SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230351. September 6, 2017.]
CARLOS DEL PRADO y FERNANDEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 September 2017which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230351 — Carlos Del Prado y Fernandez versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated October 3, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated March 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37855, this Court finds that the questions in the present Petition raise purely factual questions, involving as they do the calibration of evidence — a matter which, absent proof of exceptional circumstances — is outside the province of this Court. Nevertheless, this Court finds that petitioner (accused) failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. HEITAD
In the first place, the question of whether the accused acted in self-defense or defense of relative is a question of fact, 3 and it is settled that questions of fact in petitions for review under Rule 45 are generally not reviewable, subject only to certain exceptions, among them, the lack of evidentiary support of the trial court's judgment or the appellate court's misapprehension of the adduced facts. 4 The factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. 5 Here, the accused failed to offer any convincing reason for this Court to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC and the CA, as both courts thoroughly considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and have adequately explained their legal and evidentiary bases for concluding than the accused was guilty of both counts of homicide. For this reason alone, this Court may well deny the accused's Petition.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of relative, and consequently, the lack of intent to kill, must be proven by the accused through clear and convincing evidence. 6 A perusal of the records, however, shows that herein accused failed to adequately establish that there was unlawful aggression on the part of victims Ben Son and Vicente Eclipse which the accused was impelled to repel. In any event, this Court finds no reason to disturb the credence accorded by the RTC and the CA to the medico-legal findings as regards the extent and gravity of the wound inflicted upon Ben and Vicente.
In light of recent jurisprudence, we modify the award of damages granted by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. In People v. Jugueta, 7 we have ruled that where the crime of homicide is committed, moral damages as well as civil indemnity should be awarded to the victim's heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 each. Moreover, in the absence of documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. Lastly, if an aggravating circumstance was proven in trial, even if not alleged in the Information, in addition to the above mentioned amounts, the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages shall be awarded.
Accordingly, we modify the award of civil indemnity and damages, and order the accused to indemnify the respective heirs of Ben Son and Vicente Eclipse, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. However, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, we find the RTC's award of exemplary damages improper, and accordingly delete the same. The monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) perannum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court resolves to deny the Petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated October 3, 2016 and Resolution dated March 6, 2017, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the petitioner (accused) is ordered to indemnify the respective heirs of Ben Son and Vicente Eclipse, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The award of exemplary damages is deleted. In addition, the petitioner (accused) shall pay an interest of six percent (6%) perannum on the monetary awards from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 37-45. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2.Id. at 46-49.
3. See Flores v. People, 705 Phil. 119, 133 (2013) and People v. Dano, 394 Phil. 1, 18 (2000).
4.Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 192 (2014).
5.Id. at 193.
6. See People v. Singh, 412 Phil. 842, 856 (2001) and People v. Dano, supra note 3, at 18-19.
7. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 380 and 386-388.