SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220883. April 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ELULANIO LISTOHAN, TOTO LUMINO,1REGAN2LISTOHAN, BEN SULATAN,3JOHN DOES, accused,
TOTO LUMINO AND REGAN LISTOHAN, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220883 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ELULANIO LISTOHAN, TOTO LUMINO, REGAN LISTOHAN, BEN SULATAN, JOHN DOES, accused; TOTO LUMINO and REGAN LISTOHAN, accused-appellants.
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 4 dated June 10, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01202-MIN. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellants Toto Lumino (Toto) and Regan Listohan (Regan) are 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. 5 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 6 which the CA affirmed in toto.
The CA and the RTC correctly ruled that the sudden and unexpected attack by Toto and Regan was attended by treachery, such that the victim Patrocenio Enecito 7 (Enecito) was unable to react or defend himself. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. 8
These elements are extant in the facts of this case for the following reasons:
First, as testified by the two eyewitnesses, Marvin Oba-an 9 and Teofilo Ondac, they were merely walking with Enecito when Toto and Regan along with their co-conspirators suddenly waylaid their group. Toto suddenly thrust his firearm on Enecito's chest and fired it several times. 10 Thereafter, Regan shot Enecito as well. 11 While Enecito lay on his side on the ground, co-accused Elulanio Listohan (Elulanio) hacked the head and back of Enecito and uttered: "You are dead, tough guy." 12 Bendino Sulatan kicked Enecito's head and said, "You are dead, Datu." 13 Certainly, because of the suddenness of the attack and the weapons carried by Regan, Toto, and Elulanio, the unarmed Enecito was not in a position to defend himself. The fact that Enecito was able to initially hold the nozzle of the firearm is of no consequence as this act was merely instinctive and was futile against the high-powered firearm of Toto.
Second, although the attack was frontal, the Court has held that this does not negate the presence of treachery. A frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected, and the victim is unarmed — which is precisely what happened in this case. 14
Lastly, it is obvious that all the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular form of attack they employed since they attacked Enecito without warning, they brought deadly weapons with them, and they shot and hit Enecito numerous times to ensure his death.
However, the RTC and the CA erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, hence, it cannot be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance. 15
Regan and Toto raised the defenses of denial and alibi. Regan claims that he was in Tagalawa, Lilingayon, Valencia City at the time of the incident and it would take around one (1) day to reach the place where the crime was committed. 16 On the other hand, Toto claims that he was at Capitan Juan, Lantapan, Bukidnon and it would take four (4) hours to reach Sitio Ondingan, Barangay Lapok. 17 However, the defenses of denial and alibi of Toto and Regan deserve scant consideration. The Court has held in a number of cases that denial and alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification. 18 Moreover, their testimonies that they were in another place at the time of the incident were uncorroborated by other credible evidence. Indeed, Joel Sansanan (Joel) testified that he was with Toto at the time of the incident, but it is important to point out that Joel is the first cousin of Toto and his testimony is uncorroborated by other disinterested witnesses. 19
Finally, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 20 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. 21 The legal interest is also modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated June 10, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01202-MIN. The Decision finding accused-appellants Toto Lumino and Regan Listohan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim 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. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as "Joel 'Toto/Tuto' Lumino" in some parts of the records.
2. Also spelled as "Reagan" in some parts of the records.
3. Also referred to as "Bendino Sulatan" in some parts of the records.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-9. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
5.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
6. See Judgment dated June 24, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Br. 11 in Crim. Case No. 08-01-3450, penned by Judge Jose U. Yamut, Sr.; CA rollo, pp. 33-44.
7. Also referred to as "Patrocenio Enecito y Lugi" and "Patrocenio Lugi y Enecito" in some parts of the records.
8.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 745 (2012).
9. Also stated as "Obaan" in some parts of the records.
10.Rollo, p. 4.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14. See People v. Salvatierra, 342 Phil. 22, 36 (1997), citing People v. Parangan, 301 Phil. 687 (1994).
15.People v. Casturia, 398 Phil. 1031, 1039 (2000), citing People v. Carillo, 388 Phil. 1010, 1024 (2000).
16. CA rollo, p. 35.
17.Id.
18.People v. Mapalo, 543 Phil. 651, 675 (2007); People v. Caraang, 463 Phil. 715, 749 (2003); People v. Caisip, 352 Phil. 1058, 1065 (1998).
19. See CA rollo, pp. 35, 42.
20.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
21.Id. at 853.
22. See id. at 854.