FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225505. September 11, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MIGUEL DIZON Y TAPIA A.K.A. "DANIEL" A.K.A. "FREDDIE ORTILLANO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225505 (People of the Philippines v. Miguel Dizon y Tapia a.k.a. "Daniel" a.k.a. "Freddie Ortillano")
This is an appeal from the November 13, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05202. The CA affirmed with modification the August 15, 2011 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 4375, 4376, 4377, and 4378, finding Miguel Dizon y Tapia a.k.a. Daniel or Freddie Ortillano (appellant) guilty of three (3) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Frustrated Murder.
Antecedents
In four separate Informations, 3 appellant was charged with three (3) counts of murder and one (1) count of frustrated murder:
Criminal Case No. 4375
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 22, 2011 at Purok 3, Brgy. Bulalacao, Caramoran, Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with evident premeditation and treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack Ma. Ana Opancia y Brizo, inflicting upon her fatal wounds on the different parts of her body that resulted to her death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim. SDAaTC
The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and treachery are present in the killing of the victim because of [a] previous misunderstanding between the accused and the victim, and the abuse of superior strength considering that the victim is a woman. 4
Criminal Case No. 4376
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 22, 2011 at Purok 3, Brgy. Bulalacao, Caramoran, Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack several times Sheena Opancia y Brizo, a minor 2 years old, with the use of a bolo as a result of which (she) suffered multiple hacked (sic) wounds [on the] head and shoulder, thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused that is, due to the timely and able medical assistance given to the said victim, which prevented her death, to the damage and prejudice of the victim. 5
Criminal Case No. 4377
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 22, 2011 at Purok 3, [Brgy.] Bulalacao, Caramoran, Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and hack Allan San Opancia y [Brizo], 9 years old minor, hitting him at the neck resulting in total injuries which caused his instant death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Treachery is present because the accused made his attack suddenly giving no opportunity to the victim to defend himself, with abuse of superior strength[,] the victim being a minor 9 years of age. Evident premeditation is also present as shown by the fact that there exists a misunderstanding between the respondent and the family of the victim. 6
Criminal Case No. 4378
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 22, 2011 at Purok 3, Brgy. Bulalacao, Caramoran, [Catanduanes], Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and hack Sam Opancia y Brizo, 4 years old minor, hitting him at the neck resulting [in] fatal injuries which caused his instant death[,] to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Treachery is present because the accused made his attack suddenly giving no opportunity to the victim to defend himself, with abuse of superior strength, the victim being a minor 4 years of age. Evident premeditation is also present as shown by the fact that there exists a misunderstanding between the respondent and the family of the victim. 7 EcTCAD
During arraignment on March 1, 2011, appellant pleaded "not guilty" of the crimes charged. 8
During the pre-trial conference, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel, offered to enter a guilty plea to the downgraded charges of homicide and frustrated homicide. 9 The prosecution rejected the offer. Appellant then pleaded guilty to the two (2) murder charges in Criminal Case Nos. 4377 and 4378 and to the frustrated murder charge in Criminal Case No. 4376. With respect to the murder charge in Criminal Case No. 4375, appellant's offer to plead guilty to the downgraded charge of homicide was accepted by the private complainant and the public prosecutor. 10
The RTC then inquired into the voluntariness of appellant's plea. It later on determined that appellant was not coerced or intimidated into admitting the charges and that he fully understood the consequences of his plea. 11 The RTC thereafter set the cases for hearing and the presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove the appellant's degree of culpability.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Santos Opancia (Santos), Dr. Fay V. Tanael (Dr. Tanael), and Dr. Aly T. Romano (Dr. Romano) as witnesses. Their testimonies established the following:
Victim Ma. Ana Brizo Opancia (Ana) and Analiza Brizo (Analiza) were sisters and neighbors. Ana lived with her husband Santos, and their four children, namely, Aliza Mae Opancia (Aliza Mae), Allan San Opancia (Allan), Sam Opancia (Sam), and Sheena Opancia (Sheena). Appellant was Analiza's live-in partner. 12
On February 22, 2011, Analiza went to her mother's house, which was also nearby, to look for her son. When she arrived at the house, Analiza's mother scolded her because Ana allegedly told their mother that Analiza had punched her son. Analiza went home crying and told appellant about the incident. Appellant went to Ana's house to confront her and a heated argument ensued. Ana taunted appellant and said "Sige pumasok ka kung matapang ka!" (Okay you get inside if you are brave enough!) Appellant returned to his house, got a bolo, and went back to Ana's house. Two minutes later, Analiza followed appellant. 13
While walking home, Santos saw appellant and Analiza standing by the door of their house. As he approached, Santos saw appellant hacking something in their hammock. Appellant saw Santos and brandished his bolo while angrily yelling "Uubusin ko kayong lahat!" (I will finish all of you!) Santos picked up a stone and hurled it at appellant. Appellant chased Santos and Aliza Mae, who was behind Santos. Aliza Mae managed to hide at the nearby banana plantation. 14
When Santos finally got to their house, he found the lifeless and decapitated bodies of Ana, Allan, and Sam. Santos saw Ana's body in the hammock. Sheena, his two-year-old daughter, suffered hack wounds that nearly severed her left shoulder and left ear. 15 HSAcaE
