SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220140. April 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CESAR RAPATAN y PAHINADO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220140 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus CESAR RAPATAN y PAHINADO, 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 January 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01451. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Cesar Rapatan y Pahinado (Rapatan) is indeed guilty of the crime of Murder. 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.
Rapatan's claim that he acted in self-defense is without merit. An accused who pleads self-defense admits to the commission of the crime charged. 4 He has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (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. 5 Of these three, unlawful aggression is indispensable. Unlawful aggression refers to "an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person." 6 Without unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-defense has no leg to stand on and cannot be appreciated. 7
In this case, far from having acted in self-defense, it was actually Rapatan who was the aggressor. As testified by defense witness Pedro Capon, the victim was drunk and asleep on the table when he was suddenly stabbed from behind by Rapatan. 8 Moreover, even if Rapatan and the victim had a quarrel prior to the stabbing incident, said quarrel happened fifteen (15) days prior to the stabbing incident. 9 Hence, the alleged unlawful aggression, which was initially started by the victim had long ceased.
The CA correctly upheld the RTC's finding that Rapatan committed Murder. The manner of killing the victim undoubtedly showed the employment 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. 10 These elements are extant in the facts of this case. In this case, the attack was swift and the unsuspecting victim had no expectation of the coming assault, as he was drunk and asleep on the table when he was suddenly and repeatedly stabbed by Rapatan. 11 Additionally, Rapatan's own testimony indicated his determination to kill the victim. 12 As averred by him, he got hurt and angry when the victim refused to make amends with him. 13 He then went home to get a weapon and immediately went back to Bar Bokyo 14 because he wanted to kill the victim. 15 Undeniably, the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a particular method to kill the defenseless victim and clung to his determination.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 16 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P100,000.00 each. Also, when no evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded. 17 The legal interest is also modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated January 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals. The Decision finding accused-appellant Cesar Rapatan y Pahinado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) asmoral damages, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as exemplarydamages, and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-20. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3. See Decision dated October 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Dolores, Eastern Samar, Branch 4 in Crim. Case No. 365, penned by Presiding Judge Filotea M. Estorninos; CA rollo, pp. 38-50.
4.People v. Duran, Jr., G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 188, 196.
5.Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 194 (2014).
6.People v. Dolorido, 654 Phil. 467, 475 (2011).
7.Nacnac v. People, 685 Phil. 223, 229 (2012).
8. CA rollo, p. 46.
9. See rollo, pp. 6, 17.
10.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 745 (2012).
11. See People v. Camat, 692 Phil. 55, 85 (2012).
12. CA rollo, p. 47.
13.Id.
14. Also referred to as "Bar B-Q Garden" and "Barbeque Garden" in some parts of the records.
15. CA rollo, p. 47.
16.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
17.Id. at 853.
18. See id. at 854.