SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212442. February 11, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. OLIVER DIZON, *respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212442 — People of the Philippines v. Oliver Dizon
The records of this case were elevated to this Court on May 27, 2014, pursuant to the Court of Appeals-Cebu City (CA) Resolution 1 dated March 17, 2014, which gave due course to the notice of appeal 2 filed by accused-appellant Oliver Dizon (accused-appellant), from the CA Decision 3 dated July 5, 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01487. The CA Decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC's) ruling which found accused Dizon guilty of Murder.
On July 14, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution 4 notifying the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
On September 10, 2014, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) 5 stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the Brief for the Appellee dated March 11, 2013 had exhaustively addressed the issues and arguments in the Appellant's Brief dated October 12, 2012. On May 3, 2016, accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office moved for an extension of time to file supplemental brief, which motion was granted in a Resolution 6 dated June 27, 2016. On July 4, 2016, he filed his supplemental brief 7 arguing that the CA gravely erred in affirming his conviction considering that he was not the one who actually killed the victim. He likewise asserted that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of conspiracy by cogent evidence.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure of accused-appellant to sufficiently establish that the CA committed a reversible error in its assailed Decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The case of People v. Carandang8 is illuminating:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each.
In the present case, the fact that accused-appellant was not the one who actually stabbed the victim Melchor Nosal (Nosal) does not preclude the existence of conspiracy which both the RTC and the CA correctly inferred from the coordinated movements of accused-appellant and his two companions before, during and after the commission of the crime: (1) accused-appellant (aimed with a gun) and his two companions (one of whom carried a knife) purposely went to the restaurant where unarmed Nosal and his two cousins were dining; (2) accused-appellant's female companion asked Nosal's group who was the driver of their van and further uttered, "Nganong inyong ming paligsan? Patyon mi ninyo?" (Bakit ninyo kami sasagasaan? Papatayin ninyo ba kami?); 9 (3) accused-appellant pointed his gun at them and thereafter hit Nosal's companions in the head with his pistol; (4) accused-appellant's male companion stabbed Nosal's companion on the left portion of his nape; (5) accused-appellant grabbed Nosal by the collar and was grappling with him for the possession of the gun when accused-appellant's companion also stabbed Nosal twice on the back; and (6) accused-appellant's group left the restaurant when Nosal ran for cover at the comfort room.
The above circumstances plainly show that the concerted acts of accused-appellant and his companions were triggered by an altercation with Nosal's group after the latter nearly ran over them. Accused-appellant's group, armed with a gun and knife, endeavored to find Nosal's group to confront them about their previous road encounter. Without any provocation on the part of Nosal and his companions, accused-appellant drew his gun, aimed it against them, and hit Nosal's companions in the head with his pistol. When Nosal was struggling with accused-appellant for the possession of the gun, accused-appellant's companion pulled his knife and stabbed the hapless and unsuspecting victim twice on the back, establishing their common evil design and their unity of purpose in executing their plan to retaliate and inflict serious harm against the driver Nosal.
The Court, however, finds that the award of damages by the CA should be modified to conform to recent jurisprudence. As pronounced in People v. Jugueta, 10 the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are P75,000.00 each, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua as in this case. Moreover, the Court has fixed the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages in murder cases. 11
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 5, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01487 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS such that: (1) the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is increased to P75,000.00; (2) the amount of exemplary damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00; and 3) the amount of temperate damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00, with legal interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
Other dispositions not herein otherwise modified, STANDS.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando per Special Order No. 2630-H dated January 28, 2019.
1.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2.Id. at 22-23.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by then Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court), and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan; id. at 4-21.
4.Id. at 27.
5.Id. at 31.
6.Id. at 60.
7.Id. at 62-72.
8. 669 Phil. 59, 74 (2011).
9. See Supplemental Brief for Accused-Appellant, footnote 22, rollo, p. 68.
10.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 840 (2016).
11.Id. at 847; People v. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017, 838 SCRA 476, 498.