Esteban v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 209597. April 26, 2017.]

ALFREDO ESTEBAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 209597 (Alfredo Esteban v. People of the Philippines). — In this appeal, Petitioner Alfredo Esteban assails the October 3, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification, the April 13, 2010 Decision 2 and August 16, 2010 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35 of Santiago City, in Criminal Case No. 35-6418 3 which, in turn, affirmed the May 13, 2009 Decision 4 of the 14th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ramon, Isabela in Criminal Case No. 3517, 5 convicting petitioner of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional as maximum.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On April 20, 1999, at 3:00 p.m., the victim, Antonieto Manuel (Manuel) boarded the tricycle driven by Librado Felix (Felix) to haul chairs to Santiago City. They met a road accident along the Provincial Road, Purok 5, Brgy. Raniag, Ramon, Isabela. An Isuzu pick-up truck driven by petitioner coming from the opposite direction suddenly encroached the tricycle's lane and collided with the tricycle. As a result, the victim died and Felix was rushed to the hospital. An eyewitness corroborated Felix's testimony and stated that the Isuzu pick-up truck was approaching in a zigzag manner before the collision and that the tricycle was at the right side of the lane when the accident happened.

For his part, petitioner maintained that the tricycle was running in a fast and zigzag manner from the opposite direction until it reached the Isuzu pick-up's lane, thus, resulting into a collision. He testified that it was the tricycle that had bumped his vehicle while he was driving at a speed of about 40 kph.

On April 15, 2009, the MCTC rendered its Decision, 6 convicting petitioner of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and ordering him to pay damages. This was affirmed by the RTC in its April 13, 2010 Decision. 7

On appeal, the CA rendered its October 3, 2012 Decision, 8 affirming with modification the RTC's Decision.

Since petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the CA's September 26, 2013 Resolution, 9 petitioner took this instant Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45.

In his appeal, petitioner alleged, among others, that the CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion, such as, "the testimonial evidence of the prosecution as to the proximate cause of the collision is mistaken and based on misapprehension of facts"; that since there is a conflict between the findings of facts by the MCTC and the RTC, the Court may review not only questions of law, but questions of facts, as well; and, that the case of Jason Ivler y Aguilar v. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and Evangeline Ponce(Ivler case), 10 cannot be retroactively applied to an alleged crime which was committed in 2009.

The Appeal fails.

The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. 11 As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, more so, when as here, such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court. 12 Stated otherwise, the Court refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are affirmed by the CA. 13 To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not meant to be. 14 Certainly, the rule admits exceptions. None, however, is applicable to the case at bar. Absent any application of any of the recognized exceptions, this Court is bound by the findings of fact by the lower courts.

Here, We find no conflicting findings of facts between the MCTC and the RTC on one hand, and the CA on the other, which would compel Us to revisit the records of this case for proper dispensation of justice.

The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as alleged by petitioner, are more apparent than real. These alleged inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specially with respect to the principal occurrence and positive identification of petitioner. 15 At most, slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the testimony was not rehearsed. 16 What is important is that there is consistency as to the occurrence and identity of the perpetrator, as in this case.

As found by the lower courts, the records of the case point to the fact that the petitioner who was then driving an Isuzu pick-up in a zigzag manner and was trying to overtake a jeep which he was tailing up, suddenly encroached the opposite lane, thereby colliding against the tricycle which caused the death of Manuel and serious physical injuries to Felix. These findings are properly within the province of the trial courts. aScITE

We reiterate the familiar doctrine that:

"The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office. The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, particularly the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court." 17

We brush aside the petitioner's argument that the CA erred in imposing the penalty on the basis of the Ivler case. As correctly argued by the CA:

"From the foregoing, two things are clear: (1) Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, Article 48, being 'incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365.' (2) Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences, and 'in imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each consequence and proven.'

In fine, therefore, the MCTC did not err in convicting petitioner of three separate quasi-offenses of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, and in imposing three separate penalties therefor."

Corrolarily, a closer look at the Ivler case reveals that this Court's disquisition as to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), 18 is not a novel one. In fact, it is based on the earlier case of People v. Buan, 19 promulgated in 1968 by the Court en banc, per Reyes, J.B.L. (acting as C.J.). Specifically, the Court in the Ivler case, explained Article 48 in relation to Article 365 of the RPC, and held that:

"A becoming regard of this Court's place in our scheme of government denying it the power to make laws constrains Us to keep inviolate the conceptual distinction between quasi-crimes and intentional felonies under our penal code. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for committing another. This is why, way back in 1968 in Buan, we rejected the Solicitor General's argument that double jeopardy does not bar a second prosecution for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence allegedly because the charge for that offense could not be joined with the other charge for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence following Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code: x x x." [Emphasis Supplied.]

Anent the imposition of interest, We hold that all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, in light of recent jurisprudence. 20

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The October 3, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33990 finding petitioner Alfredo Esteban GUILTY of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

(Jardeleza, J. no part due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J. designated additional Member per Raffle dated April 12, 2017.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; Rollo, pp. 30-59.

2. Penned by Judge Efren T. Cacatian; Rollo, pp. 60-71.

3. For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property.

4. Penned by Judge Rodrigo F. Pascua, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 72-86.

5. For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property.

6. "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the court is of moral certainty that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, thus sentences him to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as maximum and to pay the following:

1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Antonieto Manuel;

2. P35,000.00 as actual damages for funeral expenses;

3. P602,000.00 for loss of earning capacity;

4. P25,000.00 as moral damages;

For the other two crimes of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries and damage to property, the accused is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and thus sentences him to suffer a straight penalty of two months imprisonment and to pay the victim Librado Felix in the amount of P42,996.40 as actual damages and a fine of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED."

7. "WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the appeal decision of the court a quo is hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED."

8. "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the April 13, 2010 and April 15, 2009 Decisions of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Branch 35, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ramon-San Isidro, Isabela, respectively, are AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) For the quasi-offense of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional as maximum; and

(2) As moral damages for the death of Antonieto Manuel, petitioner is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P50,000.00;

(3) In all other respects, the decision of the MCTC is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

9.Rollo, pp. 28-29.

10. G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010.

11.Betty Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Victorey Antonio Garabato and Josephine S. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013. January 14, 2015.

12.Ibid.

13.Ibid.

14.Ibid.

15.Miguel Cirera y Ustelo v. People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014.

16.Ibid.

17.People v. Alvin Esugon y Avila, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015.

18. "Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period."

19. 131 Phil. 498 (1968).

20. Rodrigo Rivera v. Spouses Salvador Chua and Violela S. Chua, G.R. No. 184458 and Sps. Salvador Chua and Violeta S. Chua v. Rodrigo Rivera, G.R. No. 184472, January 14, 2015.