Castro v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244753. November 11, 2021.]

PSSUPT. NAPOLEON CASTRO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 244753 (PSSupt. Napoleon Castro v. People of the Philippines). — This treats the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 dated May 29, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated January 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38568. The challenged rulings affirmed the Decision 3 of Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City dated October 5, 2015 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-165152. The RTC found petitioner Police Senior Superintendent Napoleon Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide.

Factual Antecedents

In an Information dated July 20, 2010, Castro was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249, in relation to Article 6, of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the accusatory portion of the which reads:

That on or about the 14th day of February 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault, and employ personal violence upon the person of one ROBERTO HORMILLO, by then and there boxing him on the face which caused him to fall on the ground and after which kicked and hit him on the different parts of the body as well as on the head, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which are necessarily fatal and mortal, thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reasons or cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, that is, the timely medical attendance rendered to said ROBERTO HORMILLO, which saved his life, to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned, Castro refused to enter a plea. Hence, the RTC entered a plea of "not guilty" on his behalf. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. 5

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Roberto Hormillo (Hormillo), the victim; (2) Jobert Tumilap (Tumilap), the nephew of Hormillo's common-law wife; (3) Trinidad Magdales (Magdales), the common-law wife of Hormillo; (4) Joan Resurreccion; (5) Joel Crisostomo (Crisostomo); and (6) Dr. Albert D. Rebosa (Dr. Rebosa), attending physician and medico-legal expert. 6

Tumilap testified that on February 14, 2009, an altercation ensued between Hormillo and Castro. Although he was not able to hear what they were talking about, he was certain that he heard Castro say in a loud voice "Naliliitan ka ba sakin?" At that time, Castro was one of the tenants in a compound owned by Hormillo. According to Tumilap, Hormillo instructed Castro to park his car inside the compound because another tenant was complaining that he could not park his own vehicle as Castro's vehicle was parked in front of the building. When Tumilap stepped outside, he saw Castro standing, with his head down, while Hormillo was lying on the ground. Tumilap then went to Hormillo, after a worker from Agua Vida called him to bring towels and water because Hormillo was bleeding. After wiping Hormillo's shirt, Tumilap and the Agua Vida worker carried Hormillo inside the service vehicle and brought him to Delgado Hospital. According to Tumilap, he placed the towels on the head of Hormillo on their way to the hospital and upon arrival, all three towels were drenched in blood. 7

At the Delgado Hospital, Hormillo was brought to the emergency room but was later on transferred to St. Luke's Hospital because Delgado Hospital lacked the medical equipment needed to treat him. 8

On February 19, 2009, Tumilap met Castro. According to him, Castro asked if Hormillo had already died as he will send funeral flowers to the latter. 9

On cross-examination, Tumilap said that he was, more or less, seven meters away from Castro and Hormillo at the time of the altercation. He was inside his house but was able to peek outside through the window of his house. He also confirmed that he saw Hormillo leaning against a wall. When he brought Hormillo to the hospital, Hormillo was conscious and kept uttering "aray, aray, ang sakit" and upon arrival at the Delgado Hospital, a first aid treatment was administered upon Hormillo. On re-direct examination, Tumilap, once more, described the state in which he found Hormillo the latter's body leaning against the wall, with his feet laying on the ground. 10

Hormillo, the victim, testified that on February 14, 2009, one of the tenants of the building owned by him complained that there was no parking space because Castro's vehicle was parked in front of the building. This then prompted him to ask Edna Ferrer (Ferrer), the house helper of Castro, to request the latter to move and park his vehicle inside the compound. According to Hormillo, it was not the first time someone complained regarding such matter. 11

After Ferrer relayed the request of Hormillo to Castro, the latter parked his car inside the compound. Thereafter, Castro alighted from his car and uttered to Hormillo, "Putang ina mo pare. Gumagawa ka lang ng kwento," to which the latter replied, "Wala akong magagawa. Nagrereklamo ang third floor tenant." 12

