THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194136. September 13, 2017.]
ROMEO DATU, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 13, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 194136 (ROMEO DATU, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.) — The petitioner seeks to reverse the decision promulgated on July 28, 2010, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction as a principal by inducement or the mastermind in the crime of murder prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 2781 under the decision rendered on November 7, 2007 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, in Ilagan, Isabela, which meted him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and directed him to pay the heirs of the late Antonio Chan the amounts of P7,500,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. 2
Antecedents
The RTC initially tried Criminal Case No. 2781, and pronounced the petitioner and his co-accused Rolando Batuelo guilty of murder as charged through the judgment of November 18, 1998. After the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration on December 22, 1998, they filed a motion for new trial/mistrial on the ground that one of the witnesses for the Prosecution, Sgt. Flordelito R. Sabuyas, who had falsely incriminated him then, had meanwhile executed an affidavit on December 11, 1998 retracting his adverse testimony, and instead incriminating Susan Chan, widow of the victim, and Domingo Madayag (who had been discharged as an accused to serve as a state witness). The State opposed the motion, and the RTC denied the motion on January 8, 1999. On January 11, 1999, they filed a supplemental motion for new trial, to which they attached the affidavit of one Roosevelt Salvador to the effect that Madayag had lied under oath and had been physically manhandled to force him to testify for the State. Yet again, the RTC denied the supplemental motion on January 18, 1999 on the ground that the elevation of the case records to this Court for automatic review of the convictions had rendered the motion moot and academic.
On February 19, 2003, the Court, acting on the automatic review of the conviction, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings, 3viz.:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision by the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 2781, is VACATED and the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings. Both the accused Romeo Datu and Rolando Batuelo (herein appellants) should be allowed to present newly discovered evidence in their defense and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced and taken for consideration together with the evidence already in the records. Further, to obviate any delay in the dispensation of justice, the Presiding Judge of Branch 16 of the RTC, Ilagan, Isabela, is hereby directed to report the result thereof and his judgment therein to this Court within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 4
Upon remand, the RTC conducted further proceedings as directed by the Court by receiving additional testimony from witnesses of the Defense.
At this juncture, let us render the factual and procedural antecedents prior to the remand. For this purpose, we draw from the narration contained in the decision of the Court promulgated on February 19, 2003, to wit:
On September 30, 1997, appellants Datu, Batuelo and several Does were charged with murder allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of April, 1997, in the municipality of Burgos, province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused ROMEO DATU and ROLANDO BATUELO together with JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, RICHARD DOE, ALLAN DOE, and RICKY DOE, whose identities are still to be determined, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and use a teargas (sic) upon the person of Antonio Chan, rendering him unconscious, after which tie a rope on his neck and hang him to a balluster (sic), inflicting upon him confluent hematoma entire circumference of the neck with rope marks and blood streak on the abdominal area which directly caused his death due to cardiorespiratory arrest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On October 13, 1997, appellants Datu and Batuelo were arraigned and with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The same day, the trial court directed the prosecution to amend the information to include one Domingo Madayag as an accused, in view of his extrajudicial confession admitting participation in the crime.
On November 20, 1997, the prosecution filed an amended information, naming Domingo Madayag as one of the accused.
On December 4, 1997, Madayag was arraigned with the assistance of counsel de oficio. Due to his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court directed that a plea of not guilty be entered for him.
Trial on the merits then ensued for all the accused, in the course of which, Madayag moved for discharge as a state witness. Madayag's testimony was taken before the lower court granted his motion to discharge as a state witness on January 28, 1998.
