FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232617. April 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALVIN ALBANO ALIPIT DUMBAB, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232617 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ALVIN ALBANO ALIPIT DUMBAB, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal of the Decision 1 dated February 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07519. The CA Decision affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 24, 2015 of Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 32777-R and Criminal Case No. 32778-R convicting accused-appellant Alvin Albano Alipit Dumbab (Dumbab) of murder as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedent Facts
Two Informations were filed charging Dumbab with the crimes of illegal possession of firearms and murder, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 32777-R (Illegal Possession of Firearms)
That on or about the 18th day of February 2012, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) Caliber .45 pistol, 1911a1 with markings Shooters Arm Mfg. Corp. and SAM bearing Serial No. 270978 with one (1) magazine for Cal. 45 containing six (6)-live ammunition, without any license or permit or authority to possess, to keep, or to carry the same which is duly and lawfully issued by the government.
Criminal Case No. 32778-R (Murder)
That in the afternoon of February 18, 2012, within the premises of Washin' Wear Laundry Shop at Abanao Street, this city, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, and without any justifiable cause whatsoever, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack and shoot RICHARD TUABAS in the head with the use of a short firearm, thereby causing his death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
The offense is attended by the qualifying circumstance of alevosia as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to put up any defense. The offense is likewise attended by the special aggravating circumstance of having been committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
CONTRARY TO Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 3
The RTC acquitted Dumbab of the crime of illegal possession of firearm due to lack of evidence. The instant appeal pertains solely to the charge for murder.
Dumbab pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
In relation to the murder charge, the prosecution presented as its witnesses Avelina David Astudillo (Avelina), the receiving clerk of Washin' Wear Laundry Shop who was an eyewitness to the crime, Dr. John Tinoyan (Tinoyan), Police Officer 1 Eden Kelly (PO1 Kelly), and Marcelina Tuabas (Marcelina).
On February 18, 2012, at 1:15 p.m., victim Richard Tuabas (Richard) went to the Washin' Wear Laundry Shop to have his clothes cleaned. He was attended to by Avelina at the receiving counter. As he was taking out his clothes and Avelina was listing them down, Dumbab entered the premises carrying a backpack. He noticed him and greeted "Oh, dito ka rin pala nagpapalaba," to which Dumbab replied "Oo. Dito rin ako nagpapalaba." 4
Dumbab went near Richard and engaged him in a conversation. Avelina could not hear what they were talking but they appeared to be arguing and nudging each other. After about two minutes, Dumbab moved to Richard's right side and placed his backpack on the table near the receiving counter. He brought out a red cloth from his backpack and asked Avelina "Miss, pwede ba eto?," to which she responded "Yes sir, pwede po." He then took out another red cloth and asked Avelina "Miss, pwede ba ito?," to which she again responded "Yes sir, pwede po." 5 During this time, Avelina was still listing Richard's clothes and the latter was quietly smiling at her. CAIHTE
Dumbab called Avelina's attention yet again raising his right arm with a red cloth and asked "Miss, pwede ba eto?," to which she replied "Yes, assorted clothes, pwede, sir." 6 She noticed that when Dumbab raised his right arm covered with the red cloth this time, his right hand was pointed at Richard's head. She suddenly heard a sound which she described as "pok" and when she looked up saw smoke coming out of the red cloth held up by Dumbab. She afterwards saw Richard fall on his back. Dumbab stood there as if nothing had happened.
Avelina became hysterical and shouted "Adda ti pimmutok!" 7 (There was an explosion!). She ran to the folding area and told her co-employees about the gunshot. They confirmed that they also heard a gunshot. They went to the receiving counter and saw Dumbab slowly walking out of the laundry shop towards the road. Richard's body was sprawled on the ground with a pool of blood around it.
Avelina and her co-employees ran outside and informed the security guard of a nearby bank about the shooting incident. The security guard notified the police who soon arrived to investigate and take Richard's body.
PO1 Kelly with several other police officers arrived at the laundry shop and saw Richard sprawled on the ground with blood oozing from his head. They brought him to the Baguio General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
At around 4:00 p.m., PO1 Kelly brought Avelina and her co-employee, Gina Valdez, to Camp Dangwa for the purpose of making a sketch of the assailant. While at Camp Dangwa, PO1 Kelly received a text message from the chief of the Baguio City Police Office Station 3 in Pacdal requesting him to bring Avelina there. Upon arriving at the Pacdal Police Station, Avelina saw Dumbab and immediately pointed to him saying "Isuna! Isuna!"8 (He is the one! He is the one!) as the assailant who shot and killed Richard.
