FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252459. February 15, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JUAN FONTALBA, JR. y DULLIAGE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252459 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JUAN FONTALBA, JR. y DULLIAGE, 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 August 23, 2019 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Second Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10580. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Juan Fontalba, Jr. y Dulliage (Fontalba) is indeed guilty of Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, 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, which have the ring of truth on the one hand, and statements of mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 4 CAIHTE
Further, the continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 5
In the present case, Fontalba claimed to be at his residence at the time of the incident. As the CA noted, however, "[t]here is no physical impossibility for him to be at the place where the shooting incident occurred and later on go back to his house as they are in the same barangay." 6 Branch 124, Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC) noted as well that "the place where the victim was shot can be reached by walking from the house of the accused, as well as from the respective houses of the victim and the eyewitness, Arnold Santos." 7 It was not impossible, therefore, for Fontalba to be at place of the crime at the time it happened.
Finally, it is important to highlight that, as the RTC noted, "the accused failed to attribute to the eyewitness nor to the victim's family any [ill motive] for them to concoct a story against him and to fabricate a criminal charge that would render him vulnerable to prosecution and conviction and possible life behind bars." 8 This further bolsters the credibility of the eyewitness' account of the incident.
The Court also agrees with the RTC and the CA that the crime committed was Murder because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. It has been held that the "killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous." 9 In People v. Ganohon, 10 where one of the victims was already 12 years old, the said doctrine was applied. There is no reason, therefore, not to find the presence of treachery in this case where the victim was an 11-year-old unarmed kid who was killed with a firearm without any provocation or warning.
As to the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the Court agrees with the CA that it should no longer be appreciated separately, as the acts constitutive of abuse of superior strength have been appreciated already to qualify the offense on the ground of treachery. The CA, therefore, did not commit any error in its affirmance of Fontalba's conviction. The Court, however, modifies the damages imposed in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated August 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10580. The Decision finding the accused-appellant Juan Fontalba, Jr. y Dulliage guilty beyond reasonable doubt for 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, Jeffrey Pallares y Trasmil, 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, along with the amount of 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.
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. 3-13. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
3.People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 177749, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 509, 522.
4.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 529, 527 (2013).
5.People v. Desalisa, G.R. No. 148327, June 12, 2003, 403 SCRA 723, 728.
6.Rollo, p. 10.
7. CA rollo, p. 72.
8.Id.
9.People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009, 580 SCRA 436, 457.
10. 273 Phil. 672 (1991).