FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221352. June 30, 2021.]
RAFAEL MAGTIRA y SERA JOSEPH, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221352 — (RAFAEL MAGTIRA y SERA JOSEPH, petitionerv. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — This is a petition for review on certiorari from the Decision 1 dated July 29, 2015, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34555, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated September 29, 2011, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 9, holding Rafael Magtira y Sera Joseph (petitioner), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 2948-M-2007.
Antecedents
The petitioner was charged with homicide in an Information 3 dated September 13, 2007, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 8th day of September, 1987, in the municipality of Paombong, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a bladed weapon and with intent to kill Antonio Estrella did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and stab the said Antonio Estrella with the said bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law. 4
Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty. 5
Version of the Prosecution
On September 8, 1987, at around 7:30 to 8:30 in the evening, Antonio Estrella (victim), Quirino Hernandez (Hernandez), and Exequiel Capulong (Capulong) were on their way home from the house of their friend at Barangay San Jose, Paombong, Bulacan. As they were passing a narrow alley, Capulong heard a voice saying, "ayan na, ayan na." He turned his head and saw that the victim was stabbed and was bleeding. Afraid for himself, Capulong hid behind the bushes and saw the petitioner again stabbing the victim. After stabbing the victim, the petitioner left. Capulong and Hernandez brought the victim to the hospital. Upon learning of the incident, the victim's wife rushed to the hospital and she was able to talk to him, who told her that it was the petitioner who stabbed him. The victim died at 1:00 in the morning of the next day. 6
Rey Cabigao Estrella, the victim's brother, who was then a police officer, spent time looking for the petitioner, but to no avail. His search went on for 17 years until he learned that the petitioner was residing in the house of his parents. He sought for the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest and the petitioner was finally apprehended. 7
Version of the Defense
The petitioner denied the charge against him. He testified that he came to know about the incident only when he was arrested on September 5, 2007. 8 He alleged that on September 8, 1987, he left his house to transport vinegar to Pangasinan at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning and returned to Paombong between 11:00 o'clock in the evening to 12:00 midnight. 9
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision 10 dated September 29, 2011, the RTC held that the petitioner failed to present evidence to establish that he was in Pangasinan and that he returned to San Jose at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening. The employer, his parents or the persons to whom he delivered the vinegar were not presented to corroborate his testimony. Also, there was no documentary evidence presented to prove the deliveries he allegedly made. 11 Citing People v. Unlagada, 12 the RTC explained that the defense of alibi should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by an eyewitness because alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Thus, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
Viewed in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to indemnify the heirs of deceased victim in the amount of P75,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 13
The CA Ruling
In its Decision 14 dated July 29, 2015, the CA affirmed the verdict of the RTC with modification on the award of damages. The CA directed the petitioner to indemnify the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, based on jurisprudence. 15
In affirming the petitioner's conviction, the CA agreed with the Solicitor General's argument based on Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code — that the mere filing of a complaint before the municipal court for the purpose of preliminary investigation interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. 16
The CA also observed that the alleged inconsistencies pointed out by the petitioner were minor in nature and will not blur the fact that he was identified as the one who stabbed the victim. 17
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo convicting accused of homicide is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that accused be ordered to pay the heirs of the victim another seventy five thousand pesos (Php75,000.00) as civil indemnity. Both awards of moral damages and civil indemnity shall earn interest at 6% per annum from finality of this decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED. 18
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution 19 dated November 3, 2015.
Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner's conviction for the crime of homicide.
The Court's Ruling
The petitioner argues that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt since the testimony of Capulong, the lone eyewitness, was marred by inconsistencies and that he did not see the petitioner stab the victim. 20 He also contends that the weapon allegedly used was not produced during trial; and that the physician who attended to the victim was not presented to testify as to the nature of the wound and the cause of the victim's death. 21
It is settled "that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect." 22 Unless there are some facts or circumstances which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted that could affect the outcome of the case, the findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed on appeal. 23 This especially holds true in this case, where the CA affirmed the findings of fact of the RTC.
The elements of homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide. 24
In this case, the death of the victim was established and the petitioner was positively identified as the assailant by Capulong. Based on Capulong's account, he was walking with his companions, the victim, and Hernandez, when he heard the shouting of "ayan na, ayan na." Thus, he turned his head and saw that the victim was already bleeding. 25 He quickly hid behind the bushes and saw the petitioner stabbing the victim again. 26 Thus, the intent to kill was also established.
The petitioner's argument that he was delivering vinegar at the time of the incident does not convince. "Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses because they can easily be fabricated." 27 In the face of Capulong's positive identification, the petitioner's denial and alibi must necessarily fail.
In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the petitioner's conviction. Nevertheless, there is a need to modify the damages awarded by the CA to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. In People v. Jugueta, 28 the Court held that for the crime of homicide, the proper amounts should be P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
All amounts due shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Resolution until full payment, as held in Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 29
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 29, 2015, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34555, finding petitioner Rafael Magtira y Sera Joseph GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is AFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATION. Petitioner Rafael Magtira y Sera Joseph is sentenced to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and is ordered to pay the heirs of Antonio Estrella the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. 14-28; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-26; penned by Presiding Judge Veronica A. Vicente-De Guzman.
3. Records, pp. 1-2.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 27.
6.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
7.Id. at 17.
8. TSN January 20, 2011, p. 408.
9.Id. at 405.
10. CA rollo, pp. 20-26.
11.Id. at 25.
12. 437 Phil. 797 (2002).
13. CA rollo, p. 26.
14.Rollo, pp. 14-28.
15.Id. at 27.
16.Id. at 20.
17.Id. at 24.
18.Id. at 28.
19.Id. at 29.
20.Id. at 8.
21.Id. at 9.
22.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 370-371 (2017).
23.People v. Domingo, et al., 616 Phil. 261, 269 (2009).
24.Wacoy v. People, 761 Phil. 570, 578 (2015).
25. TSN, June 9, 2009, p. 166.
26. TSN, August 11, 2009, pp. 208-209.
27.People v. Mancao, G.R. No. 228951, July 17, 2019.
28. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
29. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).