Dr. Tinoyan, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy of Richard's body, certified that the cause of death was "Gunshot Wound to the Head." The entry point of the gunshot wound was on the upper right side at the back of the head. The exit point was on the upper part of the left eye. This indicated that the gun was fired at Richard from behind by an assailant who was most likely shorter than him. The presence of powder burns on Richard's body indicated that the bullet was fired from close range and not more than a meter away. The bullet caused brain tissue laceration which was fatal and caused Richard's immediate death. 9
Marcelina, Richard's mother, testified that she spent about P100,000.00 for her son's wake and P15,000.00 for his burial. 10
Version of the Defense
Dumbab is a former member of the Philippine Army based in Echague, Isabela. He interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that he never went to the Washin' Wear Laundry Shop and did not even know Richard.
He alleged that on February 18, 2012, at around 5:00-6:00 a.m., he was at Narvacan to conduct an inspection of the re-barreling of firearms of the Fifth Infantry Division, 502nd Batallion. However, this inspection did not push through because the required officials from Abra, Ilocos Norte, and Marag Valley were not around.
He thereafter received a text message from his superior, Lieutenant Colonel Truly Pasamonte, instructing him to go to Baguio City as an advance party to look for accommodations for attendees of the Philippine Military Academy Homecoming and Panagbenga Festival. He hitched a ride with the vehicle of the 503rd Brigade and alighted in San Fernando, La Union at 10:00-11:00 a.m. He then took a bus from La Union to Baguio City at around 11:30 a.m. and arrived between 1:25-1:30 p.m.
He alighted on Session Road and went to his aunt's house on Sumulong Street. On the way there, he noticed that a child was being maltreated by three persons. He inquired on why they were maltreating the child and they turned their ire on him for meddling. Suddenly, a woman fifty meters away shouted "Agtatakaw! Agtatakaw!"11 (Thief! Thief!). He was then hit with a stone on his left eye and mauled by several persons. The mauling stopped only when a Barangay Kagawad came and pacified everyone. A civilian who was with the Kagawad took the gun tucked in his waist. He was thereafter turned over to the police and brought to the Pacdal Police Station.
RTC Ruling
The RTC issued its Decision 12 dated April 24, 2015 convicting Dumbab for the crime of murder:
WHEREFORE, all premises duly considered, the [sic] hereby renders judgment as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 32777-R, the Court hereby finds the accused NOT GUILTY of the crime charged against him for lack of evidence.
In Criminal Case No. 32778-R, the Court hereby finds the accused GUILTY of the crime of Murder and hereby punishes him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
The Court likewise finds the accused civilly liable to the heirs of the deceased, Richard Tuabas, in the amount of Php75,000.00, as civil indemnity for the death of the victim in this case. The Court also finds the accused liable to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Php50,000.00, as moral damages. Finally, the Court finds that the heirs of the victim incurred and suffered pecuniary damage due to the untimely death of the victim, but its amount cannot be ascertained with certainty from the evidence. The Court therefore finds the accused liable to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Php40,000.00, as and by way of temperate damages.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC gave credence to eyewitness Avelina's testimony which was clear and unwavering. It ruled that treachery was present since Richard was shot from behind while his attention was unexpectedly on Avelina who was listing his clothes. He had no inkling that Dumbab had already pointed a gun to his head from behind and thus had no opportunity to defend himself. Dumbab accomplished the shooting "in a swift, unexpected and in a cool manner leaving the unsuspecting and unarmed victim unaware that he was about to meet his doom." 14
It noted that prior to the shooting, Dumbab was even casually conversing with Avelina from behind Richard. This was likely done to distract Richard from noticing his sinister acts. All the attendant circumstances indicated that the manner of the shooting was employed intelligently and consciously to ensure that it was executed without any opportunity for Richard to escape or defend himself. 15
Aggrieved, Dumbab appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
Dumbab, assisted by the Public Attorney's Office, filed his Brief for the Accused-Appellant. 16
The State, represented by the Office of Solicitor General, filed its Brief for the Appellee. 17
CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision 18 dated February 17, 2017 denying the appeal and affirming Dumbab's conviction for murder:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 24 April 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 32778-R is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The appellant, Alvin Albano Alipit Dumbab, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Richard Tuabas, One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity ex delicto; One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages; and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum until fully paid. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA affirmed that Avelina's testimony was credible on Dumbab's identity as the assailant and the mode of his assault. 20 Her testimony was convincing and unequivocal, and supported by physical evidence. The probability that Avelina misidentified him is remote since the crime was committed in broad daylight and in close proximity to her. She was also able to look at him and even converse with him inside the laundry shop. Moreover, there was no plausible reason for her to have any improper motive to testify against him. 21
Hence, the instant appeal. 22
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming Dumbab's conviction for the crime of murder.
