FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231128. February 13, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AMORITO ROLLEN y MONSALES and ESPEREGION ROLLEN y MONSALES, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231128 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMORITO ROLLEN y MONSALES and ESPEREGION ROLLEN y MONSALES, Accused-Appellants) — We DENY this appeal from the December 15, 2016 1 decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01447-MIN for failure of the accused-appellants to prove that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Gingoog City finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
In its decision rendered on September 16, 2005, the RTC sentenced herein accused-appellants in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Amorito Rollen y Monsales and Esperegion Rollen y Monsales GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole on the part of accused Esperegion Rollen y Monsales, and to pay the heirs of Joel C. Monterola P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Interest on all damages awarded is imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 3
The accused-appellants relied on denial and alibi as their defense. Accused Esperegion claimed that he was at home with his live-in partner at Brgy. 18-A, Gingoog City while accused Amorito alleged that he was working as a helper cutting falcata trees in Brgy. Mimbalagon, Gingoog City. 4 They also attacked the credibility of prosecution witness Wilson D. Morales (Morales) in that: (1) despite seeing the presence of armed men, Morales still approached robbers which is unnatural behavior; and (2) Morales testified that he was able to run away from the armed men, notwithstanding that a gun was pointed at him and in close range. The accused-appellants doubted Morales' testimony as it was impossible for the armed men to let him flee knowing that the latter would be able to identify them to the police. 5
Finding the accused-appellants' arguments unmeritorious, the CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the civil penalties to conform with our ruling in People v. Jugueta, 6 to wit: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City dated 16 September 2015 in Criminal Case No. 2007-3634 for Robbery with Homicide, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION:
1. The award of civil indemnity ex delicto is increased from PhP50,000.00 to PhP100,000.00.
2. The award of moral damages is increased from PhP50,000.00 to PhP100,000.00.
3. The amount of PhP100,000.00 as exemplary damages is hereby awarded.
SO ORDERED.7
Hence, this appeal whereby the accused-appellants seek a final review of their case.
We DENY the appeal.
Courts have always weighed the defense of denial and alibi with considerable caution because of their inherent weakness and unreliability. These defenses, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. 8
Herein We find difficult to believe the accused-appellants' alibi and denial considering the affirmative testimony of prosecution witness Morales. As aptly observed by the CA:
In this case, through the totality of its evidence, the prosecution was able to establish that Amorito, Esperegion, and their unknown companion committed robbery with homicide.
The first three elements were established when Morales testified that he saw, and positively identified Amorito and their other companion taking Monterola's belt bag by force and shooting Monterola afterwards. Morales also testified that he saw and positively identified Esperegion, who arrived on a motorcycle to get Amorito and their other companion from the crime scene, right after Monterola was shot and his belt bag taken. Monterola's death resulting from the attack proves the last element of the special complex crime, as duly confirmed by the post-mortem report. According to Morales:
PROS. ALEGADO:
Q: When you reached the vehicle what did you observe or notice, if any?
A: I saw those persons at the right side, at the helper side door.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, after you noticed these two (2) persons in the helper's seat on the right side, what did they do, if any?
A: After I saw these two (2) persons, I went towards the left side of the vehicle.
Q: Now, you went towards the left side. On what part of the Elf or vehicle this left side?
A: At the rear.
Q: Now, when you reached that place what did you notice?
A: I saw at the rear mirror that a person was pointing a gun at my head.
Q: Now, after knowing that, what did you do then?
A: I leaned towards the driver's seat.
Q: Now, after you reached the driver's seat, what did you do?
A: I opened the door.
Q: After that, what happened next?
A: After I opened the door, I saw a person pointing a gun at my companion.
Q: Now, is this person pointing a gun to your companion present in Court today?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Kindly point that person?
COURT INTERPRETER:
Witness went down from the witness chair and tapped the shoulder of the man, one of the accused at the gallery who answered to the name Amorito Rollen.
PROS. ALEGADO: DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, after you saw accused Amorito Rollen pointed a gun to your companion Atoy Monterola, what did you do?
A: He pointed his firearm towards me.
