SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249809. June 20, 2022.]
ROMEL C. BITENG, SR. AND ROMEL S. BITENG, JR., petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 20, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249809 (Romel C. Biteng, Sr. and Romel S. Biteng, Jr., petitioners, v. People of the Philippines, respondent). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of petitioners Romel C. Biteng, Sr. (Biteng, Sr.) and Romel S. Biteng, Jr. (Biteng, Jr.; collectively, petitioners) for the crime of Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
As correctly ruled by the CA, all the elements of the crime of Homicide 1 are present in this case, as the prosecution, through the positive identification of the eyewitnesses, had established that it was indeed petitioners who mauled and stabbed the victim, Roderick Samulde (Samulde), which resulted in his death. Jurisprudence emphatically maintains that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. 2 Thus, the CA correctly found Biteng, Sr.'s defense of denial untenable considering the positive identification of said eyewitnesses. CAIHTE
Furthermore, Biteng, Jr.'s invocation of self-defense and defense of a relative is equally untenable, considering that the prosecution was able to establish that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he was stabbed by the accused Biteng, Jr.
Contrary to the contention of petitioners, conspiracy was present during the attack. Here, it cannot be disputed that the acts of petitioners were done with a common goal of achieving the death of the victim. Their independent act of hitting his head with a wooden club and stabbing him cannot be interpreted to mean anything else other than they wanted to inflict on him serious harm. Petitioners' concerted action and concurrence of sentiments is adequate in proving that a conspiracy exists.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the RTC was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties, and hence, due deference should be accorded to the same. 3
However, there is a need to modify the penalty imposed on petitioners. Under Article 249 of the RPC, the prescribed penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and further taking into account the absence of any modifying circumstances in this case, petitioners should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Finally, the Court sustains the monetary awards plus interests due to the heirs of Samulde as they are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence, and further considering that the award of actual damages are substantiated by receipts. 4
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated February 28, 2019 and the Resolution dated September 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38112 as follows: petitioners Romel C. Biteng, Sr. and Romel S. Biteng, Jr. (petitioners) are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, petitioners are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, petitioners are ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Roderick Samulde, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P123,885.00 as actual damages, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this ruling until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance. (See Abella v. People, 719 Phil. 53, 66 [2013]).
2.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 370-371 (2017).
3. See Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018), citing Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554, 563 (2017).
4. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).