FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245545. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RUDY CUBANGBANG y JOSE AND JOVEN CUBANGBANG y JOSE, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245545(People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Rudy Cubangbang y Jose and Joven Cubangbang y Jose,accused-appellants).
After a review of the records, this Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal of Rudy Cubangbang (Rudy) and Joven Cubangbang (Joven) (collectively,accused-appellants) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its September 18, 2018 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08790 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. HTcADC
Accused-appellants were charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, in an Information 2 dated July 16, 2009, which reads:
That on or about December 23, 2008 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, in Barangay Bangar, Municipality of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, with evident premeditation and with deliberate intent to kill Lucio Costales Lelina, with abuse of superior strength and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and hack the latter with a bolo for several times, thereby injuring him mortally and when already lifeless, his body was brought by the above-named accused to a dark area in order to conceal the lifeless body of the victim and to avoid detection, thereby resulting to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Lucio Costales Lelina.
Contrary to Law. 3
As correctly held by the CA, all the elements for the crime of murder were proven by the prosecution's evidence, thus, warranting the affirmance of the judgment of the courts a quo convicting accused-appellants.
Here, the CA affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that the prosecution had sufficiently established all the foregoing elements of murder. Jonel Lelina (Jonel) and Renato Javier, Jr. (Renato), eyewitnesses to the killing incident, consistently and categorically testified that they saw Rudy hack and stab Lucio Costales Lelina (victim) multiple times while Joven held the victim's arms. In the autopsy report prepared and identified by Dr. Antonio R. Labasan, he corroborated Jonel and Renato's eyewitness testimonies and declared that the victim died due to the hacking and stab wounds the latter sustained.
The RTC and the CA also correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 4 It takes place when the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. 5 The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow. 6
The records show that Rudy hacked the victim with a bolo causing the latter to fall on the pavement. Unsatisfied, Rudy continued to hack and stab the victim again, this time, with Joven holding the victim's arms which rendered him helpless and immobile. The acts of accused-appellants were orchestrated in such a way that the victim was unable to defend himself, thus ensuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the perpetrators. Undoubtedly, treachery qualified the killing to murder.
This Court also finds implausible Rudy's assertion that he only acted in self-defense when he killed the victim. Aside from his testimony that the victim chased him with a bolo after he caught the latter opening the balikbayan box in his house, there was no other evidence submitted to corroborate his claim. The CA correctly observed that Rudy's testimony was self-serving and could not be justifiably entertained for being uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence.
Likewise, Joven's defense of denial was unsubstantiated. He failed to discharge the burden of proving that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. Notably, his cousin, Carlito Cubangbang, admitted that his house, where Joven claimed to have been staying at the time of the incident, was only an hour's walk from Jove's house and near the place where the victim was killed.
Indeed, the positive testimonies of Jonel and Renato outweigh the denial proffered by accused-appellants. 7 The categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses prevail over Rudy's unsubstantiated claim of self-defense and Joven's bare denial.
As to the penalty, Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides that the crime of murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Other than the circumstance of treachery which already qualified the crime to murder, no other modifying circumstance is present in the case at bar. Hence, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC.
Anent the damages awarded, this Court held in People v. Racal 8that the award of temperate damages is justified in lieu of actual damages when actual damages proven by receipts during trial amount to less than the sum allowed by the Court as temperate damages. Thus, the CA correctly awarded temperate damages since the amount of actual damages proved and substantiated by the prosecution during trial is merely P35,000 00, which is less than the amount of temperate damages fixed by prevailing jurisprudence for murder. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The September 18, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08790, finding accused-appellants Rudy Cubangbang y Jose and Joven Cubangbang y Jose GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, is AFFIRMED. They are hereby SENTENCED to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY the heirs of the victim, Lucio Costales Lelina, the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
2. Records, p. 1.
3.Id.
4.People v. Duran, Jr., 820 Phil. 1049, 1065 (2017).
5.People v. Roman, 715 Phil. 817, 834 (2013).
6.People v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588, 600 (2017).
7. See People v. Agoncillo, 820 Phil. 1085, 1104 (2017).
8. 817 Phil. 665 (2017).