Q: What did you do when the firearm was already pointed towards you?
A: I jumped from the truck backwards towards the highway.
Q: While in the highway what did you say then?
A: I shouted: "Ayaw gara-gara bay." Don't do something stupid Bay.
Q: Then after that where did you go?
A: At the national highway.
Q: Now, upon reaching at the highway, what did you hear, if any?
A: I saw the cowl inside the vehicle was moving.
Q: Kindly explain to this Honorable Court, because we are not a mechanic, what do you mean by this cowl of the vehicle?
A: The head part of the vehicle.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What's your opinion why this cowl was moving?
A: To my thinking, they were grappling for the money and the firearms.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, after you saw the cowl moving, what did you hear then?
A: After a few seconds I heard a gunshot.
Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
A: Only one (1).
Q: Now, after that what else did you observe after the gunshot?
A: The two (2) persons went down.
Q: Where did they go?
A: Going towards the cowl to the highway at the side then a motorcycle arrived.
Q: Then what did the two (2) persons do, one (1) is Amorito Rollen, when the said motorcycle arrived?
A: They rode the motorcycle.
Q: Now, if you know, who is this person driving the motorcycle?
A: I know him.
Q: Is this person driving the motorcycle present in Court today?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: May we ask the witness, Your Honor, to go down the witness stand and tap the shoulder of this person who drove the motorcycle?
COURT INTERPRETER:
Witness went down from the witness' chair and tapped the shoulder of one of the accused who answered to the name of Espere[g]ion Rollen.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. ALEGADO:
Q: Now, from the handgun that was brought by Amorito Rollen, who sat at the middle of the motorcycle, what else did he bring if any?
A: A belt bag.
Q: If you know, who is the owner of this belt bag?
A: Joel "Tantoy."
Q: You are referring to Joel Tantoy Monterola?
A: Yes, Sir. aDSIHc
Q: What is the purpose why Joel Tantoy Monterola brought his bag?
A: Because he was bringing money.
Q: In other words, the remittance of every store every time that you will deliver a Pepsi?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Now, when the three (3) of them speed (sic) off riding a motorcycle, what did you do then?
A: I went near the vehicle.
Q: In what part of the vehicle?
A: At the left side of the driver's side.
Q: Were you able to reach at the (sic) driver's side?
A: Yes, I opened the door.
Q: When you opened the door what did you discover?
A: My companion.
Q: Who is that companion?
A: Joel Tantoy Monterola.
Q: Can you tell this Honorable Court the description of this companion of yours Joel Monterola at the time you saw him at the cowl?
A: He was lying on his side and his head on my seat on the driver's seat.
COURT:
(to the witness)
Q: Was he still alive?
A: Already dead. 9
The factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are entitled to respect and are not disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance were overlooked or misappreciated, and could materially affect the disposition of the case. Such conclusiveness is derived from the trial court's having the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the witnesses when they testified at the trial. 10
In here We find no cogent reason to depart from the uniform findings of the CA and the RTC. Morales' affirmative and categorical testimony deserves full faith and credit against accused-appellants' denial and alibi.
While We affirm the decision of the CA, We deem it necessary to further modify the civil liability incurred by the accused-appellants. In line with People v. Jugueta, 11 the CA had correctly increased the civil indemnity ex delicto, moral damages, and exemplary damages. However, the CA overlooked the RTC's award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Based on People v. Jugueta, 12 when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. Hence, the award of temperate damages should be increased accordingly. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the instant appeal for lack of merit; AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on December 15, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01447-MIN and ORDERS the accused-appellants Amorito M. Rollen and Esperegion M. Rollen to pay the heirs of the victim Joel C. Monterola P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with the concurrence of Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
2. CA rollo, pp. 38-50; penned by Judge Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro.
3. CA rollo, p. 49.
4.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
5. CA rollo, p. 35.
6. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
7.Rollo, p. 19.
8.People v. Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 194.
9.Rollo, pp. 11-14.
10. See People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 261, 271; People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 616, 622.
11.Supra note 6, at 384.
12.Id. at 388.