THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202862. September 24, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO MANUEL Y DABA ALIAS "POPOY", RUEL MANUEL Y DABA ALIAS "LOLOY" (ACQUITTED), LEO GAGMAN Y ROSALES, GREGORIO BASADRE Y PAJARILLO, ROBERT JANIO Y DALAPIN (ACQUITTED), JOJIE SALCEDO Y PACA, WILFREDO ENTERINA (ACQUITTED), ACCUSED; GREGORIO MANUEL Y DABA ALIAS "POPOY" AND GREGORIO BASADRE Y PAJARILLO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 24, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202862(People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Manuel y Daba alias "Popoy", Ruel Manuel y Daba alias "Loloy" (Acquitted), Leo Gagman y Rosales, Gregorio Basadre y Pajarillo, Robert Janio y Dalapin (Acquitted), Jojie Salcedo y Paca, Wilfredo Enterina (Acquitted), accused; Gregorio Manuel y Daba alias "Popoy" and Gregorio Basadre y Pajarillo, accused-appellants.) — On appeal is the August 26, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, of Cagayan de Oro City finding appellants Gregorio Manuel and Gregorio Basadre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
Briefly stated, the prosecution evidence proved the following facts: At around 10:00 p.m. on November 10, 1995, Benjamin Evangelista, a security guard, saw three persons approach William Ang at a park in Cagayan De Oro City. One of them pulled out Ang's wallet while the other two held Ang's hands. Appellant Gregorio Manuel then stabbed Ang with a batangas knife after which, Ang ran towards him (Evangelista). Evangelista saw blood oozing from Ang's chest. When he told Manuel to stop attacking Ang, Manuel attacked Evangelista but desisted when Evangelista pulled out his side arm and pointed his gun at Manuel. Manuel then fled towards a nearby taxi. 3 Ang later died from the stab wound.
The incident was also witnessed by taxi driver Bernard Wabe. Wabe testified that around 11:00 p.m. on said date, he parked his taxi infront of the Ampitheater at Capistrano Street of Golden Friendship Park, Cagayan de Oro City, and saw three persons approach Ang. Manuel held Ang's left hand while accused Robert Janio held Ang's right hand. The third person positioned himself behind Ang. Wabe added that the three dragged Ang towards their group which then ganged up on Ang. Manuel tried to pick up Ang's Ray Ban4
Wabe also testified that Ang managed to get loose from the group and run towards Golden Friendship Grocery where he sought help from a security guard. Ang's attackers followed him, but desisted when the security guard confronted them with his side arm. 5
Four days later, appellants Manuel and Basadre were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide together with five others, namely, Ruel Manuel, Leo Gagman, Robert Janio, Jojie Salcedo (at-large), and Wilfredo Enterina. 6
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, the accused interposed denial and alibi. Appellant Gregorio Manuel claimed self-defense and testified that Ang kicked him in the stomach twice so his companions threw him a knife. When Ang tried to get the knife from him, he stabbed Ang while he was lying on his back. He added that he chased Ang after stabbing him but a security guard told him to desist. So he ran towards a taxi and went home. 7 Accused Ruel Manuel, for his part, claimed that he was asleep during the time of the incident and was awakened when someone told him his brother was in a fight. 8 Meanwhile, appellant Basadre denied knowledge of the robbery and killing of Ang. He claimed that on the day he was arrested, he was just at the house of appellant Manuel and was waiting for the latter. He likewise averred that he does not know accused Ruel Manuel, Janio, and Enterina. 9 As to accused Robert Janio, he raised the defense of denial and claimed he was somewhere else at that time and was only maliciously implicated in the case by Wabe because of a prior disagreement between them concerning Wabe's jeepney fare payment. 10 Lastly, accused Enterina denied involvement in the crime and raised the defense of alibi. His story was corroborated by the testimonies of three other persons. 11EaDATc
As to accused Leo Gagman, he escaped from his confinement from the DSWD Tahanan ng Kabataan after arraignment while accused Jojie Salcedo remained at-large.
