SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257862. April 4, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALBERT GARCIA y CANIETE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 April 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257862 (People of the Philippines v. Albert Garcia y Caniete). — The Court NOTES:
1. the letter 1 dated March 11, 2022 of CSO4 Cesar T. Grecia, Chief Admin., Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant Albert Garcia y Caniete a.k.a. 'Nano/Benjie' (accused-appellant) in the said institution since August 29, 2019;
2. the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) 2 dated March 14, 2022 of the public Attorney's Office, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief for accused-appellant considering the exhaustive discussion of the assigned errors in the appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), and no new issues material to the case were discovered; and
3. the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated March 29, 2022 of the Office of the Solicitor General, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief and adopting its brief filed before the CA as its supplemental brief for having adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to the case.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 3 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
As correctly ruled by the CA, all the elements 4 of the crime of Murder are present in this case. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant, together with his companion Lito Asuncion a.k.a. 'Taba/Lito' (Asuncion), inflicted fatal stab wounds on Julius. The killing was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength since the two assailants were able to secure advantage from their combined superiority in strength and took turns in stabbing the unarmed victim. 5 While the sole fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was with abuse of superior strength, 6 the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove in this case that there was a clear and notorious disparity of force between the victim and the aggressors. 7 Based on the records, Julius, after being overpowered, was already trying to run from accused-appellant and Asuncion when they caught and simultaneously stabbed him to death. The multiple fatal stab wounds sustained by Julius on the right and left shoulders and on the nape also show that excessive force was deliberately employed during the attack. CAIHTE
However, in the absence of any other circumstance aside from abuse of superior strength which had already qualified the killing to Murder, there is a need to delete the phrase 'without eligibility for parole' in accused-appellant's penalty, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 8 Further, the monetary awards should he adjusted pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence 9 to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Furthermore, the award of actual damages amounting to P53,500.00 must also be deleted due to the lack of documentary evidence 10 showing that the entire amount had been incurred in connection with Julius' death. In lieu thereof, temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 must be awarded, in light of the settled rule that when the amount of actual damages proven by receipts during the trial is less than the sum allowed by the court as temperate damages, the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, which is of a lesser amount, is justified. 11 All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this ruling until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision 12 dated September 3, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13383 and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION said Decision finding accused-appellant Albert Garcia y Caniete a.k.a. 'Nano/Benjie' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the heirs of victim Julius Fernandez the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 34.
2.Id. at 35-36.
3.Id. at 3-4.
4. The elements of Murder are the following: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. (See People v. Aquino, 829 Phil. 477, 845 (2018)).
5. See People v. Corsales, 472 Phil. 61, 71 (2004).
6.People v. Santillan y Villanueva, 816 Phil. 710, 725 (2017) citing People v. Beduya, 641 Phil. 399 (2010).
7. See People v. Baluyot, 252 Phil. 591, 599 (1989).
8. See A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC entitled "GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE 'WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE' IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES" dated August 4, 2015.
9. See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
10. Records reveal that the only documentary evidence presented to prove actual damages were: (a) a certification from the funeral homes that the family incurred P30,000.00 in funeral expenses; and (b) a handwritten itemization of the victim's father of the purported additional expenses in connection with the victim's death.
11.People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 686 (2017); People v. Moreno y Tazon, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020, citing People v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 685-686 (2017).
12.Rollo, pp. 9-17.