Hormillo testified that when Castro attacked him, he turned his back and leaned against the wall with his hands thereon in a gesture of submission saying, "hindi ako papalag." Castro was then at his right side, near his shoulder and then started throwing uppercuts on his face. Hormillo received many blows on his mouth and Castro even hit his dentures. According to Hormillo, when he parried Castro's uppercut, the latter kicked his knees causing him to lose balance. Meanwhile, Castro continued to punch the right side of his head saying "wag mo ako mamaliitin, Bobby." Hormillo felt blood flowing from his head and the next thing he remembered was that he was in the hospital. 13

Hormillo specifically narrated that Castro was wearing a bull ring when the latter punched him on the head. According to him, the bull ring caused a hole in his scalp which had to be operated on. Due to the seizures he suffered, he underwent a Computed Tomography scan and a surgery, where a portion of his skull was removed because of a blood clot. The portion removed was then replaced by a fiberglass material, which the doctors implanted during his second surgery in order to cover the skull and prevent the brain from spilling out. This condition took him four months to heal. 14

Hormillo added that after the incident, he could not sleep and eat. Also, he could no longer do the activities that he used to do. He said that at the time of the beating, he did not see anyone. Neither did he retaliate. 15

Hormillo continued that he was hospitalized for almost two months and the medical expenses amounted to, more or less, P1.7 Million. In addition to the said expenses, he was instructed to take medicine for maintenance. He claimed that he could not bend his head beyond the level of his waist and further stated "hindi ako puwede sipunin or ubo x x x Kasi pag bumabahing ako, nagkacrack dito sa fiberglass or everytime na may mabigat na ubo, parang humihiwalay sa fiberglass, sa butas x x x." 16

For her part, Magdales testified that she was the common-law wife of Hormillo. According to her, Hormillo was operated on because his head continuously bled and he kept on vomiting. He stayed at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of St. Luke's Hospital for almost two weeks and that the hospital expenses amounted to, more or less, P1.7 Million, as reflected on the receipts and Statements of Account from the hospital. 17

Meanwhile, Dr. Rebosa's testimony established that he was the person who examined Hormillo's injuries when the latter was brought to St. Luke's Hospital. According to him, the injuries that Hormillo sustained were serious in nature and that he could have died had it not been for the timely medical attention given to him. On cross-examination, it was established that Hormillo underwent two CT scans. The first was taken prior to the operation, while the second was done after the operation. On the second scan, Dr. Rebosa found that the bleeding had lessened or regressed due to the medications given to Hormillo. Upon further examination, he found no wounds on Hormillo's mouth or chin. He also did not notice any puncture wound on Hormillo's head and there was no abrasion on hematoma on the knees. 18

Dr. Rebosa further confirmed that Hormillo was conscious and coherent when he was admitted in the hospital. He, however, clarified that it is not the laceration itself that will cause death but the effect of the laceration on Hormillo's brain. 19

The defense presented Bien Rodolfo Yutuc (Yutuc) and Castro as witnesses.

Yutuc testified that he had known Hormillo for 30 years. He described Hormillo as "mayaman, mayabang, mapang-api o bully, maangas at matapang bilang kapitbahay." According to him, on the day of the incident, he heard Hormillo shouting "putang ina mo" at someone but was not able to see who the latter was shouting at. Thereafter, he saw Hormillo and Castro engage in a heated argument. According to him, Castro defended himself by kicking and punching Hormillo. He saw Hormillo hit his face on the wall when the latter lost his balance after missing a blow intended for Castro. Moments later, he saw Castro running towards Agua Vida and asking for help to bring Hormillo to the hospital. 20

On cross-examination, it was established that Yutuc did not see Castro's face at the time of the incident. He was not able to see if Castro was indeed punched by Hormillo. In his own words, he explained that Hormillo was huge and that the latter's frame covered his view of Castro. 21

Castro, for his part, testified that on the day of the incident, his helper came crying and told him that Hormillo cursed at her and instructed her to tell Castro to move the vehicle. He then went outside but before he could get into his car, Hormillo confronted him and said, "putang ina yung kotse mo nasa labas. Hindi ka naman dapat doon." He then tried to reason out but Hormillo continued, saying "gago ka x x x gusto kong kalaban yung malalaking tao x x x Batukan kita dyan,"to which he replied "naliliitan ka ba sa kin?" 22