The documentary and testimonial evidence for the prosecution showed that:
The family of appellant Romeo Datu is engaged in the business of selling hardware and construction materials in Aurora, Isabela. Appellant's father, Ignacio Datu owned the business but his children, including appellant, managed this by turns. The victim, Antonio Chan, was a compadre of Ignacio and likewise operated the same line of business in Burgos, Isabela. Through appellant Datu, as registered owner, the Datu family sold an Isuzu dump truck to the victim for P480,000.00, with the latter issuing four (4) postdated checks in payment. Three (3) of said checks were subsequently encashed, but the victim stopped payment on the fourth check amounting to P100,000.00. This was to accommodate the victim's friend, Amadeo Yap, a dealer in sawn lumber from San Mariano, Isabela, for unpaid lumber, which Yap allegedly sold and delivered to the Datus. aScITE
Early in the afternoon of April 4, 1997, appellant Datu went to the victim's store to confront him about the dishonored check. Appellant Datu was in a foul mood and refused to entertain the victim's explanation. Datu then uttered angrily that Chan would pay a high price for what he did. Datu then boarded his motorcycle, all the while hurling threats against Chan's employees.
Late in the afternoon of April 5, 1997, appellant Datu approached one of his workers, state witness Madayag and told him that he had a problem, as somebody in Burgos, Isabela had fooled him and he needed Madayag's help. Madayag agreed to help Datu anyway he could. Thereupon, Datu told Madayag that he would be informed when he was needed.
On April 4, 1997, appellant Batuelo applied with the victim as a truck driver. He was immediately accepted and was allowed to stay in the Chan's compound as a stay-in employee.
On April 8, 1997, appellant Datu again approached Madayag and told him that he wanted somebody killed in Burgos, Isabela. Datu revealed that Madayag would have five or six companions and that he already sent one of his workers to apply as a driver of the intended victim. Datu told Madayag that said employee was "Enteng" whom Madayag later knew to be appellant Batuelo. Datu promised to pay Madayag P10,000.00 for his participation in the killing.
On April 14, 1997, appellant Batuelo asked for a partial salary advance and left Chan's place on the excuse that he would be attending the ninth day prayer rites for a departed relative.
At around past ten o'clock in the evening of April 16, 1997, appellant Datu approached Madayag who was resting in the bunkhouse inside the Datu family compound. Appellant Datu told Madayag to be ready because his companions had arrived and they were going to Burgos, Isabela. Datu instructed Madayag to join appellant Batuelo who would lead the group and unfold the plan on their way to Burgos. Madayag, along with five other persons, then boarded a white Mitsubishi L-300 van parked near the gate of the Datu compound. He sat at the back of the van and as the group left for Burgos, he heard appellant Datu tell Batuelo, "Malinis lang, Enteng." (Keep it clean, Enteng.)
Batuelo, Madayag, and their four companions arrived at Burgos at almost one o'clock in the morning of April 17, 1997. They alighted from the van and walked through a rice field to the house of the victim with Batuelo leading the way. Upon reaching the victim's house, they scattered on Batuelo's order and found hiding places behind the piles of hollow blocks in the Chan compound. They then settled down to wait. Batuelo told them that the victim was an early riser and would be the person to open the backdoor of the house.
The group waited for about an hour until the victim came out of his house. Madayag then rushed to the victim and tried to grab him. The latter, however, saw Madayag and was able to grab a piece of wood. He struck Madayag with the piece of wood, hitting him on the left side of the forehead, causing a bleeding wound. Batuelo and the others then joined Madayag and managed to take hold of their victim. Batuelo then sprayed tear gas directly on the victim's face. The latter continued to resist but was finally subdued and thrown to the ground. One of the assistants then strangled him, while another tried to twist his head. Another assailant went inside the house to get rope, tied it around the victim's neck, then they carried him inside the house and hung one end of the rope from a railing above the basement of the house. Thereafter, Batuelo took hold of the victim's body and forcibly pulled it down. Batuelo then ripped off the victim's shirt, which was bloody and soiled, and pocketed it.
Meanwhile the victim's wife, Susan Chan, was awakened by the sound of a "thud" coming from their hardware store. She ignored it and tried to sleep again but was unable to. She then stood up and went to their store where she noticed that a rope rack had fallen on the floor. She righted the rope rack and proceeded to the stairs where she saw four persons, one of whom she recognized as Batuelo. She heard him say, "Let us go, his wife might be awakened." His companion then replied, "Let us go. He is already dead. Datu will be happy with this." When she sensed that the intruders had left, Susan then proceeded to the stairs where she saw her husband with a rope tied around his neck but with both feet touching the ground. She ran and shouted for help and then collapsed.