The Ruling of this Court
The Court, giving due course to the appeal, issued a Resolution 23 notifying the parties to file their respective Supplemental Briefs.
The parties filed their respective Manifestations 24 stating that they will no longer file supplemental briefs and adopt the arguments alleged in their briefs filed before the CA. DETACa
Dumbab argued on appeal that there was no treachery because an altercation with Richard preceded the shooting incident. 25 Avelina's testimony cannot be taken hook, line, and sinker since it is was filled with improbabilities and inconsistencies. It was claimed that: (1) Avelina did not actually see the shooting since she was busy listing clothes, (2) Dumbab was found negative for powder nitrates from the paraffin test, and (3) other factors could have affected the accuracy of Avelina's account such as her fearful disposition during the incident. 26
It was further alleged that the evidence submitted in relation to the illegal possession of firearm case showed that Dumbab was involved in an altercation in Barangay Holyghost on the same afternoon of the shooting incident. This allegedly demonstrated the impossibility for him to be at the place where the shooting incident occurred. 27
After a thorough review of the records of this case, the appeal is denied.
The crime of murder is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC:
Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
To sustain a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove the existence of the following elements:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. 28
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 29
The elements of treachery are: (1) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution. 30
A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim ensuring its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of the victim is an indication of treachery. The Court has repeatedly held that treachery is present when the attack was done deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly from behind, without warning, without giving the victim a chance to defend himself or repel the assault, and without risk to the assailant. 31 The decisive factor is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. 32
In this case, all the elements of murder qualified by treachery were sufficiently established.
The first element consisting of the victim Richard's death was substantiated by the Certificate of Death and the Autopsy Sketch and Post-Mortem Report.
The fourth element is undisputed that the crime did not qualify as parricide or infanticide.
The second and third elements were established through eyewitness Avelina's clear and credible testimony. She narrated the whole shooting incident and positively identified Dumbab as the assailant both at the Pacdal Police Station and in open court during trial. The following are the pertinent portions of her testimony:
Prosecutor Sagsago Witness:
Q Do you know a person by the name of Richard Tuabas?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you know this person?
A He is a long time customer, sir.
Q Now, in the afternoon of February 18, 2012, do you remember whether this customer of yours came to have his clothes be washed at the Washin' Wear Laundry Shop?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember around what time did he arrive?
A At about 1:15, sir.
Q And who attended to the customer?
A A co-employee who later on called for me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And why did your co-employee called [sic] for you?
A She told me to receive the laundry because I was the receiving clerk, sir.
Q So what did you do when you were called?
A I then went to attend to Mr. Tuabas.
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said that you were the one who attended to this customer, Richard Tuabas. How were you attending to him?
A I was receiving his clothes for laundry and we were facing each other while talking, and considering that he is our regular customer, he would amuse us.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, while you were talking to the customer, tell us what happened?
A I was receiving his clothes and listing them down. Then, after five minutes, somebody went down entering the establishment, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And after this person came down and entered the establishment, what happened next?
A Richard Tuabas then turned towards the person and said "Oh! Dito ka rin pala nagpapalaba."
xxx xxx xxx
Q And what did this newcomer say or respond?
A He said "Oo. Dito rin ako nagpapalaba."
Q Was there anything that this newcomer was carrying with him?
A Yes, sir. He had a backpack.
Q So after this newcomer responded to the statement of the late Tuabas, what happened next? aDSIHc
A After the person entered I continued receiving and listing down the clothes of Mr. Richard Tuabas and the newcomer went near Tuabas and then engaged him in a conversation. I cannot hear the conversation because they were whispering to each other and nudging each other.
Q How did you observe that they were nudging each other?
A Because I was facing them, sir, and while writing down I would also glance at them.
Q And if the late Tuabas was facing you, and let us assume that he is represented by our customer, you said that the newcomer went beside Mr. Tuabas. I ask you now: On what side of Mr. Tuabas did the newcomer go?
A We were facing each other with Mr. Tuabas and the newcomer went near Mr. Tuabas to his right and nudged him and Mr. Tuabas said: "Sandali lang!" Then the newcomer went at the back of Mr. Tuabas passing through the right side. I just continued listing down the clothes while they were talking and somehow arguing with each other. After about two minutes, the newcomer went again to the side of Mr. Tuabas and on that right side, there was a table where he placed down his backpack.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And after this newcomer placed down his backpack, what did you observe?