Castro claims that it was Hormillo who confronted and badmouthed him, and the one who delivered the first blow. According to him, he fought back when Hormillo hit him. They wrestled and when Hormillo hugged him, he delivered a head butt and hit Hormillo on the face. Hormillo again punched him about three or four more times but missed on his last blow. Outbalanced, Hormillo fell to him and then to the ground. 23 When he saw that Hormillo's head was bleeding, he took a "sinampay" and pressed the cloth on Hormillo's head. He then called "Buboy" and his helper, and instructed them to bring Hormillo to the hospital. He also went to the hospital to have his injuries examined. 24

On cross-examination, Castro testified that as a police officer, he was trained on self-defense or combat training. He, however, testified that he was not able to use his training because the blows of Hormillo were not hard. It was also established that he hit Hormillo on the face, the stomach and later kicked him, causing the latter to fall down. On re-direct examination, Castro demonstrated how he was allegedly attacked and how he head-butted Hormillo. 25

In its Decision 26 dated October 5, 2015, the RTC rendered a judgment of conviction finding Castro guilty of frustrated homicide. According to the RTC, Castro exceeded the limits of necessity to suppress an alleged attack, and the location of the wounds sustained by Hormillo belied his claim of self-defense. 27 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused PSSUPT. Napoleon Castro GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate prison term ranging from six (6) month[s] and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay private complainant Robert Hormillo the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Four Thousand Twenty Two Pesos and 95/100 (P1,704,022.95) as actual damages.

SO ORDERED. 28

Undeterred, Castro filed an appeal. According to him, the RTC erred in convicting him, as intent to kill was not duly established, and the fatality of the wound he allegedly inflicted was not proven.

In its Decision dated May 29, 2018, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC albeit with slight modification in that moral damages and civil indemnity ex delicto were also awarded. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated 5 October 2015 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-165152 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1.) Accused-Appellant Police Senior Superintendent Napoleon Castro is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, up to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

2.) Accused-Appellant Castro is ORDERED to pay Roberto Hormillo the amount of P1,704,022.95 as actual damages, P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto.

3.) All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.29

Castro filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution 30 dated January 23, 2019. Undaunted, Castro filed the instant petition.

The Issue

The main issue raised for the Court's resolution rests on whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of Castro for frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

Petitioner firmly maintains that the CA erred in failing to exonerate him despite the following:

1. Intent to kill was not established; 31

2. The fatality of the wound alleged to have been inflicted by him was not proven; 32

3. The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution contradicted Hormillo's testimony in its material points. 33

On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish that there was intent to kill Hormillo, and that the latter sustained fatal wounds from the beatings he received. Had it not been for the timely medical intervention, Hormillo would have died. 34 Thus, the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

The petition is bereft of merit.

It must be noted at the outset that in criminal cases, the factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will evaluate the factual findings of the court below. 35 Guided by this principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA.

In the case of People v. Aquino, 36 this Court discussed the importance of determining the fatality of the wound suffered by the victim, thus:

The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in the assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. If the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted homicide. Thus, the prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth and severity of the victim's wounds. 37

Fatality of the wound.

In frustrated homicide, intent to kill is an indispensable element. Being a state of mind, it is discerned by the courts only through external manifestations, such as the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. 38 There can be no crime of attempted or frustrated homicide through imprudence. The element of intent to kill in attempted or frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence. 39

In De Guzman, Jr. v. People, 40 the Court enumerated the factors that determine the presence of intent to kill, to wit:

(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 of the victim; and

(4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. 41

Here, petitioner maintains that the wound he inflicted upon Hormillo was not fatal as it was merely a lacerated wound and not a punctured one. According to him, the bleeding or hemorrhaging in Hormillo's brain was not due to the injury the latter sustained, but because of aspirin pills taken to treat hypertension. Petitioner also pointed out that since Hormillo was conscious when he was brought to the hospital, the wound he sustained could not have been fatal.

