SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225954. April 3, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DENNIS MAMATIC y SEREÑO, 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. 225954 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus DENNIS MAMATIC y SEREÑO, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error in the Decision 1 dated January 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05771. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Dennis Mamatic y Sereño (Dennis) 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 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 3 which the CA affirmed in toto.
The CA correctly convicted Dennis based on the dying declaration 4 of the victim, June Jambalos (June). A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admissible when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death. 5
All the requisites of a dying declaration were met herein. June was clutching his bloodied chest when he communicated to his mother that he was stabbed from behind by Dennis. Immediately thereafter, he was pronounced dead on arrival in the hospital. In addition, there is nothing in the records to show that June was incompetent to testify had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered in this criminal prosecution for Murder in which June was the victim.
The CA was likewise correct in appreciating the presence of treachery on the basis of June's statement that Dennis pulled his back pack from behind and then suddenly stabbed him. 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. 6 These elements are extant in the facts of this case. To recall, June was unprepared when Dennis suddenly pulled his back pack from behind and stabbed him, thereby fracturing his rib and piercing his heart causing his death. Undeniably, the stabbing was deliberate, unexpected, swift and sudden, which foreclosed any escape, resistance or defense coming from the victim. 7 Moreover, although there were no eyewitnesses at the time of the incident, the Court must believe the victim's statements regarding the cause and manner of his death since a dying declaration is entitled to the highest credence because no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. 8
Lastly, Dennis' defense of alibi is bereft of merit. He contends that at the time of the incident, he was at the house of his sister Angela Mamatic (Angela). This was corroborated by the testimony of Angela herself. However, this contention fails to persuade the Court. Dennis was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime transpired as the house of his sister is only 30 minutes away. 9 Moreover, when a defense witness is a relative of an accused, whose defense is alibi, as in this case, the Court has more reason to view such testimony with skepticism. 10 Lastly, Dennis was positively identified by the victim — he mentioned the nickname of Dennis as his assailant not only once, but thrice to his mother. 11
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 12 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P100,000.00 each. The award of actual damages in the amount of P69,000.00 spent for funeral and burial expenses is sustained in view of the supporting documents presented by the prosecution. The legal interest is also modified to 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 13
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 January 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05771. The Decision finding accused-appellant DENNIS MAMATIC y SEREÑO 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 June Jambalos 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 SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND PESOS (P69,000.00)as actual 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,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3. See Decision dated September 7, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211 in Crim. Case No. MC09-12549, penned by Presiding Judge Ofelia L. Calo; CA rollo, pp. 55-67.
4. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Section 37. Dyingdeclaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
5.People v. Quisayas, 731 Phil. 577, 594 (2014).
6.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 745 (2012).
7.Rollo, p. 10.
8.People v. Santos, 337 Phil. 334, 348 (1997).
9.Rollo, p. 6.
10.People v. Consorte, 738 Phil. 723, 734 (2014).
11.Rollo, p. 8.
12.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
13.Id. at 854.