FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257485. March 9, 2022.]
JERRY DUMASIG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 9, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257485 (Jerry Dumasig v. People of the Philippines). — Petitioner Jerry Dumasig (petitioner) rails against the Decision1 dated 22 February 2019 and the Resolution2 dated 28 May 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification the Judgment 3 dated 7 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 32, which convicted him of the crime of Homicide; and denying his Motion for Reconsideration 4 thereof, respectively, in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 03148.
The facts of the case are incontrovertible.
In the Information 5 dated 16 December 2016, petitioner was charged with Homicide as defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, setting forth the following inculpatory averments:
That on September 21, 2016, at Maloh, Siaton, Negros Oriental, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and box one EDWARDO G. RAFALES; and thereafter, repeatedly beat up the said victim for over an hour with the use of coconut fronds hitting the latter on the head, neck and back before finally throwing a hard blow on the victim's stomach, which resulted to (sic) the eventual death of said Edwardo G. Rafales, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Contrary to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. x x x
The evidence proffered by the prosecution established that around four o'clock in the afternoon of 21 September 2016, petitioner went to a basketball court and challenged anyone to fight him. He then saw the victim — who was a cousin of his (petitioner's) wife — and thereby approached and hit him. The victim tried to run away but petitioner followed him and continued his assault. This prompted the bystanders who witnessed the altercation to separate the two. Around eight o'clock that evening, petitioner resumed his assault in front of a sari-sari store, repeatedly hitting the victim with coconut fronds thereby causing him to sustain severe injuries on his head and body. The next day, the victim was brought to the hospital, where he eventually died due to bleeding inside the skull. 6
As expected, petitioner denied the imputations hurled against him. He asserted that on 21 September 2016, while watching a basketball game, the victim's brother suddenly attacked him, causing him to lose consciousness for a few minutes. Thereafter, a friend brought him home to rest, where he slept and stayed until the next morning. 7
In due course, the RTC rendered the 7 February 2018 Judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, disposing thusly;
WHEREFORE, from the evidences (sic) introduced and proved by the prosecution, the Court finds [petitioner] JERRY DUMASIG, GUILTY of the crime as charged beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the following: 1) Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), as death indemnity; 2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as moral damages; and 3) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as Exemplary Damages.
The number of days Jerry Dumasig was in jail under preventive custody by reason of this case shall be credited to his prison term.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who declared that they saw petitioner assault the victim, causing him to suffer severe injuries. It held that the positive identification by the witnesses of petitioner as the assailant, along with the medico-legal report 9 showing that the victim died of internal bleeding in the skull, proved that petitioner was the author of the victim's killing. CAIHTE
On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, zeroing in on the fact that petitioner was seen mauling the victim, as bolstered by the medico-legal report, which showed that the victim's injuries caused his death. 10 The CA likewise ratiocinated that the prosecution's witnesses and their testimonies were credible, 11 and that there was no evidence to show improper motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely testify against the petitioner. 12
Notably, the CA found no merit in petitioner's claim of alibi — that he could not have assaulted the victim because he was at home sleeping at that time. The CA explicated that considering the distance of petitioner's house, which was only 50 meters away from the sari-sari store where the assault happened, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. 13
The CA, however, modified the civil liability imposed upon petitioner, awarding temperate damages to the private complainant since no evidence of burial and funeral expenses were presented during trial. 14 The CA likewise reduced the award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00, 15 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Finally, the CA imposed interest on all awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full payment of all the awards. 16
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 17 of the verdict against him was denied by the CA in the impugned Resolution. He forthwith filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari18 before this Court, fundamentally assailing his conviction on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Petition is doomed to fail.
Discernibly, there are no special or important reasons warranting an exercise of this Court's power of judicial review. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that such reasons obtain in this case, the instant Petition deserves short shrift.
It must be emphasized that "except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment," 19 under which this case does not fall, review by the Court is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion." 20 Upon this point, Section 6 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be any clearer —
Sec. 6. Review discretionary. — A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons thereof. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided in a way not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
In Kumar v. People of the Philippines, 21 the Court enunciated that it can refuse to even entertain petitions where "there is no novel legal question involved" or "all that are involved are settled rules for which nothing remains but their application."
Irrefragably, the instant Petition involves questions of fact 22 and not of law as mandated under Section 1 of Rule 45. This being so, the issues presented for resolution and the arguments adduced in support thereof are mere rehashes of issues and arguments which have already been presented and passed upon by both the RTC and the CA. To be sure, the RTC and the CA both found enough evidence, albeit circumstantial in nature, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was the author of the victim's killing, and that the prosecution's witnesses and their respective testimonies were credible. Aside from raising the same disputations, petitioner proffers no compelling justification to warrant the reversal or modification of the CA's disposition. Thus, We find and so hold that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the judgment of conviction. DETACa
Anent the modification of the RTC's ruling as to petitioner's civil liability, We find the same judicious under the circumstances. The RTC awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages while the CA imposed an additional award of temperate damages and expressly stated that all of such awards shall earn interest froth finality of judgment until full payment. In fealty to the case of People v. Jugueta, 23 in all instances when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, as in the case here, the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded as temperate damages. In sooth, the CA infallibly ruled that the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on these awards from the date of finality of the judgment until full satisfaction thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 22 February 2019 and the Resolution dated 28 May 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 03148 are AFFIRMED.
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.Rollo, pp. 80-93. Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz concurring. Note. The last page containing the Certification is unpaginated.
2.Id. at 109-111. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura Yap, with Associate Justices Roberto P. Quiroz and Nancy C. Rivas-Palmones, concurring.
3.Id. at 61-67. Penned by Judge Roderick A. Maxino.
4.Id. at 94-100.
5.Id. at 61. See Judgment of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 2017-24161. See also Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 03148.
6. See rollo, p. 63.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 66-67.
9.Id. at 82-83.
10.Id. at 86-87.
11.Id. at 87.
12.Id. at 89.
13.Id. at 91.
14.Id.
15.Rollo, p. 91.
16.Id.
17.Supra note 4.
18.Id. at 11-39.
19. Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 9.
20. Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 6.
21. G.R. No. 247661, 15 June 2020.
22.Rollo, p. 20.
23. 783 Phil. 806, 846-847 (2016).