FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239630. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PEDRO SALDO, FRANKLIN SALDO A.K.A. "PANGKE" AND RICHARD SALDO A.K.A. "NIGGER", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239630 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Saldo, Franklin Saldo a.k.a. "Pangke" and Richard Saldo a.k.a. "Nigger,"Accused-Appellants.) — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 24 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01806. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 21 February 2013 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol in Criminal Case No. 05-1615, finding Pedro Saldo (Pedro), Franklin Saldo (Franklin) and Richard Saldo (Richard) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
Antecedents
Accused-appellants were charged with the crime of Murder in an Amended Information, the accusatory portion of which stated:
The undersigned, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby [sic] PEDRO SALDO, FRANKLIN SALDO alias "Pangke" and RICHARD SALDO alias "Nigger," all residents of Barangay San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol of the crime of MURDER committed as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of June, 2005, in the municipality of Talibon, Province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other with intent to kill, without justifiable cause and TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEIR SUPERIOR STRENGTH BY SIMULTANEOUSLY ATTACKING THE VICTIM WHO IS ALREADY OLD AND WEAK, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and maul one ANECITO MEJORADA, A SIXTY-THREE (63)-YEAR OLD MAN, thus inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries on his head and body, causing his untimely death; to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim, in the amount to be proved during the trial. TCAScE
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Tagbilaran City [for Talibon, Bohol], MARCH 17, 2006. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against them. 5 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On 23 June 2005, at around 1:00 p.m. in Sitio Bacbacan, San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol, Jeneve Torrenueva (Jeneve), Vicenta Asani (Vicenta), Maria Linda Leoligao (Maria) and the victim, Anecito Mejorada (Anecito), were at the house of Alberto Asani (Alberto) to discuss their plan to go swimming the next day. Suddenly, a tipsy Pedro approached them and asked for Php20.00 from Anecito. Despite receiving the money, Pedro complained and said that the money was not enough to buy the mix for Tanduay, so Anecito gave Pedro another Php20.00. However, instead of leaving, Pedro grabbed the glass of drink Anecito was holding, drank half of it, poured the rest, and spat, on Anecito's feet. Anecito wiped it off, while Pedro was brought by Vicenta to a nearby store who kept shouting at and challenging Anecito to a fist fight. The group called the attention of Franklin, Pedro's son, but the latter ignored them and merely laughed. Anecito ignored Pedro, prompting the latter to just go home. 7
At around 5:00 p.m. of the same day, Jeneve, who was at a computer shop, saw Anecito seated on a bamboo bench two (2)-three (3) meters away. Pedro, who came from the basketball court where his sons, Richard and Franklin were playing with other people, approached Anecito. Thereafter, Anecito stood up, went to where Jeneve was and told her that she will be the witness to whatever that may happen to him. Meanwhile, Pedro walked back towards the store but later on, Jeneve saw him coming towards Anecito and heard him say, "come we'll have a fight, anyway I'm intending to kill you."
Anecito, on the other hand, tried to avoid Pedro's challenge and stepped back, but Pedro kept moving towards him. Richard approached his father, Pedro, followed by Franklin who ran towards them while shouting "you box him, Pa." Franklin ran fast towards Richard and caused the three to fall down. Richard and Pedro fell face down while Anecito fell face up. Jeneve saw Pedro, Richard and Franklin maul Anecito. Richard sat on top of Anecito and punched him on the mouth and cheek. Franklin kicked Anecito while Pedro held Anecito's hands to restrain him. Several bystanders tried to stop Franklin but the latter, along with Franklin, kept on kicking Anecito who lay helpless on the ground.
