FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197814. January 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RUSTAN M. DAGARAG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197814 (People of the Philippines v. Rustan M. Dagarag). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused-appellant Rustan M. Dagarag from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 25 February 2011. 1 The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 21 February 2008 2 convicting him of the murder of Bernard Gonzales.
The RTC Ruling
In convicting appellant, the RTC appreciated the numerous pieces of evidence advanced by the prosecution. The prosecution was able to present five eyewitnesses, given the undisputed fact that many people were present in the locus criminis. 3 These eyewitnesses straightforwardly narrated that while Gonzales passed the house of Dagarag, the latter suddenly stabbed the victim with a knife he drew from his waistline; thereafter, Dagarag attempted to escape, but to no avail.
The RTC also considered the entries in the police blotter. Recorded immediately after the crime, these entries matched the narration of the incident. Moreover, the trial court noted that the witnesses' depiction of the victim's wound corresponded with the Postmortem Report.
In contrast, the RTC disbelieved the theory raised by appellant. He narrated that as Gonzales passed by appellant's house, it was the victim, together with the latter's brother-in-law, who had boxed appellant in the left ear, shoulder and stomach; and while Dagarag retreated, he chanced upon a knife, which he picked up from the ground and swayed in front of his alleged aggressors. For the trial court, this uncorroborated narration was merely concocted by appellant to invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
The RTC thus convicted Dagarag of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. As for damages, it awarded P15,775 to cover the receipts 4 for hospitalization and burial costs, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages, and the cost of the suit.
The CA Ruling
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The appellate court gave more weight to the prosecution's evidence rather than appellant's self-defense narrative. It highlighted that all five eyewitnesses had explicitly portrayed the suddenness of the attack and the absence of a boxing episode between Dagarag and Gonzales. Moreover, it construed the story of appellant that "he chanced upon a knife" as difficult to believe and contrary to common experience. EDACSa
The CA also appreciated that treachery qualified the killing, considering the suddenness of attack without the slightest provocation from the victim. Thus, it sustained the conviction of appellant for murder qualified by treachery, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In view of the abolition of the death penalty, it affirmed his sentence to reclusion perpetua. 5 Likewise, it sustained the RTC's grant of damages.
We now rule on the case on final review.
Our Ruling
We deny the Petition.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, less so in the present case in which its findings were affirmed by the CA.
Appellant mainly interposes self-defense. Burdened to prove 6 the element of unlawful aggression of this justifying circumstance, 7 he insists that Gonzales and the latter's brother-in-law were the ones who had first attacked him. However, based on the appreciation of the courts a quo, all five witnesses unequivocally stated that appellant suddenly attacked Gonzales. They are in unison in testifying that no boxing incident preceded the stabbing of the victim. Clearly, appellant's claims are defeated by the positive declarations of all five credible eyewitnesses. 8
In his version, appellant maintains that he chanced upon a knife, which he then used to defend himself. But as correctly characterized by the RTC and the CA, this story is incredible. That he found a knife lying on the ground. is highly contrived and imaginative. Indeed, for evidence to be of judicial cognizance, it must be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation can show it to be probable under the circumstances. 9
Dagarag additionally argues that it was implausible for him to attack Gonzales, considering that there were two peace officers in the vicinity, and that appellant was just recovering from the medical operation he had undergone due to gunshot wounds. But appellant's denial of the felony fails in the light of (1) the positive testimonies presented by the prosecution; 10 (2) his failure to show corroborative evidence supporting his assertions; 11 and (3) the recognized fact that he ran away from the crime scene. 12
Finally, Dagarag disputes the lower courts' appreciation of his alleged treachery. He advances that it is not enough for the prosecution to prove the suddenness, but also the conscious adoption, of the mode of attack.
Although appellant is correct on this legal point, 13 his conviction for murder still stands. The RTC and the CA uniformly depicted that Dagarag carried a knife, 14 and as Gonzales passed by appellant's house, appellant lunged the weapon to the victim's body. The stabbing was thus treacherous for being deliberate, unexpected, swift and sudden, thus foreclosing any escape, resistance or defense coming from the victim. 15
In sum, this Court sustains the RTC and the CA in convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery. We likewise affirm his sentence of reclusion perpetua, but with a modification of his monetary liabilities.
Firstly, this Court grants to the heirs of Gonzales P75,000 as civil indemnity, 16 which the lower courts failed to award. Civil indemnity ex delicto is automatically awarded for the sole fact of the victim's death. 17 Secondly, we impose P25,000 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages amounting to P15,775. In People v. Villanueva, 18 we have enunciated that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Lastly, this Court imposes 6% legal interest per annum on all monetary awards. 19
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03259 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Rustan M. Dagarag is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as temperate damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until the damages are fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Florito S. Macalino concurring; docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03259; rollo, pp. 2-14.
2. Penned by Dagupan City RTC Branch 42 Pairing Judge Silverio Q. Castillo and docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-0426-D; CA rollo, pp. 17-26.
3. CA rollo, pp. 23, 50; RTC Decision, p. 7; and Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 10.
4. Records, pp. 102-111.
5. Republic Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1 and 2.
6. People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 202847, 23 October 2013.
7. Sombol v. People, G.R. No. 194564, 10 April 2013, 695 SCRA 630.
8. Paguirigan v. People, G.R. No. 157700, 5 June 2013.
9. Ocampo v. People, 555 Phil. 509 (2007).
10. People v. Basbas, G.R. No. 191068, 17 July 2013.
11. Cuares v. People, G.R. No. 193348, 2 October 2013.
12. People v. Gregorio, 458 Phil. 687 (2003).
13. People v. Roman, G.R. No. 198110, 31 July 2013.
14. CA rollo, p. 22; rollo, p. 4.
15. People v. Zulieta, G.R. No. 192183, 11 November 2013.
16. People v. Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, 3 July 2013.
17. Briñas v. People, 211 Phil. 37 (1983); see also People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 179195, 3 October 2011, 658 SCRA 385, citing People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, 9 February 2011, 642 SCRA 625.
18. People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, 11 August 2003, 408 SCRA 571.
19. People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 177763, 3 July 2013.