A He opened the backpack and he took something from the backpack and he called my attention telling me "Miss, pwede ba eto?"
Q What was he holding?
A A red cloth, sir.
Q What did you say?
A I said: "Yes, sir. Pwede po!"
Q What happened next?
A I continued listing down the clothes of Mr. Tuabas and Mr. Tuabas was only smiling and kept silence [sic].
Q And then?
A After that the newcomer again called my attention holding another thing and asked me: "Miss, pwede ba eto?"
Q What was that he was showing you this time?
A While I continued listing down the clothes of Mr. Tuabas, the newcomer again called my attention still raising his right arm holding on to that red cloth and said: "Miss, Pwede ba eto?", and I said: "Yes, assorted clothes, pwede, sir." Thereafter, I heard a shot and then I looked up and I saw that there was a smoke on the red cloth and I saw a spark. x x x
Q On what side of Tuabas was this newcomer on when he was showing you this red cloth with his right hand?
A The newcomer was standing beside the receiving table, sir.
Q How far was the newcomer away from Mr. Tuabas at that point in time when he raised his right hand as if holding a red cloth?
A Just like where you are sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness is pointing to the distance of about a meter.
Q Now, at that time that you heard that you describe as 'pook,' you said that you looked up and you saw that the cloth he was holding with the right hand had a smoke?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you happen to remember where that right hand was pointed? What was the direction of the right hand?
A It was pointed towards the head of Mr. Tuabas.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And after you heard that sound you noticed that the cloth held by this newcomer was smoking, what was the next thing now that happened?
A I then shouted and said: "Adda ti pimmutok!" Then, Mr. Tuabas looked at me because I was facing him and he turned towards the newcomer and then he fell down.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What else did you hear?
A The four of us began shouting and we all ran outside the establishment. Then, the security guard outside, who is with the PNB, asked us what happened and my companion answered the security guard: "Our customer was shot," then, the security guard ran towards the police station.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Were there policemen who responded?
A Yes, sir.
Q I presume they conducted an investigation?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were interviewed?
A Yes, sir. ETHIDa
Q When was the next time that you saw that newcomer?
A When we were called up to Camp Dangwa, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What happened when you were there at Camp Dangwa?
A They let me prepare a sketch, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q After you made this sketch, what was the next thing you were asked to do?
A After that, there was a call we received asking us to go and see the person.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And where were you brought next?
A We were brought to Pacdal, sir.
Q Police Station?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were brought there?
A They told us that a person was arrested.
Q And what did they ask you to do?
A They then showed me that person arrested.
Q And you recognized this person?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who is that person that they showed you there at the police station in relation to the newcomer?
A The one who shot Mr. Tuabas, sir.
Q If you see that individual again whom you claimed shot Mr. Tuabas, would you be able to identify him?
A Yes, sir.
Q This is very crucial. We do not like to prosecute the wrong person. So, if that person whom you claimed shot Mr. Tuabas is in Court, can you step down and go to that individual and just pat him on the shoulder?
INTERPRETER:
Witness stepped down from the witness stand and approached a person in the Courtroom and tapped the left shoulder of one who gave his name as Alvin Dumbab.
Q Miss witness, you understand that you were the only person who saw the alleged newcomer, the one you claimed shot the victim?
A Yes, sir.
Q There is no doubt in your mind?
A Yes, sir.
Q Nobody told you beforehand that you go and identify that person there at the police station?
A None, sir. 33
Avelina's testimony is clear that Dumbab was the one shot and killed Richard. The CA correctly observed that it is highly unlikely for Avelina to have mistakenly identified Dumbab since she was near him inside the laundry shop and was able to see his face clearly. There was nobody else in the laundry shop aside from him and Richard, and she was able to speak to him a few times. These circumstances strongly disprove the claim that Avelina's memory could have been inaccurate.