After trial, the RTC found Manuel, Basadre and Gagman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. 12 The trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove that the three acted with unity of design and community of purpose in attacking and robbing Ang, which incident also resulted in the latter's death. 13 The trial court sentenced Manuel and Basadre to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua while Gagman, who was below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Manuel, Basadre and Gagman were also ordered to indemnify the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P12,000 as actual damages for the value of the sunglasses, P3,000 for the value of the cell phone, P2,000 for the value of the wallet, and to pay the costs. 14
As to accused Robert Janio, Wilfredo Enterina and Ruel Manuel, the trial court held that no evidence was presented as to their participation. Thus, the trial court acquitted them of the charge and ordered them released. 15
Aggrieved, appellants Manuel and Basadre appealed to the CA, which, however, affirmed with modification the trial court's judgment. The CA held that that the elements of robbery with homicide were established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the two eyewitnesses point to the appellant Manuel as one of the assailants who robbed Ang and in the course thereof killed him. The appellate court also held that there was unity of design and community of purpose among Ang's assailants to rob him. When Manuel stabbed Ang, Basadre also did not stop Manuel from doing so and even boxed and kicked Ang. Basadre also did not prevent Manuel from taking Ang's valuables and was even identified as one of those who robbed and ganged up on Ang. 16
The CA likewise modified the award of damages and ordered appellants to pay the heirs of William Ang P25,000 as temperate damages as compensation for the burial expenses incurred by the heirs of Ang in addition to the amounts already awarded by the trial court for the value of the things stolen from Ang. 17
In this appeal, appellant Basadre essentially questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and asserted that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant Manuel, however, earlier withdrew his appeal. 18 Hence, this Resolution resolves the appeal only of appellant Basadre.
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. 19 Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.
However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages is increased to P75,000 each. Robbery with homicide belongs to that class of felony denominated as "Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons" under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and the killing or death of a person is committed "by reason or on occasion of the robbery." The increase in the amount of civil indemnity is called for as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, like murder, involves a greater degree of criminal propensity than homicide alone where the civil indemnity awarded is P50,000. 20
We also award the amount of P30,000 as and for exemplary damages.
In addition, and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 21
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 26, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00365-MIN is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages is increased to P75,000 each and in addition appellant is hereby ordered to pay P30,000 as and for exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all monetary damages awarded in this case, reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid by appellant Gregorio Basadre. CcSTHI
With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Del Castillo, J., designated Member per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 5-13. Penned by Associate Justice Abraham B. Borreta with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00365-MIN.
2. CA rollo, pp. 34-45. Penned by Judge Noli T. Catli. The RTC decision was rendered on September 16, 1998 in Criminal Case No. 95-709.
3. Rollo, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 35; TSN, September 30, 1996, pp. 5-24, records (Vol. 2), pp. 595-613.
4. Id. 7-8; id. at 36; TSN, November 5, 1996, pp. 5-18, id. at 1240-1253.
5. Id. at 8; id.; id. at 19, id. at 1254.
6. Records (Vol. 1), p. 3.
7. CA rollo, pp. 38-39; TSN, January 29, 1997, pp. 3-11, records (Vol. 2), pp. 1396-1404.
8. Id. at 39; TSN, December 4, 1997, pp. 4-13, id. at 1030-1039.
9. Id. at 41; TSN, September 8, 1997, pp. 3-11, id. at 865-873.
10. Id. at 41-42; TSN, September 9, 1997, pp. 3-11, id. at 929-937.
11. Id. at 42.
12. Id. at 44.
13. Id. at 43.
14. Id. at 44-45.
15. Id. at 45.
16. Rollo, pp. 9-12.
17. Id. at 12.
18. Resolution dated February 11, 2013, id. at 33.
19. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.
20. People v. Aleman, G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013, 702 SCRA 118, 135.
21. People v. Laurio, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 573.