Dr. Tanael, the Municipal Health Officer of the Rural Health Unit of Caramoran, conducted the post-mortem examination on Ana, Allan, and Sam. She found that Ana suffered three (3) hack wounds, one of which resulted in her complete decapitation. Dr. Tanael reported that Allan and Sam, who were then nine (9) and four (4) years old, respectively, 16 also suffered hack wounds which resulted in their complete decapitation. 17 She opined that all wounds of the three (3) victims were clean and could have been caused by a sharp-edged instrument, like a bolo. 18 She declared that the fatal wounds of the victims which completely decapitated them were caused by a single stroke, hence, they had no chance to survive. 19 She also disagreed with the possibility that the wounds were accidentally inflicted. 20
Dr. Romano, Chief of the Emergency Room Department of the Eastern Bicol Medical Center who attended to Sheena, found that the latter suffered two hack wounds. 21 Her ear was almost severed and her injury on the left shoulder caused damage to her blood vessels. 22 Dr. Romano testified that the two hack wounds could have been caused by a single act of hacking the victim at the back with the use of a sharp object. 23
As the defense was about to present evidence to prove the absence of qualifying circumstances and the presence of mitigating circumstances, the RTC declared that proving the absence of qualifying circumstances in the murder charge for Ana's death was unnecessary since the prosecution had already agreed to the downgrading of the charge. The defense thus proceeded to prove the presence of the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense with respect to Ana's death.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented Analiza as its sole witness. Analiza denied that she saw appellant carrying a bolo when he went to Ana's house. 24 She testified that she did not hear any altercation between appellant and Ana when appellant went back to Ana's house, 25 although she saw appellant chasing Santos. 26 She further stated that the hacking of Ana and the three children all happened in two minutes. 27
The RTC Ruling
In its August 15, 2011 Judgment, 28 the RTC convicted appellant of three (3) counts of murder and one (1) count of frustrated murder.
In Criminal Case No. 4375, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Ana the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,00.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 4376, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He was also ordered to pay Sheena the amount of P40,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as temperate damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. HESIcT
In Criminal Case No. 4377, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Allan the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 4378, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Sam the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The RTC convicted appellant of murder in Criminal Case No. 4375, notwithstanding the downgrading of the murder charge to homicide for Ana's death. The RTC found unavailing the initial assertion that Ana argued and fought with appellant which may have provoked him. It held that, while appellant and Ana had an argument, appellant went home afterwards to get his bolo and returned to Ana's house to kill her. As testified to by Analiza, there was no argument that followed when appellant returned to Ana's house. Two minutes later, she saw appellant chasing Santos. The RTC concluded that Ana, who lay on the hammock while she was hacked by appellant, had no chance to defend herself from the suddenness of appellant's attack. 29 Thus, the downgraded charge to homicide was not justified by the evidence on record.
As to the two other murder charges in Criminal Case Nos. 4377 and 4378, and the frustrated murder charge in Criminal Case No. 4376 for which appellant entered a plea of guilty, the RTC ruled that the prosecution established appellant's liability for the deaths of Allan and Sam and the frustrated murder of Sheena. It noted the presence of treachery and abuse of superior strength considering the minority of the victims.
Aggrieved, appellant appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its November 13, 2014 Decision, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction for murder in relation to the deaths of Allan and Sam, and for frustrated murder with respect to Sheena. As to Criminal Case No. 4375 concerning Ana's death, the CA ruled that the RTC erred in convicting appellant for murder considering the prosecution's acceptance of appellant's offer to plead guilty to the downgraded charge of homicide.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
I
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE RTC AS TO APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR MURDER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4375 CONSIDERING THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE PROSECUTION OF THE DOWNGRADED CHARGE OF HOMICIDE; AND caITAC
II
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE ATTACKS ON ALLAN, SAM, AND SHEENA.
In its August 31, 2016 Resolution, 30 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its October 28, 2016 Manifestation and Compliance, 31 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the guilt of appellant had been exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief. In his October 25, 2016 Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief, 32 appellant averred that he would no longer file the latter considering that he had thoroughly discussed the assigned errors in his Appellant's Brief. 33
Appellant reiterates that all the requisites for a valid plea of guilt is present in this case. The trial court, in exercising its discretion, clearly allowed the plea of guilt when it advised appellant's counsel that reception of evidence as to the absence of qualifying circumstances was unnecessary, since the plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide was already accepted by both the prosecutor and private complainant. Appellant asserts that treachery and abuse of superior strength were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that the ages of the minor victims were not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In its Appellee's Brief, 34 the OSG urges the Court to modify the decision of the RTC. The OSG agrees that a valid plea of guilt was complied with by appellant. According to the OSG, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength since the prosecution failed to present evidence regarding the age of the minor victims. However, the OSG asseverates that evident premeditation attended the killing of the victims since appellant, who had a previous altercation with Ana, had time to think about his act but, nonetheless, decided to cling to his intent to kill the victims.
