THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205313. September 6, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. BERLIN PANALIGAN y MARANAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 6, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205313 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERLIN PANALIGAN y MARANAN, Accused-Appellant) — After a careful and judicious review of the records, the Court RESOLVESTODISMISS the appeal for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating its decision on January 31, 2012 1 upholding his conviction for murder handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 170, in Malabon City on August 17, 2010. 2
The accused-appellant seeks the re-examination by the Court of the worth and credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses for the State. Although an appeal in a criminal case throws open the entire records of the trial, the accused-appellant has not advanced any fact or circumstance that the CA ignored or misappreciated that, if properly considered and appreciated, could alter the result in his favor. Neither do we find any material fact or circumstance not properly considered and appreciated.
We cannot disturb the unanimous findings of the CA and the RTC in arriving at their factual findings and legal conclusions respecting the guilt of the accused-appellant as charged. We reiterate that the truth or falsity of testimony as well as the ascertainment of the credibility of the witnesses are matters best left to the determination and judgment of the trial court considering that the witnesses appeared and testified in person before the trial judge. Their demeanor as witnesses while they testified in court was precisely observed by the trial judge firsthand, unlike the Court who cannot have the same access. cDHAES
We affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant for murder, and the imposition upon him of the penalty of reclusionperpetua but without eligibility for parole. However, we modify the award of damages in order to conform to Peoplev. Jugueta 3 by restoring the P100,000.00 allowed by the RTC as civil indemnity; and granting P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, we award P50,000.00 as temperate damages because no evidence of burial and funeral expenses was presented in the RTC. For sure, some pecuniary loss was suffered by the family of the victim in laying him to rest, but its amount could not be proven with certainty; hence, the Court grants temperate damages of at least P50,000.00. The accused shall pay interest of 6% perannum on all such amounts from the time of finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court affirms the decision promulgated on January 31, 2012, subject to the MODIFICATION that: (1) the accused-appellant BERLINPANALIGANyMARANAN shall suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility for parole; and (2) he is ordered to pay to the heirs of the late Carlos Padilla y Marquez: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and (e) interest of 6% perannum on all the damages from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
The accused-appellant shall further pay the costs of suit.
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
2. CA rollo, pp. 37-57.
3. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.