SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227851. September 6, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NELSON ORPIA y MILLARES a.k.a. "LAKAY" or "BADOR", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 September 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227851 (People of the Philippines vs. Nelson Orpia y Millares a.k.a. "Lakay" or "Bador"). — This appeal assails the Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06897 dated December 17, 2015, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated June 6, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 37, in Criminal Case No. 11-288226, finding accused-appellant Nelson Orpia y Millares a.k.a. "Lakay" or "Bador" (Orpia) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
Orpia was charged with murder in an Information dated October 25, 2011 which reads:
That on or about July 18, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, armed with a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery and with evident premeditation, attack, assault[,] and use personal violence upon one TENIE PACCLA Y MALSI, by then and there suddenly stabbing him several times, hitting him on the different parts of his body, while the latter was casually talking to or conversing with another person and was, thus, unable to defend himself, thereby inflicting upon TENIE PACCLA Y MALSI multiple stab wounds on his body and lower extremity, which was the direct and immediate cause of his death.
Contrary to law. 3
After weighing the parties' respective arguments and evidence, the court a quo rendered a decision finding Orpia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused NELSON ORPIA Y MILLARES GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and[,] there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to consider, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of [reclusion perpetua].
Accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the late Tenie Paccla the following:
1. [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and
2. [P]50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 4 (Italics Ours)
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the court a quo finding Orpia guilty of murder qualified by treachery. However, in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death penalty, the imposable penalty would be reclusion perpetua without benefit of parole. Hence, while finding that the court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the CA included the phrase "without eligibility of parole," pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, in its dispositive portion. 5 Further, the CA modified the amount of indemnities imposed by the court a quo. The CA decreed:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. We AFFIRM the assailed judgment of the trial court finding appellant Nelson Orpia y Millares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole pursuant to (R.A.] No. 9346, with MODIFICATION that he shall indemnify the heirs of Tenie Paccla in the amounts of [P]75,000.00 as civil indemnity; [P]75,000.00 as moral damages; and [P]30,000.00 as exemplary damages plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages awarded from finality of the decision until fully paid.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6
In this appeal, Orpia reiterates his stance that he only acted in self-defense hence, he should not have been found guilty of murder. He also faults the court a quo for finding that there was treachery in this case as such was not supported by any evidence. According to Orpia, it was the victim himself who tried to stab him when he passed in front of the latter and that they grappled for the knife which thus, resulted to his own injuries. He also said that he attacked the victim only when he was caught off guard while wrestling for the knife hence, such suddenness on his part is not sufficient enough to constitute treachery.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
This Court agrees with the court a quo and the CA in ruling that the prosecution correctly established Orpia's guilt for killing Tenie Paccla (Paccla). They were also correct in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution witness' testimony that Orpia suddenly attacked Tenie Paccla thus, making Orpia's claim of self-defense unworthy of credit.
Indeed, eyewitness Sonny S. Padin (Padin), a peanut vendor, vividly recalled what transpired on July 18, 2011 when he was having a conversation with Paccla and a certain Arda. In his testimony in court, Padin declared that it was when the three of them were talking when Orpia suddenly appeared and stabbed Paccla at his right side. After that, Orpia pushed Paccla towards Padin. Thereafter, Orpia pushed Paccla inside the store and stabbed him on his stomach. At that time, Padin was already trying to pacify Orpia but as the latter did not stop, Padin stepped backwards while going upstairs and watching the crime at the same time. It was then when Orpia stabbed Paccla again, this time hitting him twice in his chest.
For the claim of self-defense to prosper, the person claiming the same must show by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence, that:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. Defense of a relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code requires the same first two (2) requisites as self-defense and, in lieu of the third in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein. 7 (Citation omitted)
In this case, Orpia's claim of self defense relies on the presence of unlawful aggression and sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. Sadly, the presence of sufficient provocation or unlawful aggression, as claimed by Orpia, was belied by eyewitness Padin who did not only positively identify Orpia, but also clearly recounted the events and vividly described how the attack came first from Orpia himself upon Paccla, who was then conversing with the eyewitness, and oblivious to the fact that his life was about to end that day.
Clearly, therefore, Orpia's claim of self-defense is sorely wanting.
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, however, the Court increases the award of exemplary damages, moral damages and civil indemnity to P100,000.00 each, in line with the recent case of People v. Jugueta, 8 which holds:
In summary:
I. For those crimes like Murder, Parricide, Serious intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00 9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06897 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, and that accused-appellant Nelson Orpia y Millares, a.k.a. "Lakay" or "Bador", is ordered to pay the heirs of Tenie Paccla P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Denton Q. Bueser and Renato C. Francisco, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-16.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Virgilio V. Macaraig; CA rollo, pp. 35-45.
3.Id. at 35.
4.Id. at 45.
5.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Nicolas Velasquez and Victor Velasquez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017.
8. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
9.Id. at 381-382.