SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224219. September 6, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. VICTORINO BABARAN Y SIMANGAN ALIAS "TURING" AND MARCELO BAREO Y BARICAUA, accused;
VICTORINO BABARAN Y SIMANGAN ALIAS "TURING",accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 September 2017which reads as follows: HESIcT
"G.R. No. 224219 (People of the Philippines v. Victorino Babaran y Simangan alias "Turing" and Marcelo Bareo y Baricaua, accused; Victorino Babaran y Simangan alias "Turing," accused-appellant)
Before the Court is an appeal by Victorino Babaran y Simangan from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05217 1 dated 29 January 2015 affirming, with modification, the 8 December 2010 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City.
On the night of 30 September 1994, a number of residents of Brgy. San Roque, Enrile, Cagayan were gathered at Tito Gacutan's store to watch a betamax movie. One of those present was the victim, Domingo T. Malana (Malana). He was seated on a bench outside the store. Halfway through the movie, Marcelo Bareo (Bareo) sat beside Malana, put his arm on the victim's shoulder, and nodded to Victorino Babaran (Babaran). Babaran then approached the victim and shot him in the head. Bareo and Babaran fled the scene. 3
The victim's brother, Roger, testified that, after the shot, he saw his brother fall and rushed to his side. Roger then left to call the police, who came thereafter and took Malana to the hospital. He was comatose when he was brought to the hospital and died around midnight. 4
On the other hand, Babaran's brother, Juan, also testified for the prosecution. He narrated that he was at home on the night of 30 September 1994 when his brother and Bareo arrived. Babaran then tried to hand to him what looked like a .45 caliber gun allegedly for safekeeping. However, he refused to take the gun when he heard his brother say that they have "finished the thorn," knowing that "thorn" referred to Malana, one of the Mayor's men. Babaran and Bareo then left, taking the gun with them. 5
Meanwhile, defense witness Ricardo Laddaran narrated that he was one of those at Gacutan's house watching the movie. He was seated outside the house beside Malana and his family when he heard a gunshot and the victim suddenly fell on him. He initially said that he did not see Roger in the crowd gathered to watch the movie. However, on further questioning, he said that he could not say for certain who were the other people gathered there. 6 The other testimony came from Gacutan who said that, while his neighbors were in his house to watch television, he heard a gunshot prompting him to come out. When he saw Malana, he thought the latter just fainted, but he cautioned Malana's wife not to touch the body. He and another neighbor allegedly left then to fetch the police. 7
Accused Babaran testified that, at the time of the incident, he was at home, which was only 100 meters away from the scene of the crime. His children, who had been watching the movie at Gacutan's house came home to say that someone had been shot. He went out and saw Malana being taken into a police vehicle. He said that he only learned about the cause of death over news reports on the radio. He denied that he was responsible. He also denied his brother's version of events. He pointed out that it was highly improbable for him to approach his brother because they were feuding over land left by their parents. He had also brought a criminal case against Juan, but the latter was acquitted. 8 Upon further questioning, however, he admitted that he and his brother were in good terms before the latter testified against him. 9
The trial court found Babaran and Bareo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's narration of facts, while holding that the defense witnesses' testimonies were not believable. It also held that the defenses of alibi and denial by Babaran and Bareo could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution's witnesses. The trial court also ruled that Babaran failed to establish the physical impossibility of him being at the crime scene since, by his own admission, his house was only 100 meters away. Likewise, the trial court found that Babaran could not impute any ill motive on the prosecution witnesses for falsely accusing him of the crime.
The trial court also ruled that the killing was attended by treachery since the attack was sudden and unexpected — Malana was simply watching television when accused shot him and was clearly in no position to defend himself against the sudden and unprovoked attack. 10
The trial court further found that conspiracy between Babaran and Bareo was firmly established. It pointed out the "common design" between the perpetrators — their individual acts "were concerted and show[ed] such closeness and coordination which led the Court to conclude that they shared a common purpose in killing the victim." 11 caITAC
Babaran and Bareo appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 29 January 2015, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment with modification as to the amount of the accused's civil liabilities. The Court of Appeals increased the award for civil indemnity to P75,000, and awarded P25,000 as temperate damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages, and P50,000 as moral damages. It also imposed an interest of 6% per annum on the monetary awards from the finality of the judgment until fully paid. 12
It brushed off accused's contention that the judge who wrote the decision is not the same judge that heard the testimonies of the witnesses. The Court of Appeals insisted that such a judgment is not erroneous. It pointed out that the judge who did not hear the testimony can "rely on transcript of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men." 13
As to the trial court's appreciation of facts, the Court of Appeals held that the accused "failed to negate the findings of the trial court with concrete evidence that the latter had overlooked, misconstrued, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would affect the result of this case." 14
The case is now before the Court via a Notice of Appeal 15 filed by Babaran on 12 February 2015. Babaran raises the same arguments he raised before the Court of Appeals, as he opted to adopt his Appellant's Brief as his Supplemental Brief. 16
The Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals, but further modifies the amounts of civil liabilities.
In People v. Jugueta, 17 the Court laid down the rules on determining the amounts to be awarded as civil indemnity and damages in criminal cases. The Court explained:
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 [as] exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
The Court also modifies the amount of temperate damages. In Jugueta, the Court increased to P50,000 the amount of temperate damages awarded in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented before the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05217 dated 29 January 2015 finding appellant Victorino Babaran y Simangan guilty of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amounts of moral damages and exemplary damages are both increased to P75,000 and the amount of temperate damages is increased to P50,000. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards computed from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
2. CA rollo, 108-116. Penned by Presiding Judge Vilma T. Pauig.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6. CA rollo, p. 110.
7.Id. at 110-111.
8.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
9. CA rollo, p. 111.
10.Id. at 115.
11.Id. at 114.
12.Rollo, 15.
13.Id. at 9.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, pp. 323-324.
16.Rollo, pp. 31-32.
17. G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373.