Maria, who is also a resident of the same barangay, heard a commotion outside her house. She saw Pedro challenging Anecito and was joined by Franklin and Richard. When she saw the three gang up on Anecito, she stepped outside her house to assist in restraining Franklin. She noticed that Anecito recovered consciousness and tried to stand up so she asked Jeneve to help him avoid further attack. Jeneve helped Anecito and brought him to their yard. Unfortunately, Franklin followed them and hit Anecito again. Jeneve left Anecito and went to the kitchen. From there, she saw Franklin stomp the nape of Anecito and kick him on his side three times. She called for help but nobody came. Franklin's wife pulled him away and brought him home. After Franklin left, Jeneve called for help again. She saw Anecito with blood in his eyes, nose and mouth. Alberto, who had been playing basketball with Franklin and Richard, saw the mauling incident and came to help together with Vicenta, Pepe and Haman and they brought Anecito to Florencia Asani's house. Anecito was later on brought to the hospital. 8
Anecito was attended by Dr. Hubert F. Egonia when he was initially brought to the Garcia Memorial Provincial Hospital. The tentative diagnosis was multiple physical injuries due to mauling incident, intracranial hemorrhage. Later on, Anecito's family decided to transfer him to Chong Hua Hospital in Cebu City where he passed away. The National Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office, Medico-Legal Section issued Necropsy Report No. 06-2005-NO-257, which stated that the cause of Anecito's death was Intracranial Hemorrhage, Traumatic. 9
Version of the Defense
For their part, accused-appellants advanced the defense of denial. Franklin claimed that on 23 June 2007, while playing basketball, he saw and heard his father, Pedro, having a verbal altercation with Anecito, and he momentarily saw his father lying on the ground unconscious with bloodied mouth. He then approached and punched Anecito once. Richard asserted that while also playing basketball, he saw Anecito hit Pedro. Thus, he immediately went to his father and brought him to the hospital. Pedro corroborated his sons' testimonies and claimed that Anecito boxed him, causing him to lose consciousness and suffer injuries. 10
Ruling of the RTC
On 21 February 2013, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, to wit:
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the court hereby finds all the three accused Pedro, Franklin and Richard, all surnamed Saldo, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for murder as alleged under the Information.
In accordance with the penalty set forth under the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 248 thereof, the court hereby sentences all the three accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. They are likewise directed to pay to the heirs of Anecito Mejorada the following sums of money which were all duly proven with preponderance of evidence:
1. [Php]75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity for the death of said victim;
2. [Php]300,000.00 for actual damages consisting in the hospital expenses and for the expenses during the burial; and
3. [Php]100,000.00 for moral damages.
As it appears on record that the three accused are under preventive detention at the BJMP Talibon District Jail they shall be credited the full term of such detention subject to an assessment of the warden thereof on the demeanor of the accused.
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused-appellants for the killing of Anecito and to establish all the elements of Murder. The prosecution witnesses positively declared that they saw how accused-appellants committed their respective concerted acts that caused several injuries on Anecito, which eventually resulted to his death. The RTC explained that since accused-appellants helped each other in boxing and kicking Anecito without allowing him to defend himself, the killing was attended by superior strength, qualifying the crime as Murder. Moreover, the RTC found accused-appellants' defense of denial weak and self-serving. 12 ITAaHc
Ruling of the CA
On 24 November 2017, the CA affirmed with modification accused-appellants' conviction, awarding exemplary damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence, 13viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that appellants are further ordered to pay the heirs of Anecito Mejorada the amount of [Php]50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all monetary awards for damages from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 14
Hence, this appeal. 15
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the RTC and CA are correct in holding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. 16
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is dismissed.
In assailing their conviction, accused-appellants reiterate the arguments they raised in the CA, namely that the trial court erred in: (1) giving weight and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Jeneve and Alberto despite several inconsistencies regarding the details of the crime — specifically, (i) how many times Richard boxed Anecito and where, and (ii) the instance when Franklin pushed Anecito; and (2) convicting accused-appellants despite the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 17
We are not persuaded.
There is no reason to disturb
This Court has held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. Thus, it is a settled rule that appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. This rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the RTC are sustained by the CA, 18 as in this case.
Here, no cogent reason exists which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the witnesses. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness. 19 CHTAIc
As aptly found by the lower courts, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were clear, candid, straightforward, and credible. They positively identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Their narrations of the incident were consistent in all respects material to the case. 20 While there were inconsistencies between Jeneve and Alberto's testimonies as to where, and the number of times, accused-appellants hit the victim, these refer only to minor details which do not diminish the probative value of the testimonies at issue. 21
Accused-appellants are guilty
To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide. 22
All elements of the crime of Murder have been established in this case beyond reasonable doubt.
