THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200076. September 24, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ELDE ASMAD y CANDOJONG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 24, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200076 (People of the Philippines vs. Elde Asmad y Candojong). — Before us is an appeal from the August 10, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City, finding appellant Elde Asmad y Candojong guilty for the murder of Zenaida Diaz (Zenaida) and the attempted murder of Ariel Conde (Conde), Lomer Estaño (Estaño), Virgilio H. Diaz, Jr. (Diaz, Jr.), Ronnie R. Abalona (Abalona) and Donald Diaz (Donald). The Informations alleged that appellant, together with Hadji Edres Salam and Tumpak Unsok, acted in conspiracy, with evident premeditation and treachery in perpetrating their criminal acts. However, Salam and Unsok remained at large. Hence, trial was conducted only against appellant.
The prosecution evidence proved that at around 1:00 in the early morning of June 30, 1997, the motor launch "M/L Shipper" was moored around 500 meters from the shore of Brgy. Bancalaan in Balabac, Palawan, when a speedboat surreptitiously positioned itself beside the vessel. Suddenly, appellant, Salam and Unsok boarded the vessel from the speedboat and hacked, mauled, and shot the passengers and crew. Appellant approached Abalona and hacked him. The witnesses heard a shot and Zenaida was heard pleading, "Arthur, don't kill us, we will give you whatever you want." A bearded man, later identified as Salam, held Zenaida by the hair and slit her neck. She died as a result. Meanwhile, appellant hacked Conde on the head with a bolo, but Conde survived. Estaño, Diaz, Jr. and Abalona also sustained injuries, but survived the incident. Donald was fired upon by appellant, but Donald jumped off the motor launch and did not sustain any injury. The victims were later brought to the hospital in Rio Tuba and the incident was reported to the police. 3
The defense presented a different version of the facts. Pisa Tajala, a barangay kagawad of Bancalaan, Balabac, Palawan narrated that on his way back to Matunggali Island, he experienced engine trouble and had sought appellant's help to repair his boat's engine. Appellant brought the engine to his house and finished fixing it around 2:00 a.m. on June 30, 1997. Tajala added that he slept at appellant's house and woke up at around 5:30 a.m. on June 30, 1997. He and appellant had coffee together before he left at 5:45 a.m. 4 For his part, appellant testified that on July 4, 1997, he was arrested in his house and was detained at Tiniguiban, Puerto Princesa Police Station. A certain Diaz later arrived and told him that if he point to Hadji Edres and Tumpak Unsok as the ones responsible for the crimes, he will not be implicated in the charge. Appellant, however, insisted that he had no personal knowledge of the incident. 5
The RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of murder of Zenaida and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the family of the late Zenaida actual damages of P59,200 and indemnity in the amount of P75,000. He was also found guilty of five counts of attempted murder and was sentenced in each case to suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay the costs. 6acADIT
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision but modified the award of monetary damages. It gave credence to the testimonies of witnesses Diaz, Jr. and Conde, who positively identified the assailants in the instant case. The CA was also convinced that the assailants acted in conspiracy as their execution of the crimes implied a concerted effort on their part. It noted that appellant and his co-accused were boarded in one speedboat in going to the "M/L Shipper". They participated in the perpetuation of the crimes by simultaneously hacking and shooting the victims. Thereafter, they left the motor launch together. The CA stressed that treachery was evident when they unexpectedly attacked their victims at 1:00 a.m. while they were already in their sleeping quarters and about to rest. 7
However, as regards the attempt on the lives of Diaz, Jr., Conde, Estaño, Abalona and Donald, the CA held that appellant was only liable for attempted murder, and not frustrated murder, since it was not proven that the injuries suffered by the victims Diaz, Jr., Conde, Estaño and Abalona, would have caused their death had medical assistance not been provided them at the Municipal Health Office of Balabac, Palawan. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the CA meted out the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count of attempted murder, with all the accessory penalties imposed by law. Furthermore, the award of actual damages was reduced to P57,800 as such was the only amount duly substantiated by receipts for Zenaida's funeral and memorial services. Zenaida's heirs were likewise awarded P75,000 as moral damages and P30,000 as exemplary damages as the killing was attended by treachery. As to the award of damages for appellant's conviction for attempted murder, the surviving victims were each granted P40,000 as moral damages and P20,000 as exemplary damages as the crimes were committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 8
Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. Essentially, the issue is whether appellant's guilt for the crimes of murder and attempted murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We dismiss the appeal.
We have held time and again that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality. Where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, or absent any showing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion, then we do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. 9 In this case, both the RTC and the CA found the witnesses' positive identification of appellant Elde Asmad in court clear and unequivocal. The CA explained that the discrepancy between the affidavits and the testimonies in court may be explained as the witnesses were then being treated for their injuries at the time their affidavits were taken. Such discrepancy does not detract from the credibility of the witnesses or their testimony, contrary to the appellant's contentions.
We also note that appellant denied having committed the crime and insisted that at the time of the incident, he was at his house fixing the engine of a boat. However, his alibi failed to overcome the facts as borne out by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. It must be emphasized that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. The Court has held that alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated. Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission. 10 Appellant failed to prove physical impossibility as the place where he alleged he was at the time the crime was committed was only about an hour away from the locus criminis.
As to civil indemnity and moral damages awarded for the death of Zenaida, the same shall be decreased from P75,000 to P50,000 each in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
As to the award of exemplary damages in Criminal Case Nos. 14131, 14064, 14065, 14066 and 14067 (attempted murder cases) and still in line with prevailing jurisprudence, 11 we increase the same to P30,000. Likewise, we deem it proper to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 12
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 10, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03991 affirming the conviction of appellant Elde Asmad y Candojong is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of civil indemnity and moral damages for the death of Zenaida is hereby decreased from P75,000 to P50,000 each. The amount of exemplary damages in Criminal Case Nos. 14131, 14064, 14065, 14066 and 14067 is increased to P30,000. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid shall likewise be paid by the appellant.
With costs against the appellant. (Peralta, J., no part, as his spouse, Honorable Court of Appeals Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurred in the assailed decision; Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Bersamin and Del Castillo, JJ., designated Members per Raffle dated September 17, 2014, respectively.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-33. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03991.
2. CA rollo, pp. 42-62. Penned by Judge Panfilo S. Salva.
3. TSN, June 16, 1998, pp. 8-17; TSN, June 30, 1999, pp. 5-12; TSN, December 7, 1999, pp. 5-14.
4. TSN, May 19, 2000, pp. 2-9.
5. TSN, August 1, 2001, pp. 5-15.
6. CA rollo, p. 62.
7. Rollo, pp. 16-18, 26-27.
8. Id. at 29-33.
9. People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 689, 700.
10. People v. Tamolon, 599 Phil. 542, 552 (2009).
11. People v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013, pp. 9-10.
12. People v. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 193, 207-208.