THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216935. November 11, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RANILO FERNANDEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216935 (People of the Philippines vs. Ranilo Fernandez). — The Court NOTES the letters dated June 29, 2015 and October 24, 2015 of P/Supt. II Richard W. Schwarzkopf, Jr., Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, both confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since February 28, 2002.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented in the appeal, the Court finds that accused-appellant Ranilo Fernandez failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision 1 dated September 22, 2014 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In prosecutions for murder, the prosecution must establish that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 2
In finding accused-appellant guilty of the murder of victim Rosendo Lacson, Jr., both the trial court and the CA gave full weight and credence to the testimony of, and positive identification by, the prosecution witnesses. It is settled that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect especially when affirmed by the CA. 3
Both lower courts appreciated the circumstance of treachery which qualified the killing into murder under Article 248 of the RPC. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 4 AHDacC
In the case at bar, accused-appellant and Vicente Sugarno (Sugarno), his co-accused, attacked the victim using their guns while the latter was riding on his motorcycle and in no position to fend off the attack. The manner by which the accused-appellant and Sugarno attacked the victim ensured the killing without risk to themselves and demonstrates the treacherous manner of the attack.
However, in conformity with the findings of the CA, the records fail to establish that the attack was evidently premeditated. The elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act/acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. 5 It cannot be inferred from the act of accused-appellant and Sugarno of loitering along the road prior to the killing that they had intended to kill the victim beforehand, and had in fact clung to such determination.
Thus, the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for murder, qualified only by treachery. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed in accordance with Article 63 of the RPC, without, however, eligibility for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. 6 Temperate damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) is also awarded in lieu of actual damages, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary expenses for the funeral and burial of the victim although the exact amount was not proved. 7 The amount of moral damages is likewise increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. 8
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DENIED. The September 22, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00056 modifying the Decision dated January 14, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 35 in Criminal Case No. 46981, is hereby AFFIRMED with FURTHER MODIFICATION on the accused-appellant's ineligibility for parole and amounts of damages awarded. As modified, the Decision of the Court of Appeals shall read as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated January 14, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 35, in Criminal Case No. 46981, finding accused-appellant Ranilo Fernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is ineligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Rosendo Lacson, Jr. Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
All damages shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
(Jardeleza, J., recused himself from the case due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated March 25, 2015.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 5-18. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino.
2. People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 522.
3. People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013, 702 SCRA 204, 218.
4. People v. Se, G.R. No. 152966, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 725, 731.
5. People v. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 267, 280-281.
6. SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
7. People v. De Los Santos, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014, 731 SCRA 52, 66; People v. Gunda, G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 505, 512.
8. People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 617, 630.