THE COURT'S RULING
It is settled that findings of fact of the trial courts are generally accorded great weight, except when it appears on record that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant facts or circumstances which, if considered, would have altered the result. This is axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases where the whole case is thrown open for review on issues of both fact and law, and the court may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties as errors. 35 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 36
Here, in Criminal Case No. 4375, appellant made an offer to plead guilty to the downgraded charge of homicide. The private complainant and the prosecutor accepted the plea bargain offer, but the RTC, after the prosecution presented evidence to prove the degree of culpability of appellant, convicted appellant of murder. The CA, however, reversed the RTC and found that the requisites for a valid plea bargain offer were complied with by appellant. Thus, it convicted appellant of homicide. ICHDca
After a careful review of the records, the Court affirms the conviction of appellant for homicide in Criminal Case No. 4375.
Appellant complied with the
Plea bargaining in criminal cases, is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge. 37
Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made: (1) that it should be with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor; and (2) that the plea of guilt should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Moreover, the plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. Thus, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by an accused as a matter of right. 38
The Court agrees with the CA that appellant has complied with all the requisites of a valid plea bargain. First, the offer of appellant to plead guilty to homicide was accepted by Santos, the private complainant, and approved by the public prosecutor. 39Second, the crime of homicide is included in the crime of murder. Thus, the requisites under Sec. 2, Rule 116 are present in this case.
Anent the issue on the exercise by the RTC of its discretion to allow appellant to plead guilty to a lesser offense, the CA properly held that the RTC has so allowed appellant, as reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes of the June 28, 2011 hearing:
ATTY. AURO:
The witness is being presented and her testimony is being offered to prove the absence of some of the qualifying circumstances as alleged in the Information were not presented in this case (sic) and to prove mitigating circumstances attending (sic) in this case and such other matters relevant to this case.
PROS. ABION:
May I request for the repetition of the formal offer especially the first part. TCAScE
ATTY. AURO:
To prove the absence of some of the qualifying circumstances in these cases, your Honor.
COURT:
Qualifying circumstances? That qualifies the crime to Murder?
ATTY. AURO:
Yes, your Honor.
COURT:
So[,] I thought he already admitted to the crime charged as Murder.
ATTY. AURO:
Particularly in Criminal Case No. 4375, your Honor.
COURT:
Which one is it?
ATTY. AURO:
The death of Ma. Ana Opancia.
COURT:
It was already downgraded to Homicide. So there is no need to prove that there was no qualifying circumstance because it was admitted by the prosecution that the crime charged would be downgraded from Murder to Homicide. ASEcHI
ATTY. ABION:
Because there was a heated argument between the victim and the accused.
ATTY. AURO:
With respect to the mitigating circumstance, your Honor.
COURT:
Only the mitigating circumstance maybe, but not as to the qualifying, because he already downgraded the crime for the death of Ma. Ana Opancia.
xxx xxx xxx
As far as Ma. Ana is concerned because the case of Ma. [Ana] Opancia is already downgraded to Homicide because [maybe] to her [it] is a mitigating circumstance but not as to the death of the other victim(s). Mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated because the penalty is indivisible. So, it is only insofar as the death of Ma. Ana Opancia is concerned. 40 (emphases supplied by the CA)
The foregoing shows that the RTC has allowed appellant to plead guilty to the lesser crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 4375. With the acceptance by the private complainant and public prosecutor of the plea bargain offer, the downgraded offense of homicide shall control the adjudgment of any and further proceedings before the RTC. 41
Further, the acceptance of the plea bargain offer effectively amended the Information, such that appellant was charged with homicide instead of murder in Criminal Case No. 4375. Hence, the subsequent conviction of appellant for the higher offense of murder than that charged in the Information would be a denial of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Indeed, an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the Information filed against him. 42
Treachery attended the attacks
It is established that the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. 43 Thus, for appellant to be convicted of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 4377 and 4378 and frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 4376, the prosecution must prove that the killing of the victims was attended by treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 44 To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. cSaATC
In the case at bar, evidence on record clearly shows the presence of treachery in the attacks on Allan, Sam, and Sheena. In a matter of two minutes, appellant was able to kill Allan, Sam, and Ana by decapitating them and to injure Sheena by hacking her with a bolo which nearly severed her ear and shoulder. 45 Although an argument ensued between Ana and appellant prior to the killing, there was no indication that appellant would return to kill the victims. 46 Allan, Sam, and Sheena, who were just 9, 4, and 2 years old at the time, respectively, most likely had no opportunity to defend themselves, much less, have the strength to overcome appellant's attack.
