FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 184596. March 24, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTELA LOPEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 184596 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTELA LOPEZ, Accused-Appellant.
We review the affirmance by the Court of Appeals (CA) 1 of the conviction for murder of appellant Estela Lopez by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, 2 meting her with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering her to pay the heirs of Primo Acosta P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay proportionate costs. 3 Thereby, the CA modified the judgment of the RTC by granting exemplary damages of P25,000.00 to be paid to the heirs of the victim. 4
The CA summarized the opposing versions of the parties as follows:
The version of the prosecution as culled from the testimonies of its witnesses, is synthesized as follows:
On 29 September 2000, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, spouses Aurelia Acosta ('Aurelia') and victim Primo Acosta ('Primo') were tilling their land located in Barangay Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan. Suddenly, ESTELA [Lopez], and Julius [Gonzalez] passed by, with the latter uttering: 'Imot, what are you saying?' Aurelia replied: 'He is not saying anything mama.' Julius and ESTELA proceeded home. Moments later, Julius came back and asked Primo to go near him. Julius lifted his shirt and drew his gun which prompted Aurelia to warn Primo: 'Imot, gun!' Primo raised his hands and faced Julius who immediately fired his gun at Primo hitting him on the cheek. As Primo was about to fall, ESTELA suddenly took the bolo tied around Primo's waist, causing a cut on the latter's left hand. ESTELA thrust the bolo on Primo's left armpit hitting his chest and the right side of his body. Then ESTELA and Julius fled. At about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, ESTELA was apprehended at her house. She surrendered the bolo to the police. Primo suffered a gunshot wound on his right cheek and recovered from the base of his skull was a fragmented slug. Primo also sustained stab wounds on his neck and chest, and a hack wound on his left hand.
On the other hand, the defense espoused a divergent version.
On that fateful incident, ESTELA fetched her daughter in school while Julius was in Manila looking for a job. On her way home, ESTELA saw several people in the farm of spouses Aurelia and Primo. ESTELA found out that Primo was killed. Later in the evening, policemen from Lingayen, Pangasinan arrived in her house and inquired about the whereabouts of Julius. Afterwhich, she was arrested. cHaICD
Prosecution witness Aurelia subsequently executed an affidavit of recantation and declared that ESTELA and Julius were neither the culprits nor participated in the killing of Primo. Aurelia further attested that she did not witness the gruesome incident as she was at home cooking. She retracted her previous testimony because her conscience bothered her.
Weighing the parties' documentary and testimonial evidence, the court a quo rendered the assailed judgment convicting ESTELA of the crime charged. ESTELA moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the court a quo in its Order dated 29 August 2003." 5
In upholding Lopez's conviction, the CA held that the RTC correctly refused credence to Aurelia Acosta's affidavit of recantation, dismissing the retraction as an afterthought considering that it was executed after Aurelia had already given a detailed account of the killing of her husband in court; 6 hence, the recantation had no persuasive value. 7 The CA further held that a recantation does not necessarily negate a witness's earlier testimony; that the courts had the duty to compare the conflicting declarations before choosing which to give credence; that the RTC had satisfactorily discharged this duty; 8 that Aurelia's failure to initially identify Lopez as a perpetrator did not impair her credibility, considering that a witness' reluctance to volunteer information and to be entangled in criminal investigations is judicially recognized; that Lopez's non-flight was not an indication of her innocence; and that the presence of an aggravating circumstance merited an award of exemplary damages of P25,000.00.
We find no reason to depart from the ruling of the CA. Recantations or retractions by witnesses are generally disfavored because they could be easily obtained from the poor and ignorant and, more often than not, for monetary consideration. 9 To be considered credible, consideration of the affidavits of recantation or retraction hinge on relevant circumstances and on the demeanor of the witness on the stand. 10 Indeed, the CA correctly ruled that the RTC had exceptionally discharged its duty to compare the original testimony and the retraction of Aurelia. 11 In this regard, we must remember that trial judges, not appellate magistrates, are in the best position to weigh witnesses' testimonies in light of their conduct, demeanor and ability to differentiate truth from falsity. 12 The findings by the trial court are conclusive upon this Court, especially when affirmed by the CA, unless the records would show that the trial judge arbitrarily disregarded significant facts and circumstances. 13 That was not so herein.
Having established that Aurelia's recantation deserved no credence, Lopez's argument that the Prosecution did not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt should fail. Aurelia's original testimony positively identified Lopez as one of the two killers of Primo, her husband. 14 She even gave a detailed description of the wounds inflicted by Lopez. 15 Moreover, the manner by which Primo had been killed was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Jose Rosario, the medico-legal professional who had conducted the autopsy on Primo's remains. 16 Lastly, the CA correctly concluded that although flight strongly indicated guilt, non-flight did not prove innocence. 17
We revised the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages by raising each amount to P75,000.00. Both awards did not require allegation and proof, it being decisive that death from a crime had occurred. The increase is justified because the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. 18 We also modify the CA's award of exemplary damages, considering that when the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. 19
In addition, we grant temperate damages of P25,000.00 although the trial court and the CA did not do the same. The award of temperate damages answers for the expenses incurred in the funeral and burial of Primo. Although the expenses would have constituted actual damages, the Court is not prevented from granting temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals with the MODIFICATION that Estela Lopez be ORDERED TO PAY the heirs of victim Primo Acosta, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo I, pp. 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III (retired) and Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza concurring.
2. Rollo II, pp. 69-76.
3. Rollo I, p. 4.
4. Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 5-7.
6. Id. at 7.
7. Id. at 8.
8. Id. at 8-10.
9. People v. Pili, G.R. No. 181255, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 191, 213, 214.
10. Id. at 214.
11. Supra note 6.
12. Madali v. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 274, 285.
13. Id.
14. Rollo I, p. 9.
15. Id.
16. TSN, April 7, 2001, pp. 12-16.
17. Gulmatico v. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 82, 96.
18. People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 195534, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 590, 602, citing People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 804.
19. People v. Pelis, G.R. No. 189328, February 21, 2011, 643 SCRA 598, 602.