Moreover, treachery is present since Dumbab deliberately shot Richard from behind swiftly and suddenly to ensure that he would not be able to retaliate or defend himself. Richard was unarmed, unprepared, and unsuspecting of Dumbab's sinister and cowardly acts behind his back. The Court concurs with the CA's relevant observations on the existence of treachery:
Indeed, as correctly argued by the OSG, contrary to appellant's erroneous allegation, there was no altercation between him and the victim. Records will show that when [Dumbab] entered the laundry shop, he and the victim simply talked for a while until [Dumbab] went behind the victim, near the latter's back right side, where the former placed his backpack on a table. All the while, the victim kept smiling and, therefore, did not anticipate any imminent threat from anyone, much less from [Dumbab], especially considering that [he] went and stood behind the victim, rendering the latter vulnerable and defenseless. Nevertheless, even though the victim posed no imminent danger to [Dumbab], the latter still took out a red cloth from his backpack, raised and pointed it towards the back of the head of the unarmed, defenseless and unprepared victim, pretended to ask witness Avelina whether the cloth could be included in his laundry in order to distract the victim, and then proceeded to shoot the victim using the gun he had been hiding under [the] said red cloth. This demonstrates that [Dumbab] deliberately and consciously adopted his chosen means of killing the victim, that is, by shooting him using a gun he had brought in his backpack and hidden under a red cloth. Evidently, the assault was indisputably treacherous, thereby qualifying [Dumbab's] act of killing the victim into a case of murder. 34
Dumbab's argument that no treachery can be appreciated because there was a prior altercation between him and Richard is negated by Avelina's testimony that Richard was quiet and smiling at her right before Dumbab shot him.
Avelina's testimony was further corroborated by the medical findings and Dr. Tinoyan's testimony. Consistent with Avelina's narration, it was determined from the entry and exit wounds on Richard's body and the trajectory of the bullet that the firearm was most probably fired from behind Richard on his right side. The presence of powder burns in his body also proved that the firearm was fired at close range not more than a meter away. These findings coincide with where Dumbab stood at the time Richard was shot. cSEDTC
It is settled that the Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court on the issues of credibility of witnesses and the probative value given to their testimonies. This is based on the recognition that the trial court is in a better position to decide on this matter, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and demeanor during trial. 35 Hence, these factual findings will not be overturned unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. This rule is more strictly applied where the findings of the trial court are sustained by the CA. 36
In this case, both the CA and the RTC determined Avelina's testimony to be clear and credible, and sufficient basis to convict Dumbab. The defense did not allege and prove any compelling grounds for the Court to rule otherwise.
The Court affirms the CA ruling that the evidence on Dumbab's altercation in Barangay Holyghost on the same afternoon of February 18, 2012 did not preclude his presence at the shooting incident. The shooting incident occurred at around 1:15 p.m. while the altercation in Barangay Holyghost occurred past 3:00 p.m. It is possible that Dumbab proceeded to Barangay Holyghost after the shooting incident.
The Court also affirms the ruling that Dumbab's negative result in the paraffin test is not sufficient to absolve him. The CA correctly noted that paraffin tests have been generally rendered inconclusive and unreliable. It has been recognized that a negative result in a paraffin test is not insurmountable proof of innocence. 37 This Court in People v. Tomas, Sr.38 held that "even negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a person did not fire a gun, x x x This is so since there are many ways, either deliberately or accidentally, that the residue of gunpowder nitrates in the hands of a person who fired a handgun can be removed."
All told, Dumbab's unsubstantiated defenses of alibi and denial are weak and cannot defeat the overwhelming evidence presented against him. His conviction for the murder of Richard is consequently sustained. The penalty imposed of reclusion perpetua is affirmed pursuant to Article 248 of the RPC.
On the monetary awards granted, the Court modifies the ruling consistent with the landmark case of People v. Jugueta. 39 Dumbab is thus liable to pay the heirs of Richard Tuabas P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The grant of P50,000.00 as temperate damages is sustained.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07519 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Alvin Albano Alipit Dumbab is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Richard Tuabas P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. 2-24; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court).
2. CA rollo, pp. 60-71; penned by Judge Edilberto T. Claravall.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 6.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id. at 8.
11. CA rollo, p. 64.
12.Id. at 60-71.
13.Id. at 70-71.
14.Id. at 67.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 45-59.
17.Id. at 88-107.
18.Rollo, pp. 2-24.
19.Id. at 23.
20.Id. at 12.
21.Id. at 19-20.
22.Id. at 25-27.
23.Id. at 30-31.
24.Id. at 34-35, 38-39.
25. CA rollo, p. 53.
26.Id. at 55.
27.Id. at 56.
28.People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173, 183 (2018).
29. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 14 (16).
30.People v. Gaborne, 791 Phil. 581, 593 (2016).
31.People v. Raytos, 810 Phil. 1007, 1025 (2017).
32.People v. Kalipayan, supra note 28 at 186.
33.Rollo, pp. 12-16.
34.Id. at 21.
35.People v. Mat-an, 826 Phil. 512, 523 (2018).
36.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 371 (2017).
37.Ilisan v. People, 649 Phil. 151, 161-162 (2010).
38. 658 Phil. 653, 669 (2011).
39. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).