The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. Here, appellant's attack was sudden, swift, unexpected, and continuous. The manner ensured the commission of the criminal act without the risk of any defense from the minor victims.
Moreover, minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists. 47 As held by the CA, original copies of the birth certificates of Allan, Sam, and Sheena formed part of the records of the case. Copies of the death certificates and medical records of the minor victims were also offered in evidence. The defense's sole witness, Analiza, also stated the ages of the minor victims in her Sinumpaang Salaysay which was also offered in evidence. 48 Thus, the attacks on Allan, Sam, and Sheena were deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery by reason of their inherent defenselessness.
It is a well-established rule that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. 49 It takes the place of the trial itself such that the plea removes the necessity of presenting further evidence and for all intents and purposes the case is deemed tried on its merits and submitted for decision. It leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by law. Thus, when formally entered on arraignment, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction for any offense charged in the information, without the necessity of requiring additional evidence, since by so pleading, the defendant himself has supplied the necessary proof. 50
However, Under Section 4, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, when an accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the trial court has the discretion to receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty imposed. There is no such rule which provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction should automatically follows. 51 Thus, the trial court may receive additional evidence especially when the accused invokes the presence of mitigating circumstances or the prosecution raises the presence of aggravating circumstances.
Considering the foregoing, appellant's voluntary plea of guilt effectively admitted the aggravating circumstance of treachery stated in the informations and duly proved by the prosecution. It was not even necessary for the prosecution to present evidence on the charge of homicide for Ana's death had defense not moved for the submission of additional evidence in order to prove the presence of the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense.
Proper penalties
In view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 52 the Court deems it proper to modify the amounts of the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages. The amount of damages imposed against appellant shall be as follows: cHDAIS
(a) In Criminal Case No. 4375 — P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages;
(b) In Criminal Case No. 4376 — P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The award of temperate damages is deleted for lack of sufficient basis;
(c) In Criminal Case No. 4377 — P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and
(d) In Criminal Case No. 4378 — P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
These amounts shall be subject to the legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Court's ruling until full payment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The November 13, 2014 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05202 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 4375, appellant Miguel Dizon y Tapia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of victim Ma. Ana Opancia P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 4376, appellant Miguel Dizon y Tapia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder defined under Article 248, in relation to par. 2, Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY Sheena Opancia P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. ISHCcT
(3) In Criminal Case No. 4377, appellant Miguel Dizon y Tapia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Allan San Opancia P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
(4) In Criminal Case No. 4378, appellant Miguel Dizon y Tapia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Sam Opancia P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
(5) Appellant is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."Leonen, J., designated Additional Member vice Jardeleza, J., per Raffle dated July 1, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 92-103; penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id. at 4.
8. CA rollo, p. 37.
9.Id. at 94.
10. Rollo, p. 7.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 4-5.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 5.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 5-6.
17. Id. at 6.
18. CA rollo, p. 96.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 97.
21. Rollo, p. 6.
22. CA rollo, p. 98.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 99.
25. Rollo, p. 8.
26. CA rollo, p. 99.
27. Rollo, p. 8.
28. CA rollo, pp. 92-103.
29. Id. at 100-101.
30. Rollo, pp. 27-28.
31. Id. at 36-37.
32. Id. at 31-33.
33. CA rollo, pp. 68-90.
34. Id. at 120-137.
35. People of the Philippines v. Duran, Jr., G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 188, 211.
36. Ramos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 226454, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 324, 330.
37. People of the Philippines v. Judge Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723, 730 (1992).
38. Id.
39. Rollo, p. 7.
40. Id. at 13-14.
41. See Ladino v. Hon. Garcia, 333 Phil. 254, 258-259 (1996).
42. See Canceran v. People of the Philippines, 762 Phil. 558, 568 (2015).
43. People of the Philippines v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588, 599 (2017).
44. People of the Philippines v. Duran, Jr., supra note 35, at 205-206.
45. Rollo, p. 8; CA rollo, p. 41.
46. Rollo, p. 5.
47. People of the Philippines v. PO3 Fallorina, 468 Phil. 816, 840 (2004).
48. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
49. People of the Philippines v. Derilo, 338 Phil. 350, 373 (1997).
50. People of the Philippines v. Flores, 399 Phil. 526, 536 (2000), citing People v. Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058 (1959) and People of the Philippines v. Mongado, 138 Phil. 699 (1969).
51. People of the Philippines v. Sevilleno, 365 Phil. 63, 74 (1999).
52. People of the Philippines v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).