner fired a gun and hit complainant while the latter was running away. It bears emphasis that petitioner also fired another shot at complainant but missed. Surely, repeated shots aimed at a victim is a clear indication of intent to kill.
Third. As for the monetary awards here, People v. Jugueta19 provides, thus:
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to conceal the dishonour of the offender, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
xxx xxx xxx
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous affray:
xxx xxx xxx
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity — P20,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P20,000.00
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the Information, in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated; P30,000.00 for frustrated; and P20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded. (Emphasis supplied)
Applying Jugueta, we award here P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
We also sustain the Court of Appeals' award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages of P855.55. In People v. Aquino, 20 the Court pronounced that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified, in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.
All monetary awards here are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Petitioner Ding Mark Belleza is found GUILTY of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. He is sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional, as maximum.
He is further directed TO PAY Ernesto Cleofe, Jr. P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest from finality of this resolution until fully paid."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2.Id. at 35.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 35-36.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 60-68. Penned by Judge Vivencio Gregorio Atutubo III.
8.Id. at 68.
9.Id. at 65.
10.Id. at 33-40.
11.Id. at 11-26.
12.Id. at 69-92.
13.People v. Gonzales, Jr., 781 Phil. 149, 156 (2016).
14.Rollo, p. 65.
15. 533 Phil. 169, 193 (2006).
16.Rollo, p. 66.
17. See Espino v. Amora, 571 Phil. 210, 214 (2008).
18. Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 333 (2010).
19. 783 Phil. 806, 846 (2016).
20. G.R. No. 203435, April 11, 2018.