The culprits retraced their steps back to the waiting van. They then drove back to Aurora, reaching the Datu compound shortly before dawn. Appellant Batuelo told appellant Datu that they had accomplished their mission. Datu noticed Madayag's bleeding forehead and advised him to clean it. Datu then followed Madayag to the bunkhouse, gave him P1,000.00 and advised him to leave Aurora in the meantime. Datu further instructed him to return after his wound had healed to receive the balance of the P10,000.00 promised as his payment for his participation.
Later in the morning of April 17, 1997, Dr. Joseph George Razalan, Municipal Health Officer of Burgos, Isabela, examined the corpse of the victim. He found "hematoma, rope marks at the neck area and x x x blood streak at the abdominal area" and concluded that death was caused by cardio respiratory arrest secondary to strangulation. He placed the time of death at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. of that day or six (6) hours before examination. He noted that the hematoma indicated that death was not instantaneous because blood was still circulating when the victim was strangled. He found no other injuries but noted that the victim's feet were dirty. Due to lack of facilities, he was unable to perform an autopsy.
On April 28, 1997, Dr. Cleofas C. Antonio of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) performed an autopsy on the victim upon the request of the latter's family. Dr. Antonio found that the victim died as a result of "asphyxia by hanging." He found no other injuries on the victim.
Sometime in May 1997, after his wound had healed, Madayag who had gone home to Bugnan, Cabaldo, Nueva Ecija, recalled that appellant Datu still owed him the balance of the P10,000.00 promised as his pay for participating in the killing of Antonio Chan. He decided to return to Aurora, Isabela, to collect from Datu. Before going to the Datu compound, however, he passed by his sister in Alicia, Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya. The latter told him that 3 men from Aurora came looking for him. Believing that Datu wanted him killed, Madayag returned to Nueva Ecija. Bothered by his conscience and unable to concentrate on his work, he disclosed to his wife that he had participated in the killing of Antonio Chan. They decided to refer his problem to his wife's second cousin, an Army intelligence operative, Sgt. Flordelito Sabuyas. The latter sought the advice of their camp's provost marshal, Col. Hernani Acosta and arranged a meeting with Susan Chan.
On September 3, 1997, Madayag met with Susan. The latter agreed to forgive him if he would tell the truth. She then accompanied him to the Provincial Prosecutor where he executed a statement implicating both appellants in the killing of Antonio Chan. Appellant Datu raised the defense of alibi. He denied having a verbal tussle with Antonio Chan on April 4, 1997, as he was then in Metro Manila with Edgardo Tensingco, a corn dealer with whom he was doing business. Appellant Datu likewise claimed that he was again with Tensingco in Manila on April 15-16, 1997. He further claimed that he was still in Manila on April 17, 1997, visiting his sister-in-law, Maria Teresa Padron Martin, who gave birth on April 13, 1997 at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Hospital. Appellant Datu claimed that he only returned to Isabela on April 18, 1997. HEITAD
Appellant Datu presented Tensingco to corroborate his claim that he was in Metro Manila on April 4, and April 15-16, 1997. In addition, the two security guards of Tensingco, Nestor Mataverde and Nestor Fabre, both of whom allegedly saw Datu with Tensingco on the aforesaid dates testified on the entries they made in the logbooks for April 1997, which recorded Datu's arrival with Tensingco on said dates. The logbooks were likewise presented in evidence. To further bolster his alibi, appellant Datu also presented Maria Teresa Padron Martin, who testified that the former visited her at the UST Hospital on April 16-17, 1997. Dominic Dayrit, a family friend of the Datus, who declared that he met appellant Datu in Manila on April 15, 1997, and that he rode back with him to Isabela on the night of April 17, 1997, also testified for appellant Datu.
