ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240090. August 8, 2018.]
ARNEL BUENAFLOR y REYES AND FREDERICK SALES y MARQUEZ, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240090 — Arnel Buenaflor y Reyes and Frederick Sales y Marquez vs. People of the Philippines.
This Court has carefully reviewed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and notes that there was no proof of authority for the affiant, petitioners' alleged counsel, to cause the preparation of the petition and to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping for and on behalf of petitioners. "A certification which has been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition" as stressed in the case of Anderson vs. Ho. 1 The petition also shows that, in the affidavit of service, affiant did not indicate what competent evidence of identity he presented before the notary public, Atty. Pedro D. Genato. DcHSEa
Under Section 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the failure of the petitioners to comply with any of the requirements set forth in Section 4 shall be a sufficient ground for the denial of the petition.
At any rate, even if such procedural infirmities were to be disregarded, the petition will still fail. We have thoroughly reviewed the allegations, issues and arguments advanced by the petitioners and we resolve to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 08206 committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the February 26, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123 in Criminal Case No. C-85626 finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (a) that a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (d) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 2
In the case at bench, it was established through the candid, categorical and credible eyewitness account of Arlene Dagsa that her husband Reynaldo Dagsa was killed and that it was petitioners in conspiracy who killed him.
The CA likewise properly appreciated the attending circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. As correctly pointed out by the CA, "x x x, based on Arlene Dagsa's account, it was established that Reynaldo Dagsa was treacherously shot while he was totally oblivious of his impending doom. He was unaware of the imminent peril to his life and was rendered incapable of defending himself. From the suddenness of the attack upon him and the manner it was committed, there is no doubt that treachery attended his killing." 3
With respect to the attending circumstance of evident premeditation, the CA further added that "there can be no serious argument that Buenaflor was determined to commit a crime. He himself admitted that he had long wanted to kill Reynaldo Dagsa. Undeniably, there was a sufficient amount of time for him to contemplate on his action and reflect upon its consequences. Considering the manner of the execution of the crime, [petitioners'] commission thereof was clearly not a product of accident; it was evidently a premeditated one." 4 SaCIDT
Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder qualified by treachery, and with another aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, is death, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2 of the RPC. However, with the proscription on the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua meted on petitioners by the RTC and as affirmed by the CA was correctly imposed, but without eligibility for parole.
With respect to the award of damages, while the Court sustains the grant of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each in line with prevailing jurisprudence, 5 the Court finds it necessary to award temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages. It cannot be denied that the bereaved family must have disbursed their resources due to the wrongful acts of petitioners although the amounts thereof were not proved as nobody testified on the amount spent for the hospitalization, wake and burial of the deceased.
ACCORDINGLY, the November 10, 2017 Decision and the June 7, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 08206 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that petitioners are not eligible for parole and further ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and in addition, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. SCaITA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 701 Phil. 6, 15 (2013).
2.Ramos vs. People, 815 SCRA 226, 233 (2017).
3.Rollo, p. 82.
4.Id.
5.People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806.