THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222161. April 11, 2016.]
JONAS CUYUGAN Y MALINAO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 11, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222161 (Jonas Cuyugan y Malinao v. People of the Philippines) — This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36151 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City's conviction of petitioner Jonas Cuyugan y Malinao for the crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. C-75727. The lower court disposed of the case, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Jonas Cuyugan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Homicide, the court hereby sentences him to an imprisonment of Six (6) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to Fourteen (14) years and Ten (10) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is likewise directed to pay the heirs of the victim, as follows:
1. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as civil indemnity;
2. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as moral damages;
3. Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), as exemplary damages; and
4. Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), as temperate damages for loss of earning capacity.
Accused Allan Cuyugan and Arvie Mariano are hereby acquitted and the case against them dismissed, their guilt not having been established beyond reasonable doubt. 2
Petitioner, along with Allan Cuyugan, Arvie Mariano and several John Does, were charged in the following Information:
That on or about the 11th day of September 2005 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one FERDIE MARK R. TINAWIN, thereby inflicting upon the said victim serious physical injuries, which injuries cause his death. 3
At the arraignment, all named accused pleaded not guilty.
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Allan Tinawin y Reyes, Police Chief Inspector Bonnie Yap Chua, Rudy A. Pineda (Pineda), and Dionisio Tinawin which painted a picture of a gun-toting petitioner, who appeared to be inebriated and looking for trouble, in a group of men with the other two accused and unnamed persons, and intimidating people they came across.
Witness Allan Tinawin is the brother of the victim Ferdie Mark who was with the latter when they encountered the group of petitioner and when Ferdie Mark got shot. Witness Pineda, on the other hand, likewise got shot in the incident, before the shooting and eventual death of the victim.
The appellate court summarized the testimonies of the two, thus:
Allan Tinawin acEHCD
1) On September 11, 2005, approximately 1:45 am, he was at the Tambakan in Maypajo, Caloocan City, together with his brother Ferdie Mark Tinawin, Rudy Pineda, and Lawrence Caluag. Later that day, they were walking past the Tambakan on their way home when somebody shouted at them "Hoy!". It was [petitioner], who was then in the company of a group of people. The group approached them. He and the victim got afraid and ran away. Their 2 companions also left. He was afraid because [petitioner's] group was big, and the place was notorious for trouble. [Petitioner] fired his short firearm 4 to 5 times.
2) He saw his 2 companions na "paika-ika yung isa nakatakip sa mukha". They were apparently hit. He saw [petitioner] aiming the gun in their direction. When [petitioner] shot at them, he was 20 meters away while his 2 companions were 15 meters away. Rudy Pineda covered his face with his hands.
3) He and the victim were running together at the time of the shooting. They got separated when they reached the corner of San Mateo Street. Allan Cuyugan and Arvie Mariano, who were both riding a motorcycle, chased them and blocked the victim. Meanwhile, he hid inside a jeepney. While the victim was walking straight forward, [petitioner], about 4 meters behind, fired his gun and hit the victim in the head. Thereafter, [petitioner] and his co-accused left his brother lying on the ground.
4) He asked for help from the bystanders. He boarded the victim in a pedicab and brought him to the Martinez Hospital, which however, declined to admit the victim. He called his uncle and they took the victim to the Jose Reyes Hospital. His brother had died by then. He did not know the other persons who assisted him because they only came out after the incident.
Rudy Pineda
a) On the day and time of the incident, he was at home with his friends, Lawrence Caluag and Johnny Balbarino. They were having a "happening." The victim arrived late.
b) It was [petitioner] who shot the victim. [Petitioner] was with a lot of people, including accused Allan Cuyugan and Arvie Mariano. He was just an arm's length away from the victim when the latter was shot. [Petitioner] shot at him first before shooting the victim. He was hit on the face, after which, he saved himself. He saw [petitioner] and the 2 other accused for the first time that night. EcTCAD
c) He was in the company of his guests going around their place, when a confrontation happened. They were "napagtripan". They turned their back and a shot was fired. The hair on his body stood when Lawrence Caluag, one of his companions, got hit. He wanted to rush Lawrence Caluag to the hospital but it did not happen because they both just ran away. When he and his companions were on San Mateo Street, he knelt down and, thereupon, he also got shot.
d) [Petitioner] and his co-accused had a small scooter. After he (Pineda) got shot, he saw the victim fall down. The victim died at the Jose Reyes Hospital. 4
The other witnesses: (1) Dionisio Tinawin, the victim's father, testified on the personal circumstances of the victim such as his age and work income, the funeral expenses and the emotional suffering of the members of their family such that the victim's uncle even suffered a stroke; and (2) Police Chief Inspector Bonnie Yap-Chua, Medico-Legal Officer at the PNP Crime Laboratory, Medico-Legal Division, National Headquarters, Camp Crame, Quezon City, testified on the Medico-Legal Report No. M-3388-05 he prepared on the injuries sustained by, and cause of death of, the victim: Gunshot wound to the head.