Through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eyewitness account of Jeneve, Maria and Alberto, it was established that it was accused-appellants who assaulted Anecito which led to his death. 23 As to the presence of qualifying circumstances, the Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that abuse of superior strength attended the killing of Anecito.
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. 24
In the instant case, the prosecution clearly established that the killing of Anecito was committed by accused-appellants with abuse of superior strength. At the time the crime was committed, Franklin was 32 years old, Richard was 36 years old, and Pedro was 57 years old. On the other hand, Anecito was 63 years old, unarmed and alone. 25 Indeed, accused-appellants, taking advantage of their number, age and strength, purposely resorted to sitting on Anecito and holding his hands so that all three of them can continuously and forcefully punch and kick Anecito, ganging up on him, overwhelming him and making it impossible for him to defend himself. 26 To the mind of the Court, all these show that accused-appellants deliberately used force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the unarmed Anecito, which eventually led to his death. 27 A disparity in age and strength is thus apparent.
It must be underlined that accused-appellants' defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. As between a categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 28
Penalties and monetary
We now come to the propriety of the penalties imposed.
Other than the circumstance of abuse of superior strength which already qualified the crime to Murder, no other modifying circumstance is present, whether aggravating or mitigating. Thus, the RTC correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 248 in relation to Article 63 (2) of the RPC, as amended. 29 ISHCcT
Anent the award of damages, however, the Court deems it proper to modify the CA's award pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 30 Since the claim of Anecito's heirs for actual damages was not properly substantiated by the submission of receipts for the alleged medical expenses and burial costs incurred, the Court deems it proper to award temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages. Moreover, We modify the award of moral damages in the amount of Php100,000.00 to Php75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 to Php75,000.00. The award of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, however, is affirmed as well as the imposition of legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of resolution until fully paid. 31
All the foregoing considered, the Court affirms with modification as to damages the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of Murder.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated 24 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01806, finding accused-appellants Pedro Saldo, Franklin Saldo and Richard Saldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of Anecito Mejorada the following amounts: (1) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) Php75,000.00 as moral damages; (3) Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) Php50,000.00 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."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-12.
2.Id. at 4-9; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (who is a Member of this Court) and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Nineteenth (19th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. CA rollo, pp. 78-106; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5. CA rollo, p. 78.
6.Id. at 79.
7.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
8.Id. at 6.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id.
11. CA rollo, pp. 105-106.
12.Id. at 105.
13.Id.
14.Rollo, p. 9.
15.Id. at 10-12.
16. CA rollo, p. 59.
17.Id. at 67-68.
18.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363 (2017), G.R. No. 213224, 16 January 2017 [Per J. Caguioa], citing People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642 (2014), G.R. No. 202976, 19 February 2014 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
19.People v. Mat-An, 826 Phil. 512 (2018), G.R. No. 215720, 21 February 2018 [Per J. Martires], citing Avelino v. People, 714 Phil. 322 (2013), G.R. No. 181444, 17 July 2013 [Per J. Villarama, Jr.].
20.See People v. Campit, 822 Phil. 448 (2017), G.R. No. 225794, 06 December 2017 [Per J. Martires].
21.People v. Mat-An y Escad, supra at note 19.
22.People v. Dayaday, supra at note 18.
23.Rollo, p. 8.
24.See People v. Serafin, G.R. No. 246197, 29 July 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos]; See also People v. Maron, G.R. No. 232339, 20 November 2019 [Per J. Inting].
25. CA rollo, p. 125.
26.Rollo, p. 6.
27.See People v. Quinito (Notice), G.R. No. 243025, 01 July 2020; See also People v. Abendan (Notice), G.R. No. 234166, 27 November 2019.
28.See People v. Mat-An, supra at note 19.
29.Id.; See also People v. Dayaday, supra at note 18.
30. 783 Phil. 806 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
31.See People v. Quinito (Notice), supra at note 27; See also People v. Dayaday, supra at note 29.