SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218141. April 3, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDWIN CUI y LIPATA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218141 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus EDWIN CUI y LIPATA, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the assailed Decision. 1 The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant is indeed guilty of the crime of Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the Court of Appeals (CA), were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of the trial court necessarily carry great weight and respect as it is afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 After examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 4 which the CA affirmed in toto.
As correctly pointed out by the CA, the eyewitness presented by the prosecution was able to positively identify accused-appellant as the one who fired multiple gun shots against the victim, which caused the latter's instantaneous death. His testimony remains credible vis-à-vis the defense witnesses' filtered, inconsistent and wavering narrations.
Moreover, the defense failed to establish any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness that will defile his narration and eradicate his credibility. In fact, both the RTC and the CA found the eyewitness' testimony brave and worthy of belief. It is settled that where there is no evidence and there is nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witness was not so actuated, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 5
As to the presence of the qualifying circumstances, the Court sustains the concurring findings of the courts a quo that treachery attended the killing of the victim. There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused without warning, as when the accused attacks the victim from behind, or when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant. 6 Here, evidence unequivocally shows that the attack against the victim was sudden, unexpected and deliberate as testified by the eyewitness. Accused-appellant shot the victim at the back several times and to ensure the execution of the crime, three (3) men held the victim down depriving the latter of any means of defending himself.
With this finding that treachery is present, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily absorbed therein, even though the latter was alleged in the Information. 7 Consequently, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength should not be appreciated as a separate aggravating circumstance. Be that as it may, since treachery already qualified the offense, the conviction of accused-appellant of the crime of Murder must be upheld.
The Court also finds accused-appellant's defense of alibi bereft of merit. While accused-appellant's alibi was corroborated by other defense witnesses, it still fails to persuade the Court. Accused-appellant was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed considering that the time when he allegedly went to the establishment, where the crime was committed, was close enough to the time the eyewitnesses saw accused-appellant kill the victim.
Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 8 the damages awarded in the assailed Decision are hereby modified. The civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to P75,000.00 each. In addition, accused-appellant is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05763 finding accused-appellant EDWIN CUI y LIPATA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civilindemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. Decision dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05763 penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Member of this Court) and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. See Judgment dated August 6, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in Criminal Case No. 07-254763, penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta; CA rollo, pp. 9-32.
5. See People v. Guillera, 601 Phil. 155, 165 (2009).
6.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 374 (2017).
7.People v. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018.
8. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).