People v. Devivar

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241086. June 30, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. REYNANTE DEVIVAR, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241086 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Reynante Devivar, accused-appellant).

After a review of the records, this Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City committed any reversible error in its March 15, 2017 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01100 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.

Reynante Devivar (accused-appellant) was 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 which reads:

That on December 24, 2001 at around 1:30 dawn, more or less, at Barangay Jubay, Liloan, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot NOEL ANGLIONGTO, with the use of .38 caliber Snubnose Revolver[,] hitting the latter on [the] left side of his head which cause[d] his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

As correctly held by the CA, all the elements of the crime of murder were proven by the prosecution's evidence warranting the affirmance of the judgment of the courts a quo convicting accused-appellant.

In this case, both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA, giving weight and credence to the testimonies of eyewitnesses Wilmar Magdadaro (Wilmar) and Abner Quiño (Abner), found that accused-appellant went to the cottage where Wilmar, Abner, and the victim were playing cards. After the victim refused accused-appellant's request to buy more drinks, accused-appellant left and smoked a cigarette. Accused-appellant returned to the cottage and greeted the three men a "Merry Christmas." Accused-appellant urinated beside the victim and, after relieving himself and without warning, shot the victim in the head. The victim's certificate of death revealed that he died of hemorrhage due to a gunshot wound on the head.

Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, the RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime. After accused-appellant urinated, he shot the victim in the head without any warning whatsoever. The victim was, at that time, unarmed and had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming. In fact, just moments before he was shot, the victim was merely playing cards with Wilmar and Abner; thus, he had no opportunity to defend himself. As observed by the CA, accused-appellant's intent to kill can be deduced from the nature and location of the wound, as well as the kind of weapon used. The fact that accused-appellant inflicted a head wound indicated his determined effort to kill the victim.

Moreover, accused-appellant's contention that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred with inconsistencies, which destroy their credibility, lacks merit.

Time and again, the Court has held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. Hence, it is a settled rule that appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the RTC are sustained by the CA, 4 as in this case.

As to the penalty, under Art. 248 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, 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 circumstance is present in the case at bar. Hence, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and also correctly awarded moral, exemplary, and temperate damages pursuant to Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 5

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 15, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01100, finding accused-appellant Reynante Devivar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is AFFIRMED. He is hereby SENTENCED Ito serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY the heirs of the victim, Noel Angliongto, the amounts 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.

The manifestation of Atty. Rufe Paul R. Legorio of Dumdum Legorio and Deiparine Law Firm, counsel for accused-appellant, stating that he would no longer be filing a supplemental brief as he believes that all necessary arguments and discussions have already been fully ventilated in the appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals, and his compliance with the Show Cause Resolution dated July 13, 2020, stating, among others, that it was not his intention to disrespect the authority of this Court and neither was it deliberate to disregard its order, is NOTED.

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. 4-13; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.

2.Id. at 5.

3.Id.

4.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 371 (2017).

5. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).