Appellant Datu denied knowing both Madayag and his co-accused, Batuelo. He claimed that neither Madayag nor Batuelo were employees or workers of the Datus. He also presented his brother-in-law, Sanny Velasco, to testify that the white Mitsubishi L-300 van, which Madayag claimed was used to transport the killers of Antonio Chan, was in Manila on April 15-18, 1997. Velasco declared that he met appellant in Manila on April 16, 1997.
For his part, appellant Batuelo interposed the defense of denial and alibi. While he admitted having worked in the Chan's business as a driver from April 5-12, 1997, he denied any participation in the killing of the victim. He claimed that on the night of the incident, he was already working at a rice mill in Magdalena, Cabanatuan, Isabela, where he worked from April 13 to May 3, 1997, and that he never left the said place. He admitted that his nickname was "Enteng" but he denied knowing or having worked for appellant Datu or Datu Family.
To buttress his alibi, appellant Batuelo presented a co-worker at the ricemill in Magdalena, Cabanatuan, Isabela, who testified that he was with Batuelo at Cabanatuan on April 16-17, 1997 and that the latter never left the place on said dates. 5
Upon remand, the RTC received additional testimony from the Defense, which the CA summed up in the assailed decision, viz.:
x x x Roosevelt Salvador took the witness stand and testified: Sgt. Sabuyas was his batchmate in a training which the Philippine Army conducted at Camp Melchor dela Cruz, in Upi, Gamu, Isabela. Sometime in August 1997, Sgt. Sabuyas went to his house asking him to be his companion on a "mission" in Nueva Ecija. The mission involved Domingo Madayag. Susan Chan suspected that Madayag killed her husband because Madayag had a scar on his left temple. According to Madayag, however, he got the scar from a fight he had in Burgos. In exchange for the mission, Sgt. Sabuyas promised to give him part of the P50,000.00 Susan Chan promised to pay. He and Sgt. Sabuyas were accompanied by several others, namely, Sgt. Valera, Sgt. Dicdican and Monte Rivera, Susan Chan's nephew, who served as their driver. They went to Bugnan, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija using a light cream L-300 van Susan Chan had rented. When they went to Bugnan, Gabaldon for the first time, they did not find Madayag in his house, Sgts. Sabuyas, Dicdican, and Valera inquired from Madayag's wife her husband's wherebouts. She revealed that her husband had gone to his parents' house in Alicia, Isabela. Thereupon, they went to the bus terminal to wait for Madayag. There, Monte Rivera identified Madayag and pointed him out to the others. He and Sgt. Valera approached Madayag and pretended to ask for road directions to Gabaldon. Madayag told them he could accompany them since he was also going there anyway. They agreed and loaded Madayag's bags into the L-300 van. But, immediately after Madayag boarded the van, Sgt. Dicdican handcuffed him. They brought Madayag to Hacienda San Antonio in Ilagan, Isabela. Sgt. Dicdican and Monte Rivera left to go back to Burgos and report their accomplishments to Susan Chan. In the meantime, he, Sgt. Sabuyas and Sgt. Valera tied a rope around Madayag's neck and hoisted him up a mango tree near a cornfield. They maltreated him the whole day in order to extract a confession regarding the killing of Antonio Chan. Madayag maintained his innocence despite the maltreatment. They later took Madayag to Nungnungan I, Cauayan City, where his (Roosevelt Salvador) cousin owned a nipa hut on a rice field. There, Sgt. Sabuyas tied Madayag's legs and submerged his head into a fishpond, while he (Roosevelt Salvador) held the other end of the rope. They dipped and submerged Madayag several times into the fishpond, and maltreated him. After about a week, unable to endure the maltreatment any longer, Madayag told them he would do anything as long as they spared his life. Hence, the men transferred Madayag to a house owned by Sgt. Sabuyas' friend near Camp Melchor dela Cruz, in Upi, Gamu, Isabela. There, Susan Chan and then Vice-Mayor Burkley of Gamu visited Madayag. Susan Chan told Madayag to pin down Romeo Datu for the murder of Antonio Chan in exchange for 10% of the moral damages that Datu would pay, and a house and lot in Pangasinan. Madayag declined the offer, saying he did not know anything about the killing. Susan Chan, along with him (Roosevelt Salvador), Sgts. Sabuyas, Dicdican and Valera, then took Madayag back to her house in Burgos. Susan Chan told Madayag that if he testified, he would not be included as an accused but would become a star witness. Susan Chan gave Madayag several pieces of yellow pad paper on which were written dates, names, and places. On the same day, Sgts. Sabuyas and Valera brought Madayag to Aparri, Cagayan, where the latter stayed for 2 days. He (Roosevelt Salvador) did not go with Madayag to Aparri anymore, as it was harvest time. He next saw Madayag on September 3, 1997, when the latter and Susan Chan went to the Fiscal's Office at Isabela in order to give his statement. Apparently, by then, Susan Chan had successfully convinced Madayag to admit killing Antonio Chan and to implicate Romeo Datu as the brains behind it.
