SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225211. June 19, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GERONCIO C. FERROLINO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225211 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus GERONCIO C. FERROLINO, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated September 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01444. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Geroncio C. Ferrolino (Ferrolino) is indeed guilty of the crime of Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 4 which the CA affirmed in toto. HTcADC
In this connection, the Court agrees with the CA that the testimonies of eyewitnesses Thesa Neri and Alfrel 5 Joey Leonor are sufficient to establish Ferrolino's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court quotes with approval the following disquisition of the CA:
The foregoing testimonies of the witnesses clearly show that they were one in saying that appellant was the one who shot the victim Mateo Nellas. The witnesses were consistent and categorical in their positive identification of appellant as the assailant. Long ingrained in our jurisdiction is the rule that where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally accepted. Prosecution witnesses were familiar with the appellant because they were neighbors and they were even acquaintances. Thus, they could not have been mistaken as to appellant's identity.
Aside from that, We also consider the fact that appellant failed to attribute any improper motive to the witnesses to falsely testify against him. There was no evidence to establish that they harbored any ill-will against appellant or that they had reasons to fabricate their testimony. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the witness was not moved by any ill-will and was untainted by bias, and thus worthy of belief and credence. 6
The Court likewise agrees with the CA that the crime committed was Murder as the killing was attended by treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 7 A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is present. 8 What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. 9 CAIHTE
In the present case, it is clearly established that Ferrolino shot the victim while the latter was urinating near a post. The victim thus could not have been aware or known that he would be attacked. The manner of execution of the crime likewise did not afford the victim any real chance to defend himself and/or retaliate.
As the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently alleged and proved, the Court thus affirms Ferrolino's conviction for the crime of Murder.
Regarding the amount of damages, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 10 the award of exemplary damages and temperate damages should be increased to P75,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated September 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01444. The Decision finding accused-appellant Geroncio C. Ferrolino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Mateo Nellas SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as temperate 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. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-19. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. See Decision dated February 23, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Oslob, Cebu, Branch 62 in Crim. Case No. OS-02-218, penned by Presiding Judge James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan; CA rollo, pp. 36-41.
5. Also spelled as "Alferl" in some parts of the records.
6.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
7.People v. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).