SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238588. September 23, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OLIVER PAQUIT y CABINO @ "BENG/BEN" AND EXPEDITO PAQUIT y CABINO @ "LUCKY", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238588 (People of the Philippines v. Oliver Paquit y Cabino @ "Beng/Ben" and Expedito Paquit y Cabino @ "Lucky"). — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented in the Accused-Appellants' 1 and the Plaintiff-Appellees' 2 Briefs, which the parties adopted instead of filing their respective supplemental briefs, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 3 for failure of Oliver Paquit y Cabino and Expedito Paquit y Cabino (accused-appellants) to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 4 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08528 dated December 28, 2017 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In the instant case, all the elements of Murder were established by the prosecution: 1) Patrick Baldomar y Palada (Patrick) was killed on April 14, 2014 at around 10:00 p.m.; 2) Tito Baldomar (Tito) as witness positively identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators; 3) the killing was attended by treachery; and 4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 5 The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 6
Both the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Manila and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Patrick was completely unaware of any threat to his life. Accused-appellants deliberately fired at the unarmed Patrick from behind — his back was facing the accused-appellants. The autopsy report and postmortem findings revealed that accused-appellants aimed at Patrick's face, chest, and back ensuring that he would not have a chance to retaliate. In fact, Patrick sustained eight gunshot wounds. Evidently, the killing was executed to ensure that Patrick had no opportunity to respond or defend himself. 7
The Court however, deems it proper to modify the monetary awards in accordance with recent jurisprudence. 8
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08528 dated December 28, 2017 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED to pay the heirs of Patrick Baldomar y Palada P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and increase the award of temperate damages to P50,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (DELOS SANTOS, J., on official leave. BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 28-42.
2.Id. at 74-88.
3.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
4.Id. at 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes Jr., (now a retired member of the Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
5. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
6.People v. Cirbeto, 825 Phil. 793, 806 (2018).
7.Rollo, p. 17.
8.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).