THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200167. December 7, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN DIACAMUS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200167 (People of the Philippines v. Juan Diacamus). This deals with the appeal under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 2 Rule 124 in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), promulgated on March 9, 2011, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, be reversed and set aside.
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on the prosecution's evidence. It was proven that in the evening of March 15, 2001, the victim, together with his wife, their son and his nephew, were drinking in their backyard when a gunshot rang out. The victim then asked his companions for help as he had been shot. The victim's wife and nephew both saw that it was accused-appellant who shot the victim. The RTC rendered judgment sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, assailing the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies and arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of treachery. On March 9, 2011, the CA promulgated its Decision affirming the conviction of accused-appellant but modifying the RTC award for damages, thereby ordering accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages; and the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
Thus, this appeal, wherein accused-appellant reiterates the arguments presented before the CA. After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no reversible error in the CA judgment except that an award of P30,000.00 exemplary damages should have been given.
It must be emphasized that the Court has always abided by the principle that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. 2 Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. The prosecution evidence that the victim was shot in the back without any warning sufficiently established treachery.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of law in the Decision dated March 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR. HC. No. 00468 and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION to the effect that exemplary damages of P30,000.00 should likewise be awarded plus an interest of six percent (6%) per annum of all the damages awarded from finality of the decision until fully paid. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Perlas-Bernabe, J., Additional Member per Raffle dated September 24, 2014.)
SO ORDERED." SDHTEC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Portia A. Hormachuelos and Socorro B. Inting, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-17.
2. People v. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192, 211 (2012).