The defense next presented Sgt. Flordelito R. Sabuyas. He corroborated Salvador Roosevelt's testimony that they maltreated Madayag to elicit his confession. He claimed that Madayag never admitted killing Antonio Chan. After torturing Madayag and bringing him to different places, he was convinced that Madayag was innocent so he told him to go home. But instead of going home, Madayag stayed in his house and it was Madayag's wife who came to visit him. Susan Chan often visited Madayag trying to convince the latter to testify against Datu, until after a few days, Madayag told him "Bayaw, makisama ka na lang. Sa hirap kong ito, tatanggapin ko na lang ang alok ni Mrs. Chan na house and lot at 10% ng nakuha niyang insurance ng kanyang namatay na asawa." Susan Chan and her lawyer, Atty. Benjamin Olalia convinced him (Sabuyas) to falsely testify against Datu in exchange for a vehicle and 10% of whatever she could get from the Datu family. He was, however, bothered by his conscience so he did not claim his reward from Susan Chan. He already recanted his previous testimony even before Datu's conviction. Atty. Olalia, Susan Chan's lawyer, told him he would be charged with perjury should he submit his recantation letter. So he went to Judge Mirasol who heard the case against Datu, and told him the whole story. Judge Mirasol, nonetheless, still convicted Datu. He was in Manila when he heard of Datu's conviction so he immediately returned home to help Datu and spent his own money for his transportation and preparation of his affidavit.
The next witness was Mayor Reynaldo Abesamis of San Manuel, Isabela. He testified that in 1997, Monte Rivera introduced Susan Chan to him as his aunt. Susan Chan asked his help to pin down his (sic) husband's killer, so he introduced her to Sgt. Sabuyas. He later learned they were able to apprehend the suspected killer. Sgt. Sabuyas, however, informed him that he (Sabuyas) maltreated Madayag to extract admission and pin down Datu. 6
Thereafter, the State presented as rebuttal witnesses Susan Chan, the widow of the victim, and private prosecutor Atty. Benjamin Olalia. The CA summed up their testimonies thusly:
Susan Chan denied she ever ordered Madayag's abduction and maltreatment for the latter to admit the killing of Antonio Chan and pin down Romeo Datu as mastermind. She also denied ever paying Madayag to pin down Datu, claiming she never before knew Madayag. It was Sgt. Sabuyas who first came to her. Sgt. Sabuyas first introduced himself to her as salesman and looked for her husband but she informed him he was already dead. Sgt. Sabuyas told her his real intention was to inform her that his brother-in-law was one of the killers of his (sic) husband and asked her to help his brother-in-law. She first met Madayag at the back of Ilagan, Isabela Hall of Justice when Sgt. Sabuyas called and directed her to go there. She denied that Sgt. Sabuyas and company brought Madayag to her house in Burgos, Isabela after they maltreated him. Explaining that she was four months pregnant back then, with only her five children in the house, she could not allow one of her husband's killers to stay with them. She asked help from Mayor Abesamis who referred her to Atty. Dionio Bala. She later learned that Atty. Bala was in fact lawyering for appellant. She paid Atty. Bala P10,000.00 as acceptance fee but she did not return to him after he told her to give appellant another chance. ATICcS
Private Prosecutor Benjamin Olalia denied he ever received any recantation letter from Sgt. Sabuyas or advised the latter against recanting his testimony. Before trial started, Mayor Abesamis invited him to his office and proposed a settlement for P50,000.00 to be paid by appellant's father-in-law. 7
It is relevant to mention that on July 11, 2006, the RTC ordered Batuelo dropped as an accused from the case because of his intervening death on April 29, 2006.
