SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255858. September 29, 2021.]
CENON JOEL MIGUEL y CASPE, ALIAS "JOSE MIGUEL", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255858 — (Cenon Joel Miguel y Caspe, alias "Jose Miguel" v. People of the Philippines). — This petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the January 10, 2020 Decision 1 and the March 1, 2021 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42185.
The CA affirmed with modification the March 16, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 12-293744 which found petitioner Cenon Joel Miguel y Caspe (Miguel) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for killing Augusto Sinang y Mendoza (Sinang). The CA likewise denied Miguel's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The facts are of record.
On October 31, 2011, at around 9:00 p.m., Miguel and Sinang went on a drinking spree together with a co-employee named Anselmo Duldulao (Duldulao). While walking towards a carinderia, Miguel and Sinang engaged in a heated argument while Duldulao tried to pacify them. Upon arrival at the eatery, Duldulao and Sinang sat beside each other and ordered their food. Immediately thereafter, Duldulao heard the victim utter "Pare, sinaksak ako." Duldulao looked back and saw Miguel walking away while armed with a knife. Sinang was then rushed to the nearest hospital but was declared dead on arrival. 3 ISCDEA
Archie Jacobo (Jacobo), a tricycle driver, claimed that at around 10:00 p.m. of October 31, 2011, he saw three men walking towards a nearby carinderia. Along the way, he heard the two men arguing with each other while the other man was trying to pacify them. When Jacobo was about ten (10) meters away waiting for a passenger, he saw Miguel suddenly stab the victim. 4
Regina, the widow of Sinang, testified on the amount of damages they incurred due to the victim's untimely demise. 5
Police Senior Inspector Ed C. Ortiz (PSI Ortiz) testified on the Medico-Legal Report No. QCA-11-576, concluding that the cause of death of the victim was the five stab wounds he sustained, three of which were fatal. The victim likewise suffered abrasions on the trunk and right anterior femoral region. 6
Miguel, on the other hand, claimed that he only acted in self-defense. He averred that during their drinking spree, Sinang threatened to maul him to death if he will reveal that he was having an affair. Miguel further contended that it was Sinang who stabbed him first with a knife in his abdomen. In order to dodge the attack, he grabbed the victim's hand and wrested possession of the knife. In turn, Sinang grabbed a metallic object and tried to hit him, thus forcing him to stab his assailant in his right armpit. 7
Dr. Ramon Gaoat, the physician who attended to the petitioner, testified on the injuries the latter sustained from the said incident, particularly on his abdominal area and right palm, as well as an incised wound which was caused by a sharp object. 8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The RTC, in its Decision dated March 16, 2016, found Miguel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Cenon Joel Miguel y Caspe GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code and is hereby meted the penalty of prision mayor (Article 64, par. 5) to be applied in its medium period (Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No 178626, n June 13, 2012) or, 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.
Further, accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Augusto Sinang the death indemnity and moral damages at SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC ruled that all the elements of the crime of Homicide were present in the killing of Sinang. It further held that the justifying circumstance of self-defense professed by the petitioner cannot be given credence since the element of unlawful aggression is wanting. 10
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order 11 dated April 2, 2018 for lack of merit. This prompted the petitioner to file an appeal before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its Decision 12 dated January 10, 2020, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It held that the straightforward and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were sufficient to support the conviction of petitioner for the offense charged. The appellate court further ruled that the trial court was correct in finding the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Sinang. Hence, there was no self-defense on the part of Miguel to speak of. 13 EDCTIa
Nonetheless, the CA modified the penalty imposed against Miguel by increasing his sentence to nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 14
The CA also modified the amount of damages awarded by the trial court by granting to the heirs of Sinang civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each. 15
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated March 16, 2016 and Order dated April 2, 2018 respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 12-293744, are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(a) Accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) days (sic) of reclusion temporal, as maximum;
(b) the award of death indemnity and moral damages at P75,000.00 is DELETED;
(c) civil indemnity is awarded in the amount of P50,000.00;
(d) moral damages is likewise awarded in the amount of P50,000.00; and
(e) the monetary awards for damages shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 16
Miguel moved for reconsideration but it was likewise denied by the CA in its Resolution dated March 1, 2021.
Hence, this Petition for Review.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the petition for lack of reversible error on the part of the CA.
Miguel avers that the elements of Homicide were not sufficiently proven especially since the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are tainted with contradictions. He maintains that he merely acted in self-defense. Notably, these arguments are factual in nature which is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition. We stress that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 17 This Court is not a trier of facts; hence, questions of fact are left to the wisdom and determination of the trial courts. 18
Further, We accord great weight and respect to the factual findings, including the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses by the RTC especially when upheld by the CA. 19 This is because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. Thus, absent any fact or circumstance which the RTC overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated that would alter the results of the case if properly considered, the Court will not disturb the trial court's findings. 20
In any event, Miguel's acquittal is not warranted.
The prosecution established all the elements of the crime of Homicide, which are: 1) a person was killed; 2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; 3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and 4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, or infanticide. 21 Miguel stabbed Sinang several times which resulted in the latter's untimely demise. The killing was neither attended by any of the justifying circumstances nor qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide or infanticide.
Anent Miguel's claim that he merely acted in self-defense to justify the killing of Sinang, the Court agrees with the uniform findings of the appellate court and the trial court. He failed to duly prove the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Sinang's purported anger and threats directed towards Miguel are not the unlawful aggression contemplated by law that would justify his illegal act. ScaCEH
Further, both the RTC and the CA correctly refuted the alleged voluntary surrender of the petitioner. The requisites of voluntary surrender to qualify as a mitigating circumstance are wanting in the case as Miguel did not immediately and voluntarily surrender himself to the authorities. On the contrary, he even fled to Batac, Ilocos Norte after the commission of the crime.
Nonetheless, the Court finds it proper to modify the penalty imposed against Miguel as well as the award of damages.
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended specifically provides that the crime of Homicide is punishable with reclusion temporal, viz.:
ARTICLE 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be decreed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, this Court deems it proper to modify the penalty meted upon the petitioner to eight (8) 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.
Further, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the Court awards the heirs of Sinang temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 considering that no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses was presented in court. 22
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 10, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42185 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Cenon Joel Miguel y Caspe, alias "Jose Miguel" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. He is thus sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) 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.
Petitioner Cenon Joel Miguel y Caspe, alias "Jose Miguel" is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of Augusto Sinang civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each. The total amount of damages shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
The Court Notes:
(a) The Ex-Parte Manifestation dated April 30, 2021; and
(b) The ex-parte manifestation of compliance dated July 30, 2021 of counsel for petitioner, relative to the Resolution dated June 21, 2021, stating that the PDF copy of the motion for extension of time to file petition was immediately e-mailed to this Court after the personal filing thereof on March 17, 2021 and the same was e-mailed again on July 30, 2021, and that both e-mails were duly acknowledged by the Judicial Records Office, this Court, as shown in the attached correspondence.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 59-69. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of the Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
2.Id. at 72-73.
3.Rollo, pp. 60-61.
4.Id. at 61.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 61-62.
8.Id. at 62.
9.Id. at 161.
10.Id. at 158-160.
11.Id. at 189-192.
12.Id. at 59-69.
13.Id. at 64-66.
14.Id. at 67.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 67-68.
17.Heirs of Latoja v. Heirs of Latoja, G.R. No. 195500, March 17, 2021.
18.Id.
19. See Balasta v. People, G.R. No. 242912, February 13, 2019.
20. See id.
21.Ansay, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 249138, March 4, 2020.
22. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 853 (2016).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "G.R. No 1786226" in the official document.