FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218274. March 13, 2019.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RICARDO BUTASLAC A.K.A. "RICKY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218274 (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BUTASLAC a.k.a. "RICKY," Accused-Appellant.) — After a judicious review of the records, We DISMISS the appeal against the September 8, 2014 decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05253 for failure of the accused-appellant to prove that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in affirming the decision dated August 30, 2011 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 156, Marikina City, finding accused-appellant Ricardo Bustalac a.k.a. "Ricky" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The accused-appellant argued that the eyewitnesses failed to categorically and positively identify him as the malefactor because based on their testimony, they were told to look down during the robbery incident.
The contention does not persuade.
State witness Rolly Riego testified in a categorical and straightforward manner that he had taken careful note of the face and appearance of the accused-appellant as the person who hit him, thus:
ATTY. SORONGON:
Q: How about this person, one of the three persons who boarded from Robinsons who sat at the middle, where was he positioned?
A: He was seated on the third from the left side and there's another passenger on the right side. CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned that the person who was seated at the middle poked a gun?
A: Yes, sir. He was the one who poked the gun at me and also the one who hit me.
Q: In what part of your body did this person poke the gun?
A: When he announced the hold-up. I immediately glanced at him and then he immediately hit me, sir.
Q: In what part of your body did this person who was seated in the middle hit you?
A: On my forehead, sir.
Q: With regard to this hitting incident, when did this happen?
A: After he announced the hold-up, I immediately glanced at him and then he immediately hit me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did anyone of these holduppers tell you or your passengers not to look at their faces?
A: The one who hit me, sir.
Q: At what point in time did he ask all of you not to look at their faces?
A: Immediately after he announced the holdup while the vehicle was running, sir.
Q: Did you follow their command?
A: No, sir. I was trying to look at them.
Q: Who particularly?
A: To the one named Ricky, Sir.
Q: How did you try to look at his face?
A: Because I was looking down, and . . .
INTERPRETER:
Witness demonstrating with his hand on his nape.
Q: Am I correct to state that when this person who was seated infront of your vehicle asked you to look down, you did not follow his order. Is that correct?
A: I did not follow his instruction, Sir.
Q: But [a while] ago, you were demonstrating your hands placed on your nape and your face was facing the ground. How will you explain that?
A: My hands were really on my nape but I was looking at his direction. I was getting familiar with the face of the person driving the vehicle.
Q: Would you kindly demonstrate your position in front of that vehicle when you were trying to look at the face of Ricky Bustalac?
A: 'Pinipilit nya akong payukuin. Tinitingnan [ko po] talaga sya. Sabi nya po, wag kang titingin sa akin. At sinabi kona hind naman po ako lalaban,' sir. And at that time, I had the opportunity to escape. 3 (Emphases supplied.)
Another witness, Joel Constantino, similarly responded to the clarificatory questions of the trial court judge to the effect that he did not meekly comply with the assailants' order to look down: DETACa
COURT:
Q: Mr. witness, when you were asked to look down while the hold-upper was robbing you, were (sic) there any instance that you looked up?
A: Yes, your honor, but every time I do that, they "binabatukan ako," your honor.
Q: More or less how many times did you raise your head?
A: Two times, sir.
Q: And every time you raise your head, the first time if you could still recall what did you see?
A: The hold upper in the middle was in the act of getting something from the passenger, your honor.
Q: Left side or right side?
A: At the left side your honor.
Q: Second time you raised your head, what did you see?
A: I did not see anything else, your honor. 4 (Emphasis supplied.)
The same witness testified on cross-examination, that:
ATTY. SORONGON:
Q: When the gun was pointed at you and you heard these words 'yuko, kamay sa batok,' did you immediately follow the order?
A: Not immediately because I was shocked of (sic) the incident, sir.
Q: How long did it take you to follow the order of these hold-uppers?
A: When the hold-upper hit me in the head, sir.
Q: How long, seconds, minutes?
A: Half a second, sir. 5 (Emphasis supplied.)
We likewise agree with the observation made by the CA that victims of criminal violence naturally tend to strive to see the faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was being committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailant create a lasting impression which cannot easily be erased from their memory. 6 Here, both testimonies of Riego and Constantino adequately showed that they had a clear view of the perpetrators' faces despite their having been instructed to look down.
The accused-appellant further argued that the out-of-court identification by Riego should not have been accepted by the trial court because it failed to satisfy the "totality of circumstances test;" that Riego's identification was tainted by the possibility that the police may have influenced the witness due to the accused-appellant's purported misunderstanding with the former district chief of police of Marikina.
The Court is unconvinced.
To determine if an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 7
Riego's out-of-court identification complies with the totality of circumstances test and rules out any fear that the police had unduly influenced him to testify against the accused-appellant. aDSIHc
To begin with, Riego had firmly testified that he had seen the faces of the robbers, especially that of the accused-appellant despite being instructed to look down; that upon his escape from the vehicle, he immediately proceeded to the police station to report the incident; that prior to being shown pictures of possible suspects, he already gave details regarding the appearance of the accused; that he was alone when he perused the numerous photos shown to him by the Marikina Police; and that when he browsed through the thick police photo gallery, he recognized the accused-appellant right away and subsequently told the policeman that it was the accused-appellant who hit him.
We likewise reject the accused-appellant's alibi that he could not have committed the crime because he was residing in Masbate from November 2005 to February 2007.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. 8 Such physical impossibility was not shown to have existed in this case.
The courts a quo pointed out that the dates mentioned by the accused were so remote in time compared to the date of the commission of the crime which happened on March 17, 2006; and that even considering that it takes 16 hours by bus and boat from Masbate where he allegedly resided, it was not impossible for the accused-appellant to be in Marikina on the said date. 9 Also, denial and alibi, being weak defenses, cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the offended parties and neither can they prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. 10
Verily, the RTC and the CA had correctly convicted herein accused-appellant and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the absence of any modifying circumstance.
Anent the damages awarded however, We find that a modification is in order. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence on adjusted damages laid down by this Court in People v. Jugueta, 11 the accused-appellant shall be held liable to the heirs of Ricardo Siuagan for P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The awards in favor of the other victims are sustained. In addition, the Court also imposes interest on all the monetary awards at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on September 8, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05253, in that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Ricardo Siuagan the following adjusted amounts: (1) P75,000 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000 as moral damages; (3) P75,000 as exemplary damages, and (4) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The monetary awards to the other victims are unchanged. Accused-appellant shall pay interest on all monetary awards at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of finality of this resolution until fully paid."
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 11, 2019. ETHIDa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp, 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan.
2. CA rollo, pp. 24-32; penned by Judge Anjanette N. De Leon Ortile.
3. TSN dated July 18, 2007, pp. 6-9.
4. TSN dated August 01, 2007, p. 6.
5. TSN dated August 01, 2007, p. 11.
6.People v. Peralta y Morillo, G.R. No. 208524, June 1, 2016, 792 SCRA 80, 91; citing People v. Dolar, G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994, 231 SCRA 414, 423, citing People v. Sartagoda, G.R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 251, 257.
7.Vidar v. People, G.R. No. 177361, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 216, 227.
8.People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 339; People v. Libo-on, G.R. No. 136737, May 23, 2001, 358 SCRA 152, 173-174.
9. TSN dated May 5, 2009, p. 13.
10.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 167756, April 9, 2008, 551 SCRA 16, 42.
11. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.