SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205883. July 25, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO RIVERA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205883 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. DIONISIO RIVERA, accused-appellant. — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Dionisio Rivera (Rivera) assailing the June 21, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03634 affirming the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Gapan City. The RTC found Rivera guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.
THE CASE
The Information filed against Rivera states that on or about April 25, 2003, at around 9:00 P.M., in the Municipality of General Tinio, Province of Nueva Ecija, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot Danilo Javier (Javier) with a long firearm, inflicting a gunshot wound on the upper part of his right chest, which directly caused his death. 3 Rivera pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution presented only one witness, Dennis Bernardo (Bernardo), who had known Javier for eight (8) years. According to his testimony, Javier and Bernardo were attending a wake in Buse, Rio Chico, General Tinio, Nueva Ecija. They were seated outside the house when suddenly Rivera arrived. Out of nowhere, Rivera poked a long firearm at Javier, fired it, and then struck the latter three times on the head with the butt of the firearm. After Rivera fled, Bernardo carried Javier to a tricycle and brought him to the nearest hospital. Javier, unfortunately, died upon reaching the hospital.
On the other hand, the defense presented five (5) witnesses, namely: Ernesto Agumbay (Ernesto), Adora Valdez (Adora), Jerry Caballero Valdez (Jerry), Paco Rivera (Paco) and Rivera himself.
Ernesto, one of Rivera's childhood friends, testified that he was also at the wake and was one (1) meter away from where the incident took place. He saw that the assailant who shot Javier had his face covered except for his eyes.
Adora, Rivera's sister-in-law, testified that she was an arm and a half away from Javier when the incident took place. She also failed to recognize the assailant since his face was covered. She saw the assailant run away towards the river after the shooting.
Although he was standing a little further away when the incident took place, Jerry corroborated the testimonies of Ernesto and Adora.
Further, all three witnesses claimed that they had not seen Bernardo at the wake on the night that the incident took place. 4
For his part, Rivera claimed that in the evening of April 25, 2003, he was at the house of Paco, which is also in the same municipality where the incident took place. He said that they were having a drinking session at around 8:00 P.M., and at no point during that evening did he go to the wake. The following day, Paco woke him up and told him that the police were looking for him.
Paco corroborated Rivera's testimony in all material aspects. He also testified that Rivera left Paco's house around 6:00 A.M. of the day after the incident.
In any case, the RTC still found Rivera guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The RTC held that the defenses of denial and alibi of Rivera were unsubstantiated with clear and convincing evidence. According to the trial court, the defense of denial — aside from being an inherently weak defense — was less plausible given that corroboration only came from Rivera's friends and relatives who are all partial witnesses. The trial court likewise held that Rivera's alibi could not prosper, as it was not physically impossible for Rivera to have been present at the scene of the crime.
Neither did the RTC give credence to the testimonies of the witnesses that the assailant's face was covered because, just an hour after the incident, the police were already looking for Javier. TAIaHE
The RTC ruled that the testimony of Bernardo was sufficiently clear, straightforward, worthy of belief, and there was nothing to suggest that he had been moved by improper motive to falsely testify. While Rivera proffered that Bernardo had filed a criminal case against him, the trial court said that this was not enough to be considered improper motive.
Finally, the RTC noted that, although Rivera had been informed that the police had been looking for him, he evaded arrest for two (2) years. In the absence of credible explanation, the trial court took this as an indication of guilt.
On appeal, the CA found no basis to reverse the RTC's ruling. Given Bernardo's eyewitness account, the appellate court held that Rivera could no longer deny having committed the crime, because positive and forthright declarations of prosecution witnesses are more credible than the self-serving denials of accused.
The CA also found no merit in Rivera's assertion that Bernardo's testimony could not be credible because the latter harbored a grudge against him. It is an established rule that when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts since they are in the best position to ascertain and measure the witnesses' credibility.
The CA also agreed with the RTC with respect to the failure of Rivera to substantiate the element of physical impossibility in order to justify his acquittal based on the defense of alibi.
