THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215792. February 22, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO CACANINDIN, SR. AND ROLANDO CACANINDIN, JR., accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 22, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215792 (People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Cacanindin, Sr. and Rolando Cacanindin, Jr.). — For review is the Decision 1 dated June 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05914, denying Rolando Cacanindin, Sr. (Rolando Sr.) and Rolando Cacanindin, Jr.'s (Rolando Jr.) (accused-appellants) appeal and affirming the Decision 2 dated December 5, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 195, in Criminal Case No. 06-0691.
The Information charged the accused-appellants with Murder, to wit:
That on or about 28th day of May 2006, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating with ROLLY CACANINDIN Y GONZALES, who is still at large, and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with a knife, with intent to kill, and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and stab one JERRY ORTILLO Y RUPANAN, thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Babylin Ortillo (Ortillo), Jayson Solano (Solano) and Librado Cruz (Cruz). Ortillo's and Cruz's testimonies were dispensed with in view of the parties' stipulation. 4
According to Solano, he was walking along Ninoy Aquino Avenue, Sto. Niño, Parañaque City on May 28, 2006 at around 11:40 p.m. with Jerry Ortillo (victim). They passed by the SMD Compound when Rolando Jr. ran after them and hit the victim on the nape with a "dos por dos." After the victim fell on the ground, Rolando Jr. held the victim's two hands while Rolando Sr. stabbed the victim at the back for about six (6) times with a foot long samurai. Solano fled the site and called for help. The victim was brought to Parañaque Community Hospital where he was pronounced dead. Solano knew both the accused-appellants because they were neighbors. 5
Version of the Defense
Rolando Sr. testified that at the time of the incident, he was inside their house conversing with his children, except for Rolando Jr. who was not with them. Rolando Sr. then heard the sound of stones being thrown on their roof so he went out of the house and saw the victim hurling stones. The victim turned to Rolando Sr. and suddenly stabbed the latter on the left chest with a knife. They wrestled for the possession of the knife and rolled on the ground. When the victim was on top of Rolando Sr., the former stood up and ran away. Rolando Sr. was subsequently brought to the hospital for treatment and confinement. A week after, he was arrested and brought to Parañaque City Jail. 6
For his part, Rolando Jr. claimed that on May 28, 2006 at about 10:00 p.m., he was with his friends watching a ball game at a basketball court located in their place. Their group left the basketball court at about 2:00 a.m. On their way home, they encountered two relatives of the victim who were throwing stones at them, which led them to run away. Upon arriving home, Rolando Jr., found the house in disarray and heard stones being thrown on their roof but he did not bother to check outside. Later, barangay officials came to their house and informed him that his father was involved in a fight with another person who subsequently died. Rolando Jr. was turned over by the barangay officials to the police and was accused of being involved in the incident. 7 aDSIHc
Two more witnesses were presented by the defense: Ronnie Ubano (Ubano) and Fernando Santos (Santos). Ubano confirmed that he was with Rolando Jr. at the basketball court that evening. Afterwards, they stayed at a computer shop nearby. Then, they noticed a commotion near Rolando Jr.'s house. Rolando Jr. crossed the street to get to their house when someone threw a stone at him. Ubano also said that he heard shouts emanating from a gate near the bridge and that someone came out of the gate holding a weapon that looked like a samurai. Police officers came and pacified the people who were fighting. 8
Santos backed the narration of Rolando Sr. and stated that he saw the victim and Rolando Sr. fighting outside the latter's house, as Santos' house was merely two houses away. He saw the victim stab Rolando Sr. on his left chest. The barangay officials later came and brought Rolando Sr. to the hospital. 9
Ruling of the RTC
On December 5, 2012, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds [the accused-appellants] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which carries with it the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and of perpetual absolute disqualification which he shall suffer even though pardoned[,] unless the same shall have been expressly remitted therein.
Both [the accused-appellants] are likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as actual damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) as moral damages; and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.
The City Jail Warden of Parañaque City is hereby ordered to transfer said [accused-appellants] to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 10
Ruling of the CA
The accused-appellants filed an appeal with the CA. 11 In their Brief, 12 they alleged that the RTC gravely erred in convicting them despite the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in disregarding their defense of denial and alibi; in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance; and in ruling that conspiracy was present.
The CA denied the appeal in a Decision dated June 30, 2014, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13
The case is now before the Court by virtue of the Notice of Appeal 14 interposed by the accused-appellants from the decision of the CA. ATICcS
Ruling of the Court
The Court sustains the CA decision with modification on the damages awarded.
First, the Court has held time and again that the "factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts and circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case." 15 In this case, the Court finds that none of these circumstances were present to warrant an interference with the assessment of facts made by the RTC, especially where such assessment was affirmed by the CA.
Second, the accused-appellants' "denial and alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification." 16 The RTC and the CA noted that the accused-appellants failed to establish any ill motive that would impel the prosecution witnesses to falsely accuse them of committing a crime. Further, "alibi is the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For this defense to prosper, proof that the accused was in a different place at the time the crime was committed is insufficient. There must be evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be within the immediate vicinity of the crime during its commission." 17
In this case, the accused-appellants were not able to demonstrate the physical impossibility for them to be present at the scene of the crime on the night of its commission. As observed by the CA, the murder occurred at the SMD Compound which was only a 10-minute walk away from the accused-appellants' house, while the basketball court where Rolando Jr. supposedly stayed is just a 5-minute tricycle ride away from their house. 18 Additionally, the RTC noted that the testimonies of the accused-appellants conflicted with those of their witnesses. 19
Last, as found by the RTC and sustained by the CA, treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime, judged from the mode and manner of the attack 20 as well as conspiracy between the accused-appellants. 21
To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. 22 In People v. Gunda, 23 the Court held that there is treachery when the accused struck the victim's head from behind and the latter's arms were held by the accused's cohorts, rendering the victim helpless and immobile as the accused stabbed him. 24
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that "conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." In this case, conspiracy may be inferred from the accused-appellants' concerted act of taking the victim by surprise, with one of the accused-appellants hitting the victim with a dos por dos before holding the victim's arms while the other stabbed him.
Since there is no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As regards the damages, the amount of civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Moral and exemplary damages must likewise be increased to P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. 25 The actual damages in the amount of P20,000.00 is maintained. In addition, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05914 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Rolando Cacanindin, Sr. and Rolando Cacanindin, Jr., are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Jerry Ortillo the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the monetary awards for damages shall earn annual interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Mendoza, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 2, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ramon A. Cruz concurring; CA rollo, pp. 115-127.
2. Rendered by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal; id. at 24-31.
3. Id. at 24.
4. Id. at 116.
5. Id. at 24-25.
6. Id. at 26-27.
7. Id. at 25-26.
8. Id. at 26.
9. Id. at 27.
10. Id. at 31.
11. Id. at 32-33.
12. Id. at 48-68.
13. Id. at 126.
14. Id. at 128-129.
15. Eduarte v. People, 603 Phil. 504, 513 (2009).
16. People v. Agcanas, 674 Phil. 626, 632 (2011).
17. People v. Cabtalan, 682 Phil. 164, 181 (2012), citing People v. de Guzman, 597 Phil. 634, 645 (2009).
18. CA rollo, p. 123.
19. Id. at 30.
20. Id. at 124-126.
21. Id. at 126.
22. People v. Campos, et al., 668 Phil. 315, 329 (2011).
23. G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 505.
24. Id. at 511.
25. People v. Dadao, G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014, 714 SCRA 524, 541; People v. Gunda, supra note 23, at 512.