Judgment of the RTC
On November 7, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment against the petitioner, fording him guilty of murder as charged, 8 disposing:
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing premises, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finding accused ROMEO DATU guilty as principal by induction with two (2) aggravating circumstances to consider and without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim, Antonio Chan, the sum of SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P7,500,000.00) PESOS by way of lost earnings of the deceased and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS as moral damages and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages, and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED. 9
Decision of the CA
On appeal, the petitioner contended that the RTC had erred in: (1) rejecting the additional testimonies of Sgt. Sabuyas, Salvador, and Abesamis; (2) finding him guilty as principal by inducement; and (3) awarding P7.5 million as lost earnings, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the Prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements of murder as charged; that the RTC did not err in evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses because its reasoning had been judicious and exhaustive; that the credibility of the witnesses was primarily left to the determination of the trial judge; and that all the evidence pointed to the petitioner as the mastermind of the murder, rendering his alibi inutile.
In the assailed decision promulgated on July 28, 2010, 10 the CA affirmed the conviction of the petitioner, disposing:
Accordingly, the APPEAL is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November 7, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1) reducing the award of moral damages from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00, exemplary damages from P100,000.00 to P25,000.00 and loss of earning capacity from P7.5 million pesos to P4,399,999.99;
2) granting civil indemnity of P75,000.00; and
3) imposing 6% interest on the entire monetary award from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 11
Issue
Was the guilt of the petitioner as a principal by inducement in murder established beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
First of all, Madayag executed his counseled extrajudicial confession in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor prior to his being implicated as one of the accused, wherein he made a detailed narration of the manner by which the killing was committed from the time of the planning until the execution. Madayag categorically identified the petitioner as the person who had dispatched the former's group of killers, who included the late Batuelo, to assault and kill Antonio Chan in the latter's own premises in order to get back at him for dishonoring his check. Madayag later on testified during the trial and confirmed the extrajudicial declarations he made against the petitioner and the rest of the group that committed the murder.
Madayag's positive and firm incrimination of the petitioner as the mastermind was credible. The latter, who was Madayag's employer at the time he sought the latter's help in order to liquidate Antonio Chan, had definite moral ascendancy and influence over Madayag. The records show that Madayag could not turn down the petitioner's request, and went with the others the petitioner had recruited to liquidate Antonio Chan. Madayag did not turn his back on the conspiracy until the end, and exposed his participation in the killing to the authorities only after learning that the petitioner had dispatched three men to look for him. This made him think and conclude that the petitioner had also wanted to eliminate him.
Secondly, Susan Chan recalled that early in the afternoon of April 4, 1997 the petitioner had angrily confronted her husband about the dishonored check he had issued, and that the petitioner had later threatened her husband with paying dearly for what he had done. She recalled that she had heard a thud coming from the hardware store in the morning of April 17, 1997, but she ignored it and tried to go back to sleep; that being unable to get back to sleep, she had gotten up and gone to the hardware store, and had then noticed that a rope rack had fallen on the floor of the hardware store; that she had then raised the rope rack; that upon proceeding to the stairs, she had then spotted four persons, one of whom was Batuelo whom she heard telling the others: Let us go, his wife might be awakened; and that she heard one of the others reply: Let us go. He is already dead. Datu will be happy with this.
Thirdly, the petitioner denied his complicity but did not present evidence corroborating his denial. His denial was hardly worth any consideration in the face of the firm and positive testimony of Madayag directly implicating him as the mastermind of the killing.