We disagree.

Intent to kill was clearly established by the nature, severity and location of the wound sustained by Hormillo. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the evidence proffered by the prosecution clearly and convincingly proved that the proximate cause of the hemorrhage or bleeding in Hormillo's brain was the lacerated wound that he sustained as a result of the repeated punches from petitioner. Had it not been for the repeated blows on his head, there would not be a lacerated wound that could lead to a hemorrhage. This is the proximate cause to Hormillo's injury. In Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez42 was defined as follows:

Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events x x x. 43

Petitioner's argument that the hemorrhage was due to the aspirin pills taken by Hormillo is, at best, a mere presumption that can be disproved by evidence to the contrary, i.e., categorical findings of the attending physician. In fact, this was ruled out by Dr. Rebosa when he testified that upon examination of Hormillo's medical records, he did not find any proof that the latter took aspirin prior to the surgery. The second CT-scan merely noted the medical history of Hormillo, but did not point to the pills or hypertension as the direct cause of hemorrhage in the brain.

As an expert witness and being the physician who directly examined Hormillo, the testimony of Dr. Rebosa regarding the extent and severity of his head injury carries significant weight. To stress, Dr. Rebosa attested repeatedly that the injury was fatal and would have ended the life of Hormillo had it not been for the surgery and other medical procedures performed on him.

The injury sustained was undoubtedly severe as Hormillo was hospitalized for two months; required to undergo two head surgeries; and instructed to take medicine for maintenance. The fact that a portion of his brain was removed and replaced by a fiberglass and that he later testified to having experienced difficulty in doing some of the things which used to be normal and painless to him, i.e., bending forward and coughing, means that the injury he sustained was not only fatal but may also result in significant long-term burden.

As correctly explained by the CA, even if the prosecution was not able to conclusively prove that Hormillo sustained other injuries, the location and severity of the head injury alone is more than sufficient to establish that Castro intended to kill Hormillo. 44 Multiple wounds, albeit regarded as an indicia, are not automatically construed as fatal. A person may sustain several minor injuries and not necessarily die. In the same vein, multiple blows to the head without penetration, as in this case, may result in blunt force head trauma (tear blood vessels or cause the brain to swell) and eventually lead to death if not treated immediately.

Minor inconsistencies do

Petitioner maintains that since none of the witnesses actually saw the altercation and exchange of blows, there was no direct proof of his culpability. He also points to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis his and Yutuc's testimony.

We disagree.

As this Court consistently held, inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. Such inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken credibility. 45 In fact, in some cases, it even signifies that the witness was neither coached nor was lying on the witness stand. 46 On the other hand, self-contradictions and inconsistencies on a very material and substantial matter seriously erode the credibility of a witness. 47

Here, the inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner refer only to collateral or trivial matters that have no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. The testimony of Hormillo was substantially corroborated in its material points by disinterested and credible, witnesses. Inconsistency with regard to a few minute details did not materially affect the probative weight of their testimonies which remain credible, consistent and positive insofar as the identification of petitioner as the assailant is concerned. As correctly observed by the CA, although the witnesses were not able to see the exchange of blows between petitioner and Hormillo, their testimonies corroborate the surrounding circumstances that occurred prior to, during and after the attack, viz.:

While none of the witnesses saw the exchange of the fistblows between Castro and Hormillo, their testimonies corroborate the surrounding circumstances that occurred prior to, during and after the alleged attack. In fact, their testimonies established the fact that an altercation ensued between Hormillo and Castro; raised voices were heard; Hormillo was seen sitting, leaning on the wall while Castro was standing beside him; Hormillo was bloodied on his head; and, Hormillo was brought to the hospital. Even Castro's own witness Yutuc confirmed that there was an altercation and an exchange of blows between the two.

