SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223687. April 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EFREN SAMPAGA @ "SUKE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223687 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus EFREN SAMPAGA @ "SUKE,"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 April 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05235. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Efren Sampaga @ "Suke" (accused-appellant) 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, 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 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 4 which the CA affirmed in toto.
In this connection, the Court agrees with the CA that the elements of self-defense were not sufficiently established. Well-settled in jurisprudence is the fact that self-defense is appreciated as a justifying circumstance only if the following requisites were present, namely: (1) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person acting in self-defense; (2) there was reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense, or, at least, any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression. 5 This justifying circumstance must be established with certainty through satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the persons invoking it. 6 It cannot be appreciated where it was uncorroborated by competent evidence, or is patently doubtful. 7 IDSEAH
In establishing self-defense, the element of unlawful aggression is the indispensable requisite. In other words, there must be a showing that the victim posed a real peril on the life or personal safety of the person defending himself. 8
In this case, the element of unlawful aggression was not successfully established because accused-appellant's claim that the victim was the aggressor was belied by the evidence established by the prosecution. As noted by both the RTC and the CA, the eyewitnesses to the incident testified that there was no provocation or unlawful aggression on the part of the victim before he was attacked by accused-appellant. Even assuming that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the means used by accused-appellant to repel the aggression was still not commensurate to the amount of unlawful aggression exerted by the victim.
The Court likewise agrees with the CA that the crime committed was Murder as the killing was attended by treachery. It must be stressed that by invoking self-defense, accused-appellant, in effect, "admitted to the commission of the acts for which [he was] charged." 9 In particular, accused-appellant was charged for inflicting multiple stab wounds on the victim, specifically on the latter's back. These facts were proved during the trial through the testimonies of the eyewitnesses who testified that accused-appellant suddenly stabbed the victim on his back while the latter was singing. Accused-appellant's claim that there was an altercation between him and the victim prior to his infliction of the stab wounds was unsubstantiated as he did not offer any other proof apart from his own self-serving testimony.
As the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently alleged and proved, the Court thus affirms the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of Murder.
Regarding the amount of damages, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 10 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P100,000.00 each. Temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded in lieu of actual damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05235, finding accused-appellant Efren Sampaga @ "Suke" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Nelson Delos Reyes y Acedillo, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as moral damages, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as temperate damages. The award of actual damages is deleted. 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 CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (a retired Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 39 in Criminal Case No. CR-07-8704.
5.People v. Escobal, G.R. No. 206292, October 11, 2017, 842 SCRA 432, 454.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 194 (2014).
10.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).