Fourthly, the Court respects the assessment and determination by the RTC and the CA of the credibility of the testimonies and of the witnesses. This respect is accorded to the RTC whose trial judge had the unique opportunity to have direct and personal access to the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testified. Verily, the factual findings by the RTC, once affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on the Court unless the petitioner makes an affirmative and clear showing that the lower courts misapprehended circumstances that, if properly appreciated, would result in his exoneration; or that material facts or circumstances of record were ignored; or that the RTC and the CA differed in their factual findings. Alas, he did not make such affirmative and clear showing herein. TIADCc
And, lastly, the additional testimonies given by Sabuyas, Salvador and Abesamis did not overcome the positive evidence proving the petitioner's being a principal by inducement.
In the particular case of Sabuyas, his testimony after the recantation — which was obviously intended to discredit Madayag — had many inconsistencies and loopholes that it was hardly credible or plausible. Both the RTC and the CA noted the inconsistencies. We cannot differ from their factual findings along that line. In Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 12 the Court rejected the testimony of a recanting witness who had earlier testified in a coherent, clear, precise and unwavering manner for the State and positively identified the accused but later on turned witness for the Defense.
In this connection, the Court adopts with approval the trial court's appropriate characterization of Sabuyas' testimony after his recantation, viz.:
But Sabuyas' recantation is not sufficient ground for concluding that his previous testimony is false. No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility, says the Supreme Court in Regore vs. People, G.R. No. 152205, February 5, 2004. After carefully comparing Sabuyas' previous testimony and his subsequent one, and taking into account the circumstances under which they were made, the Court firmly believes and so holds that the previous testimony is more credible. The surfacing of Domingo Madayag into the picture was at the instance of Flordelito Sabuyas when the latter voluntarily paved the way for Madayag to come into the open by contacting Susan Chan under the guise of a fertilizer/insectide salesman. As intelligence officer, Sabuyas devised such manner to induce Susan Chan into familiarizing with him, that being their first meeting. Apparently, Sabuyas was successful and it was then when he unveiled his intention of informing Susan Chan about his cousin-in-law Domingo Madayag's participation in the killing of Antonio Chan. This led to the execution of Madayag's confession before Fiscal Cabantac at the Isabela Prosecutor's Office at Ilagan, Isabela. 13
We next deal with the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity on the part of the victim.
In our view, the CA committed no error in arriving at the amount of P4,399,999.99 as the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity. Antonio Chan was only 35 years of age at the time of his death, and had substantial income from the businesses that he and his widow engaged in, namely: operation of their mini ricemill, and running of their hardware, lumber, palay, and gravel trading. The CA determined the loss of earning capacity based on the income of the victim and his widow as reported in their 1996 consolidated income tax return, and derived the amount of P4,399,999.99 by applying the formula adopted in Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 14 as follows:
|
Net Earning Capacity |
= |
Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual – Living Expenses] Income (GAI) |
|
|
= |
2/3 (80 — age of deceased) x (GAI — 50% of GAI) |
To conform with People v. Jugueta, 15 the Court also awards civil indemnity at P75,000.00; moral damages at P75,000.00; exemplary damages at P75,000.00; and temperate damages of P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for burial and funeral expenses.
All the items of civil liability shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on July 28, 2010 upholding his conviction for murder handed down by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, in Ilagan, Isabela in Criminal Case No. 2781 and meting on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, subject to the MODIFICATION that the petitioner shall pay to the heirs of the late Antonio Chan, represented by his widow, Susan Chan, as follows: (1) the awards for civil liability shall be P4,399,999.99 for loss of earning capacity; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for burial and funeral expenses; (2) interest of 6% per annum on all such amounts reckoned from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction; and (3) the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-67; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.
2.Id. at 386-408; penned by Judge Renato P. Pine.
3.People v. Datu, G.R. No. 136796, February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 695.
4.Id. at 708-709.
5.Id. at 696-704.
6.Supra note 1, at 50-54.
7.Id. at 54-55.
8.Supra note 2.
9.Id. at 408.
10.Supra note 1.
11.Id. at 66-67.
12. G.R. No. 101507, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 562, 568.
13.Rollo, pp. 396-397.
14. No. L-25499, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 511, 515-516.
15. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.