People v. Cristino y Lavega

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202125. January 24, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOMMEL CRISTINO y LAVEGA alias "NIK-NOK", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 24, 2018, which reads as follows: HCaDIS

"G.R. No. 202125 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOMMEL CRISTINO y LAVEGA alias "NIK-NOK," Accused-Appellant.) — After a careful and judicious review of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DISMISS the appeal for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating the decision on January 9, 2012 1 upholding his conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 138, in Makati City for the murder by stabbing of the late Melben Asis y Esteves on September 5, 2007. 2

To start with, the accused-appellant admitted during the pretrial having delivered the fatal blow that killed the victim. It then behooved him to substantiate his defense by clear and convincing evidence, but he did not do so.

Secondly, the RTC and the CA commonly found that treachery had been attendant in the assault by the accused-appellant. The following elements of treachery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, namely: (a) that the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. 3 The State proved all the elements. Indeed, Melben had no forewarning of any impending attack from the accused-appellant because he and the latter were the best of friends. Clearly, the latter deliberately designed to mount a sudden and unexpected attack against Melben to insure the execution of the killing without any risk to himself arising from any defense that Melben would make.

And, thirdly, the plea of the accused-appellant for the mitigation of his criminal liability based on the sufficient provocation from Melben was factually groundless. The Solicitor General points out that the "fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by the law." 4

We note that the RTC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender based on the voluntary surrender of the accused-appellant to the police before any warrant for his arrest had issued — as attested to by Police Insp. Peruda of the Warrant Section of the Makati Police Station. 5 However, the voluntary surrender had no effect on the penalty to be imposed. Murder is penalized by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Even if Republic Act No. 9346 has meanwhile prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, and has effectively rendered the penalty for murder a single indivisible one, the circumstance of voluntary surrender would not modify the penalty considering that under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the single indivisible penalty shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

Anent the civil liabilities of the accused-appellant, current judicial policy 6 fixes the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, to be paid to the heirs of Melben. In addition, although the victim's family allegedly spent P38,821.88 for the wake and burial of Melben, and both lower courts allowed said amount as actual damages albeit not stating in their decisions the factual bases for such amount, the Court cannot uphold the lower courts thereon. To start with, the RTC adverted to the amount as a mere estimate by witness Benedicta Asis of her family's expenses for the varied activities relating to the wake and funeral of her son, Melben. 7 Also, the amount, being ostensibly a mere approximation, was devoid of accuracy, 8 and granting such amount would contravene the letter of Article 2199 of the Civil Code that clearly states that the plaintiff's demand for damages should be adequately compensated only for pecuniary losses that are "duly proved." Thus, the lack of competent evidence to establish the actual burial and related expenses for the interment of the remains of the victim prevents the Court from granting that amount.

Instead, the Court grants the sum of P50,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of Melben. Based on Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages can be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. 9

All the items of damages stated herein shall all earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this resolution until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision promulgated on January 9, 2012 finding accused-appellant JOMMEL CRISTINO y LAVEGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of the late Melben Asis y Esteves the amounts of 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 accused-appellant shall pay the costs of suit. AHCETa

(Martires, J., on wellness leave.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 201-213; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Amy C. Javier-Lazaro.

2.Id. at 14-24; penned by Judge Alberico B. Umali.

3.People v. Oandasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016, 794 SCRA 278, 292.

4.Oriente v. People, G.R. No. 155094, January 30, 2007, 513 SCRA 348, 366.

5. Records, p. 153.

6.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.

7. CA rollo, p. 17.

8.Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. v. Barretto, G.R. No. 184215, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 596, 606-607, where the Court opined:

   x x x The rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered. In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable. The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages. Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof, courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award. x x x

9.Ladines v. People, G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 83, 94-95.