Granting for the sake of argument that the assailant's face was covered, the CA noted that Bernardo was more or less only two (2) meters away from the assailant; hence, he would have been able to clearly recognize Rivera — especially since the two had known each other for years.
Finally, the CA concurred with the RTC when it appreciated — as an indication of guilt — the fact that Rivera had fled the morning after the shooting even though he was aware that the police were looking for him.
The CA upheld the RTC's award of P50,000.00 of civil indemnity, P50,000.00 of moral damages, and P25,000.00 of exemplary damages. It modified the award of actual damages, however, from P40,000.00 to P58,400.00, because Javier's widow had submitted adequate lists of expenses to justify the award.
OUR RULING
After due consideration, we dismiss the appeal, but modify the awarded civil indemnities and damages.
The elements of the crime of murder defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended by any one of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing was not parricide or infanticide. 5 In the present case, all these elements have been sufficiently proven to warrant a conviction for murder, qualified by treachery.
Prosecution witness Bernardo was able to positively identify Rivera as the person who shot Javier with a long firearm. We see no reason to disbelieve Bernardo's testimony, especially considering that (1) he was familiar with Rivera, and (2) he was only about one (1) meter away from Javier when the shooting took place.
It has been consistently held by this Court that, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the trial court. 6 The findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence, its assessment of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate courts. Trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witness' manner of testifying, demeanor, and behavior in court. Although this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the trial court failed to appreciate certain facts or circumstances which might affect the results of the case, 7 none of these exceptions are present in this case.
Neither is there a sufficient showing that Bernardo was motivated by ill-will to testify against Rivera because of a past criminal complaint filed by the former against the latter that was eventually dismissed. The presence of personal motives on the part of a witness to testify in favor of the victim and against the accused should be supported by satisfactory proof before his testimony may be considered biased. 8
Given Bernardo's narration of facts, the CA correctly observed that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was attendant because the shooting was clearly sudden and unexpected. Javier was unprepared and could not have met the assault; the incident took place when Javier was just outside his house, watching the band play and he had no foreboding that any danger, threat, or harm awaited him. Neither did he had the chance to defend himself. Rivera, on the other hand, was able to shoot him and flee, without any risk of a retaliatory attack.
We have consistently held that the testimonies of witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a single witness may suffice for conviction if found trustworthy and reliable. There is no law that requires that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration, except where the law expressly mandates such corroboration. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, when positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even of murder. Hence, a finding of guilt may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when the trial court finds such testimony positive and credible. 9 cDHAES
The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim of murder without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. 10 Pursuant to current jurisprudence, we increase the award of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. 11
The heirs of Javier are likewise entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery has been firmly established. We modify the award from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00, however, in line with current jurisprudence. 12
We also impose a six percent (6%) interest on all the monetary awards to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 21, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03634 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) the award for civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; (b) the award for exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00; and (c) Rivera is further ordered to pay Javier's heirs a six percent (6%) interest on all the monetary awards to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
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 Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon; rollo pp. 1-16.
2. Penned by Judge Arturo M. Bernardo; CA rollo, pp. 7-17.
3. Rollo, p. 3.
4. CA rollo, p. 14.
5. Aguilar v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 629, 642, cited in People v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 213104, July 29, 2015.
6. People v. Garillo, G.R. No. 146189, February 24, 2003, 398 SCRA 118; People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998, 284 SCRA 315; People v. Aquinde, G.R. No. 133733, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA 162.
7. Id.
8. People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 171085, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 623; People v. Baniega, G.R. No. 139578, February 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 170, 181; People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 129933, February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 678, 686.
9. People v. Cleopas, G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 552; People v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 134768, October 25, 2000, 344 SCRA 345; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 171085, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 623.
10. People v. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 179278, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 480.
11. People v. Micmic, G.R. No. 206971, March 16, 2015, People v. Dilla, G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015; People v. Bosito, G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015.
12. Id.