THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200293. September 18, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALD ANDRES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200293 (People of the Philippines v. Ronald Andres). — The State charged the accused Ronald Andres of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino, in Criminal Case 1562.
Lea Jasmin Francisco (Lea), victim Leonilo Francisco's 7-year-old daughter testified that accused Andres came to their house both on the morning and on the afternoon of March 4, 2000. He asked Lea where Francisco was. She replied that he was at the rice field, prompting Andres to leave. 1 In the evening, Lea was cooking when her father came home. Immediately after, accused Andres and his co-accused, Lazaro Galindo, arrived. Upon entering the door, Andres proceeded to hack Francisco four times with a long bolo; Galindo for his part shot Francisco twice with a long firearm. 2 Lea saw these clearly since she was just a meter away from her father and the place was well lit by fire from the stove. 3 Lea shouted for help after the attack but only late in the evening did help come. 4 HEacDA
Responding to reports from residents, the barangay captain came and investigated the incident. 5 He then reported it to the Aglipay Police Station. On the following day, SPO4 Prudencio Mangaoang investigated the matter, look Lea's sworn statement, and prepared a spot report, 6 which did not yet contain the names of the suspects. Only after 24 days were their identities established and the progress report made. 7
For the defense, accused Andres corroborated the testimony of co-accused Galindo who died before the RTC could render its judgment. 8 Galindo testified that he was having dinner with his family when they heard a child shouting for help. 9 He fetched Andres from where he lived and they proceeded together to Francisco's house. 10 When they were still on their way, they heard gunshots. As they came to about five meters near Francisco's house, Andres saw Rudy Antonio hacking Francisco with a bolo. His brother Gali Antonio stood by a tree two meters away. 11 Andres said that he and Galindo decided not to interfere since they did not want to get involved. They instead went to the house of Kagawad Alfredo Lamig to report the incident. Since Lamig was not around, Galindo told Lamig's wife that Rudy Antonio was fighting Francisco at the latter's house. 12
After trial or on April 13, 2009, the RTC found accused Andres guilty as charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Francisco with P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Upon review, on June 15, 2011 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of Andres and added P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 13 In view of the penalty imposed, the records of this case were directly elevated to this Court for review. IcHTCS
The Court, after a review, finds no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA. Lea saw with her eyes the entire incident as it happened, from the time the two accused suddenly showed up and attacked her father up to the time they left. She stood just a meter away from her father. Although she was only 7 years old at that time, Lea convincingly identified his father's assailants. True, the night was dark but, the accused being their neighbor, she had no problem identifying them. 14
Accused Andres cannot minimize the value of Lea's testimony because of inconsistencies with respect to trivial matters. Her testimony had been consistent with respect to the circumstances of her father's death. Such minor discrepancies do not affect her credibility as it was clear that she saw Andres and Galindo hack and shoot his father. As the prosecution correctly pointed out, the world has not been sorted out into standards of human behavior when a person faces some startling and frightening event. 15 The investigating officer imputed the 24 days delay in identifying the accused on Lea's emotional condition, she having been in a state of shock. 16
Accused Andres' defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over Lea's positive identification of her father's assailants since there is no showing that Lea had been inspired by some ill motive to incriminate Andres and his co-accused. 17 In fact, she was just a child.
Accused Andres cites Lea's testimony that her father was hacked four times and shot twice as against the medico-legal officer's report that Francisco sustained three incised or chopped wounds and seven gunshot wounds. But, as the CA pointed out, the fact that Lea observed Galindo shoot her father twice did not preclude his having sustained five more shots that Lea failed to observe. ETCcSa
Both the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Andres and Galindo's attacks were sudden, unexpected, and without warning. These prevented Francisco from defending himself. He had no inkling of what was about to occur. They hacked and shot him just moments after he arrived home. Clearly, he was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.
All told, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Andres was responsible for the murder of Francisco. The Court would, however, modify the award of damages by increasing the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00, and exemplary damages to P30,000.00 to conform with current jurisprudence. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 03898 dated June 15, 2011 which found accused-appellant Ronald Andres GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder, with the MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity and moral damages be increased to P75,000.00 and the exemplary damages to P30,000.00. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., Acting Member, per Special Order 1541 [Revised] dated September 9, 2013.)
SO ORDERED." HESCcA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.TSN, November 13, 2000, p. 6.
2.Id. at 4 and 7. Andres hacked the victim four times while Galindo shot him twice.
3.TSN, February 7, 2001, p. 9.
4.Supra note 1, at 9.
5.TSN, February 19, 2001, pp. 4, 8, 9. See also Exhibit "1-A" (defense), folder of exhibits, p. 7.
6.TSN, September 18, 2002, p. 7. It is allegedly equivalent to a police blotter, having the same tenor or recital.
7.Id. at 10.
8.TSN, February 26, 2007, p. 2; RTC decision, CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
9.TSN, February 14, 2006, pp. 3, 6.
10.Id. at 7-9.
11.TSN, October 3, 2007, pp. 3-4.
12.Id. at 5-6.
13.Rollo, p. 16.
14.Supra note 3, at 3, 6.
15.People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 546.
16.Exhibit "F," records, p. 199.
17.RTC decision, CA rollo, p. 5.
18.People v. Relos, Sr., G.R. No. 189326, November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 258, 264-265.