For his defense, petitioner presented his own version of the events and the testimonies of the other accused, his brother Allan Cuyugan, and cousin Arvie Mariano. The other accused claimed that it was Pineda's group which started the fight between petitioner's group and the former, disliking petitioner and finding him arrogant while riding his scooter around Pineda's neighborhood. The two accused narrated that a fight indeed broke out between the two groups with the barangay officials unsuccessfully pacifying them.
The appellate court summarized the testimony of petitioner Jonas, to wit:
a) On September 11, 2005, around 1 am, he was sleeping in the house of his in-laws at 222 Pateros St., Maypajo, Caloocan City. A barangay tanod awakened him because his brother and cousin were reportedly involved in a commotion. He went to the scene. There, he saw 2 groups stoning each other. He pulled out his gun to fire a warning shot. The gun suddenly fired and he later found out that it hit Lawrence Caluag.
b) After the gun accidentally fired, he inquired from the barangay tanod about the case of the commotion. They talked in front of the barangay hall. He was told that the barangay tanods were roving when the incident happened. He was told that Allan Cuyugan and Arvie Mariano were not involved, and because of that, he got mad. Afterwards, he went home. He later learned that Lawrence Caluag got hit by the gun he accidentally fired.
c) On his way home, he met Lawrence Caluag, Rudy Pineda, and another person. They came from an alley on Pateros Extension. Rudy Pineda suddenly pulled out a knife. Seeing this, he, too, pulled out a gun and shot Rudy Pineda, who fell to the ground. He then ran back to his home. 5
As previously stated: (1) the RTC convicted just petitioner of Homicide and acquitted the other two accused; and (2) on appeal, the appellate court affirmed his conviction and payment of civil indemnity, moral, exemplary and temperate damages.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of petitioner Jonas insisting on his innocence and the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt in the shooting and death of the victim.
Specifically, petitioner asseverates that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the RTC decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide despite the prosecution's failure to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the crime.
We do not find reversible error in the ruling of the appellate court. The totality of the prosecution's evidence and the testimony of the witnesses establish beyond reasonable doubt petitioner's presence during the incident and his culpability for the shooting of the victim.
We accord utmost respect to the factual findings of the lower court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court and have consistently ruled that such findings are final and conclusive upon us unless such are not supported by the evidence on record. 6 HSAcaE
In this case, the evidence on record, from both the prosecution and defense, show that petitioner was present at the time of the incident, petitioner fired his gun and there was a commotion between petitioner's group and that of the victim with Pineda. Petitioner's bare denial that he shot the victim and he was informed that the stray bullet from his firing of his gun hit Lawrence Caluag cannot overcome the direct, categorical and straightforward testimony of both Allan Tinawin and Pineda that petitioner shot the victim, Ferdie Mark. 7 We also note petitioner's admission, as ruled by both lower courts, that he also fired at and shot Pineda when the latter allegedly pulled out a knife on him.
We quote with favor the appellate court's disquisition on the testimonies of Allan Tinawin and Pineda that petitioner shot the victim:
Further, Allan Tinawin and Rudy Pineda were not shown to have been motivated by any ill motive to falsely testify against [petitioner Jonas]. In fact, [petitioner Jonas] even pointed out that Allan Tinawin did not know or barely knew him when the incident happened.
It is settled that where the defense fails to prove that witnesses are moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimonies are therefore entitled to full weight and credit. This is especially true when the eyewitness is a relative of the victim. Here, Allan Tinawin is the victim's brother. Surely, the natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits. 8
Thus, we affirm the penalty imposed by the RTC on petitioner Jonas of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
While we affirm the lower courts' awards of civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages in the amounts of P50,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, we reduce the award of temperate damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00.
Temperate damages have been awarded in instances when the damage and pecuniary loss suffered is established but, from the nature of the case, cannot be proved with certainty. 9 It is more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. 10
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36151 and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City in Criminal Case No. C-75727 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION reducing the award of temperate damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. Interest on all monetary awards is imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. J. Peralta, on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 32-51; Penned by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
2. Id. at 75-76.
3. Id. at 68.
4. Id. at 34-37.
5. Id. at 41.
6. Pascual v. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, 11 January 2016.
7. People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529 (2012).
8. Rollo, p. 48.
9. People of the Philippines v. Bernardo, 710 Phil. 110 (2013) and Civil Code, Article 2224.
10. Id. at 122.