SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229360. April 3, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROLLY JARDIN y ESPIJON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229360 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ROLLY JARDIN y ESPIJON, 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 March 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Sixteenth (16th) Division in CA-G.R. CR HC-06868. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Rolly Jardin y Espijon (Jardin) 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, 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 victim, 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.
First, Jardin's claim that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses are incredible and inconsistent is without merit. As the CA correctly ruled, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not detract from the fact that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of murder. 5 Ronelo Magdamit (Magdamit) and Bryan Mustera (Musters) positively identified Jardin as Alexander Tenoria's (Tenoria) assailant. 6 The alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies are merely trivial and irrelevant as they do not disprove the fact that Tenoria was stabbed by Jardin on the evening of April 21, 2001. 7 An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction. 8
Second, Jardin argues that due to the prior altercation between Tenoria and him, treachery should not have been appreciated by the RTC as Tenoria was already aware of the danger about to befall him. 9 As a rule, there can be no treachery when a prior altercation ensued between the appellant and the victim. 10 However, the evidence on record shows that after the altercation between Jardin and Tenoria at 4:30 in the afternoon, they both went their separate ways. 11 Hence, they had sufficient time to return to their normal equanimity as six hours had already passed since their altercation. 12 In treachery, what is important is that at the time of the accused-appellant's attack, the blow to the victim came without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 13 In this case, the victim had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming as he was casually urinating at the side of the road when Jardin suddenly launched his attack. 14 It must also be noted that the defense cannot argue that the victim was forewarned that he would be attacked by Jardin later that night as in fact it was the former who threatened Jardin with a bolo during their altercation while Jardin, on the other hand, just ignored him. 15
Finally, the CA was likewise correct in upholding the decision of the RTC that the twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by Jardin must fail in light of the positive identification of Jardin by Magdamit and Mustera. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator. It is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected. 16 Moreover, it was not physically impossible for Jardin to be at the place where the crime was committed as Barangay Malama, where he alleged to be, is only one kilometer or thirty minutes away via motorcycle from Barangay San Vicente. 17
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 18 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P100,000.00 each. Also, when no evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded. 19 The legal interest is also modified to 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated March 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC-06868. The Decision finding accused-appellant ROLLY JARDIN y ESPIJON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Alexander Tenoria ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as moral damages, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) 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.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. See Judgment dated June 10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 3 in Crim. Case No. 4408, penned by Judge Ignacio C. Barcillano, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 21-43.
5.Rollo, p. 7.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id. at 8.
8.People v. Ignas, 458 Phil. 965, 988 (2003).
9.Rollo, pp. 9-10.
10.People v. Perez, 460 Phil. 219, 228 (2003).
11. See rollo, p. 3; CA rollo, p. 25.
12. See id. at 10.
13.People v. Barde, 645 Phil. 434, 461 (2010).
14.Rollo, p. 10.
15.Id. at 3-4.
16.People v. Mapalo, 543 Phil. 651, 675 (2007).
17. CA rollo, p. 39.
18.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 847 (2016).
19.Id. at 853.
20.Id. at 854.