If there are inconsistencies in their testimonies, the same are not considered material as to completely take away their credibility. 48

On the other hand, the testimonies of the defense witnesses ought to be taken with a grain of salt as it contains contradictions on material points. First, Yutuc initially claimed that he did not see who the opponent of Hormillo was on account of the latter's huge frame which allegedly covered his opponent. However, on cross-examination, Yutuc was able to describe exactly what petitioner was wearing at the time of the incident. 49Second, Yutuc testified that he saw Hormillo throwing repeated punches at petitioner, but later on admitted that he had no clear view of petitioner and only saw the latter when Hormillo lost his balance. Yutuc's testimony also contradicted those provided in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that clearly stated that he saw Hormillo hit petitioner once and the latter retaliated, going as far as kicking Hormillo. What is more, Yutuc's description of Castro's combat skills cast serious doubt on the veracity of his story that Hormillo was the aggressor: "magaling ito sumuntok at manipa kaya madaming tama si Bobby (Hormillo) sa mukha at katawan." 50

Petitioner's narration of the incident also fails to convince. On direct examination, petitioner testified that Hormillo punched him first, later missed and lost his balance, fell on him, and then on the ground. 51 During cross-examination, it was established that he hit Hormillo in the face, in the stomach and kicked him, causing the latter to eventually fall down. 52 Meanwhile, petitioner posits that Hormillo injured himself when the latter tried to punch him but missed, and instead hit his head on the wall. 53 Petitioner also maintains that the hemorrhage was caused by the aspirin pills taken by Hormillo to treat hypertension. aScITE

Clearly, petitioner is grasping at straws to evade liability. First, it is undisputed that petitioner and Hormillo had a verbal disagreement, which led to a fist fight. A closer scrutiny of the records, however, shows that Hormillo's consistent testimony as to how he sustained the head injury appears to be more plausible as compared to the self-serving and incredible version narrated by petitioner. As correctly pointed out by the CA, it is illogical to presume that a person of sound mind would purposely hit his head against a wall to the extent of permanently damaging a portion of his brain or risk killing himself just to concoct a story. Second, petitioner's testimony on direct examination that Hormillo lost his balance and fell on him prior to hitting the ground clearly contradicts his present claim that Hormillo lost his balance and hit his head on the wall. Third, petitioner's insistence that the aspirin pills caused the hemorrhage is in sharp contrast to the categorical finding of Dr. Rebosa that the hemorrhage or bleeding in Hormillo's brain was caused by the repeated blows he sustained on the head. Since the issue had already been addressed by the attending physician himself, a repeated assertion of the same, without more, deserves scant or no consideration at all.

It is jurisprudentially settled that when the credibility of the eyewitness is at issue, due deference and respect shall be given to the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, its assessment of the probative weight thereof, and its conclusions anchored on said findings, absent any showing that it had overlooked circumstances that would have affected the final outcome of the case. 54 This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct and attitude of witnesses under grueling examination. 55 These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceeding, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. 56

Petitioner's stance that the injury sustained by Hormillo was not the proximate cause of the brain hemorrhage is belied by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of Dr. Rebosa. Moreover, the verbal altercation that ensued prior to the fist fight and the injury sustained by Castro in comparison to the severity of the injury sustained by Hormillo, are sharply at odds with the claim that the latter was the aggressor.

Even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that Hormillo delivered the first blow and petitioner merely acted in self-defense, the requisites thereof must still be established by clear and convincing evidence. To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. 57 The most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression. Without this, a claim of self-defense would have no leg to stand on as there would be nothing to repel or prevent. Apropos is the Court's ruling in People v. Nugas, 58 which aptly described unlawful aggression as follows:

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. 59

Here, petitioner failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Hormillo. Although at first glance, it appears that both of them are equally at fault for participating in mutual combat, it remains undisputed that the altercation began when Hormillo requested petitioner to move his car as other tenants were complaining that it was causing an obstruction. From a logical standpoint, there is nothing unusual about this request and the same would have been harmless if not met with a negative response. As owner of the building, Hormillo had no ill intention when he requested Castro to move his car. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered as provocation or unlawful aggression. Moreover, Castro himself testified that although he was trained in self-defense, he need not use his training because the blows of Hormillo were not hard.

