FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249150. December 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SONNY LABAGO y GUZMAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249150 — People of the Philippines v. Sonny Labago y Guzman
The appeal is DENIED.
Appellant is guilty
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Among the three requisites, the relationship between the offender and the victim is the most crucial. This relationship is what actually distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide. In parricide, oral evidence may be considered in proving the relationship between the two as long as such proof is not contested. 1
Here, it is undisputed that Arbi Labago (Arbi) was killed as testified by his mother Carolyn Labago (Carolyn) and grandmother Delia Labago (Delia). Photographic evidence also showed Arbi's cadaver and his certificate of death listed his cause of death as "head trauma resulting to decapitation."2 Also, appellant Sonny Labago (appellant) never denied that Arbi was his descendant, his child with his own daughter whom he sexually abused and at the same time his grandson, being the child of his daughter. As it was, the Information alleged that the child was the grandson of appellant.
The only contentious issue here hinges on the second element: did appellant kill Arbi?
The trial court summarized the testimony of Carolyn, viz.:
The private complainant Carolyn Labago testified that her father Sonny Labago sexually abused her. And because of the sexual abuse committed by the accused, she got pregnant and gave birth to a son whom she named Arbi Labago, the victim in this case who was one (1) year and eight (8) months old when he died. On August 10, 2013 she escaped from the accused carrying her son together with her mother. The accused chased them and after passing one mountain, the accused was able to catch them. He threw a stone on them and hit the head of the child. The accused then grabbed the child from the private complainant and smashed him four (4) times against a big tree then he threw him under the tree. The accused told her that if the police will come to them, they will just say that the child was adopted in Claveria (Cagayan). That her mother witnessed the entire incident. 3 CAIHTE
Indeed, Carolyn positively and categorically testified that appellant smashed Arbi four (4) times against a big tree, killing the child as a consequence. Thereafter, appellant just threw the child's lifeless body to the ground under the tree.
Delia corroborated Carolyn's testimony on how appellant killed Arbi, viz.:
x x x. The witness testified that she saw her husband (kill) the victim Arbi Labago by striking him to a tree. She likewise testified that she does not know of anyone who could be the father of the victim except her husband. That she does not know anyone who courted her daughter. And when asked why did she conclude that it is her husband who is the father of her grandson, she answered that her husband abused her daughter. 4
Like Carolyn, Delia also saw appellant kill Arbi by "striking" the child against a tree.
The trial court found the testimony of Carolyn to be clear, categorical, and direct. It was even positively corroborated by Delia. Additionally, the photographs taken of Arbi's headless cadaver and the certificate of death indicating that Arbi's cause of death was caused by "head trauma resulting to decapitation" are mute but eloquent manifestation of the veracity of the testimonies of Carolyn and Delia.
There is no showing that Carolyn and Delia were impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant. It has been held that in the absence of any ill motives on the part of the witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. 5
Appellant, nonetheless, seeks to discredit the credibility of Carolyn and Delia. He essentially avers that Carolyn and Delia gave inconsistent versions on what transpired. Delia claimed that she was folding clothes that day and saw what happened after she and Carolyn followed him as he headed to the tree. Meanwhile, Carolyn claimed that appellant first poked Arbi's head with a stone before taking the child away. These material inconsistencies allegedly affected the credibility of both Carolyn and Delia. 6
We are not persuaded. It is well settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of the accused. On the contrary, minor inconsistencies and contradictions only serve to attest to the truthfulness of the witnesses and the fact that they had not been coached or rehearsed. 7 Here, despite the minor inconsistencies in their respective narrations about Arbi's death, Carolyn and Delia were one in saying that appellant killed Arbi by hitting him on a large tree.
In any event, against the positive testimonies of Carolyn and Delia as well as the photographs of Arbi's cadaver and the certificate of death, appellant's denial and alibi easily crumble. Denial is the weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. More, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed as he must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. 8
Verily, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions drawn from these factual findings are accorded the highest respect by the appellate court, whose review power is limited to the records of the case. This explains why this Court, which is not a trial court, is loathe to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence that had been analyzed and dissected by the trial court, and sustained and affirmed by the appellate court. 9
Imposable Penalty
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes parricide, viz.:
Article 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Applying Article 63 (2) 10 of the Revised Penal Code here, the lesser of the two (2) indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua shall be imposed provided there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance that attended the killing, as in this case. Hence, both courts below erred when they sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02, 11 the phrase "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua only if the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346). 12 Thus, appellant should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua only. Correspondingly, the monetary awards should be reduced in order to be commensurate with the revised designation of the penalty.
In accordance with recent jurisprudence, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages are awarded to the Heirs of Arbi Labago. 13
We further award P50,000.00 as temperate damages in accord with People v. Angeles, 14viz.:
But, as pronounced in Gervero and People v. Jugueta, "when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded." Considering that the receipts presented by Abelardo's heirs did not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), they shall, in lieu of actual damages, be granted Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) temperate damages in order to avoid the situation where those who did not present any receipt at all would get more that [sic] those who claimed for more than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) but failed to present receipts for the excess of that amount. Verily, the heirs of Abelardo Evangelista are entitled to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages.
These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. DETACa
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10326 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant SONNY LABAGO y GUZMAN is found GUILTY of PARRICIDE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
He is required TO PAY the Heirs of Arbi Labago P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) legal interest from 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.People v. Macal, 778 Phil. 379, 388 (2016).
2. CA rollo, p. 56.
3.Id. at 54.
4.Id. at 55.
5.People v. Denila, G.R. No. 245396, December 05, 2019.
6. CA rollo, pp. 43-45.
7.Madali v. People, 612 Phil. 582, 604 (2009).
8.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 224584, September 04, 2019.
9.People v. Soriano, 810 Phil. 239, 251 (2017).
10. Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — x x x
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
xxx xxx xxx.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
11. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
12. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
13.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 847-848 (2016):
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
14. G.R. No. 224289, August 14, 2019.