SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238751. February 13, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.KUNIMITSU MATSUO ALIAS "MACHANG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238751 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus KUNIMITSU MATSUO alias "Machang,"accused-appellant.
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 1 dated November 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08740. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Kunimitsu Matsuo alias "Machang" (Machang) is indeed guilty of one (1) count of Murder, one (1) count of Homicide, and one (1) count of Less Serious Physical Injuries. 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.
First, the CA is correct in finding Machang guilty of the crime of Murder for the killing of Salvador Panim, Jr. (Salvador) since the crime was aggravated by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 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. 4 These elements are extant in the facts of this case. As testified by Orlando Corpuz, 5 Jr. and Alexander Pangan, Machang deliberately and consciously adopted the particular form of attack employed by him since he brought with him a gun to ensure the death of the victim. Also, at the time of the attack, Salvador was not in a position to defend himself. 6 After the first shot, Salvador was already lying bloodied on the road. When Machang noticed that he was still alive, he went back for him and shot him again on the head to ensure his death. 7 AHCETa
Second, the CA is likewise correct in finding Machang guilty of the crime of Homicide for the killing of Orlando Corpuz, Sr. (Orlando, Sr.) Treachery cannot be appreciated in the killing of Orlando, Sr. since his shooting was not consciously planned and intended by Machang as it was only done at the spur of the moment. 8 To recall, after shooting Salvador, Machang went inside the compound as if looking for someone. 9 With no one inside, Machang went to the other compound across the street. 10 As he was about to enter, the people inside the compound scampered to their respective apartment units and closed their doors. 11 Since he did not see anyone inside the compound, he went out and proceeded again to Salvador. 12 After shooting Salvador again, it was then that Orlando, Sr. came out from the compound. 13 At this time, Orlando, Sr. was definitely forewarned of the risk he would be facing in the hands of Machang the moment he stepped out of the compound. 14 Thus, treachery cannot be appreciated since the two elements of treachery are not present.
Third, Machang is only liable for Less Serious Physical Injuries for the wounding of Evangeline Cilot (Evangeline) since based on the Medico Legal Certificate she presented, her wound on her right arm would heal in less than 30 days. 15 In case of frustrated homicide, the main element is the accused's intent to take his victim's life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. Intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim. 16 In this case, intent to kill was not proven by the prosecution. The nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted on Evangeline show that Machang did not intend to kill her. 17 She was shot on her right arm and after she was shot, the accused immediately left. 18 Moreover, considering that Machang's gun had a "laser sight" and the short distance of two to three meters between their respective locations, Machang could not have missed hitting Evangeline on a vital part of her body if he had really desired to kill her. 19
However, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 20 the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA. For the crime of Murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00. For the crime of Homicide, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are reduced to P50,000.00. The amount of temperate damages is increased to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08740 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
1. In Criminal Case No. 2012-14150-MK, accused-appellant Kunimitsu Matsuo alias "Machang" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Salvador Panim, Jr. the amounts of 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, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2012-14151-MK, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Eight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, and with full credit of his preventive imprisonment. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of Orlando Corpuz, Sr., the sums of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid; and
3. In Criminal Case No. 2012-14152-MK, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Less Serious Physical Injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay Evangeline Cilot P30,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)" ScHADI
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3. See Decision dated September 13, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 273, in Crim. Case Nos. 2012-14150-MK to 2012-14152-MK, penned by Presiding Judge Romeo Dizon Tagra; CA rollo, pp. 49-78.
4.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 745 (2012).
5. Also spelled as "Corpus" in some parts of the records.
6. CA rollo, p. 72.
7.Rollo, p. 12.
8.Id. at 13.
9.Id. at 12.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 13.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, p. 75.
16.Colinares v. People, 678 Phil. 482, 494 (2011).
17.Rollo, p. 14.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).