The second element of self-defense is also lacking. As a police officer trained in combat or self-defense, petitioner's repeated and deliberate blows on Hormillo's head were clearly not commensurate with the force of Hormillo's punches which he himself described as "not hard." Lastly, Castro failed to prove that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. On the contrary, the prosecution established that he deliberately provoked Hormillo when he cursed at the latter after he was asked to move his car.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which consistently and positively identified petitioner as the assailant is far stronger than the latter's denial, which remains unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Time and again, the Court has stressed that denial, without more, is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive testimony. Indeed, the probative value of petitioner's testimony has been greatly diminished by the weight of the evidence on record. Moreover, his failure to prove the elements of self-defense despite admission that he used force and inflicted physical harm upon Hormillo, cast serious doubt on his innocence and point to the inescapable conclusion that he is guilty of the crime charged.

The State, having sufficiently shown that petitioner performed all the acts of execution, which ought to produce the felony of homicide as a consequence, but did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, i.e., the timely medical attention accorded to Hormillo, no cogent reason exists to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA. Petitioner was properly found guilty of frustrated homicide. Anent the penalty imposed, We affirm the modification made by the CA as it correctly followed the scale of penalties provided in the RPC, in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 60 Further, in line with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta61 and People v. Tulagan, 62 We affirm the CA's award of civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages in addition to actual damages previously awarded.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2018 and Resolution dated January 23, 2019 both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38568 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Petitioner PSSUPT. NAPOLEON CASTRO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, up to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Petitioner is also ordered to pay Roberto Hormillo the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Four Thousand Twenty Two Pesos and 95/100 (P1,704,022.95) as actual damages, Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) civil indemnity ex delicto. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon (ret.) and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 68-88.

2.Id. at 9-12.

3.Id. at 159-162.

4.Id. at 159.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 69.

7.Id. at 69-70.

8.Id. at 70.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 71.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 72.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 73.

18.Id. at 73-74.

19.Id. at 74.

20.Id. at 74-75.

21.Id. at 75.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 160-161.

24.Id. at 76.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 159-162.

27.Id. at 162.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 87.

30.Supra note 2.

31.Rollo, p. 38.

32.Id. at 41.

33.Id. at 54.

34.Id. at 327.

35.People v. Palma, 754 Phil. 371, 377 (2015).

36. 829 Phil. 477 (2018).

37.Id. at 488 citing Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 337 (2010) and Colinares v. People, 678 Phil. 482, 494 (2011).

38.De Guzman, Jr. v. People, 748 Phil. 452, 458-459 (2014).

39.People v. Castillo, 76 Phil. 72, 81 (1946).

40. 748 Phil. 452 (2014).

41.De Guzman, Jr. v. People, supra note 38 at 458.

42. 736 Phil. 460 (2014).

43.Id. at 475.

44.Rollo, pp. 80-81.

45.People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 215 (2017) citing People v. Alfon, 447 Phil. 138, 147 (2003).

46.People v. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192, 206 (2012).

47.People v. Amon, 218 Phil. 355, 361 (1984).

48.Rollo, p. 81.

49.Id. at 82.

50.Id. at 83.

51.Id. at 75. (taken from TSN, Witness: Napoleon Castro, 12 November 2014, pp. 896-899).

52.Id. at 76. (taken from TSN, Witness: Napoleon Castro, 12 November 2014, pp. 918-920).

53.Id. at 59.

54.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 370-371 (2017); People v. Angelia, 683 Phil. 99, 104 (2012).

55.People v. Dayaday, supra note 12; People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 231 (2013), citing People v. Maxion, 413 Phil. 740, 747 (2001).

56.People v. Diu, supra note 13, citing People v. Maxion, supra note 13.

57.Belbis v. People, 698 Phil. 706, 719-720 (2012).

58. 677 Phil. 168 (2011).

59.Id. at 177.

60. Act No. 4103, as Amended — An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; to Create a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes.

61. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide x x x

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:

a. Frustrated:

i. Civil indemnity — P30,000.00

ii. Moral damages — P30,000.00

62. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.