THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230982. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JAYMAR O. SAPU-AN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230982 (People of the Philippines vs. Jaymar O. Sapu-an). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated August 1, 2017 of Penal Superintendent Geraldo I. Aro of the Leyte Regional Prison, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since December 18, 2014;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated July 28, 2017 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief since the Brief for the Appellee of June 15, 2016 has exhaustively responded to and refuted accused-appellant's arguments in his appeal brief and the filing of a supplemental brief will merely contain a reiteration or repetition of the arguments; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated August 30, 2017 stating that he is dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief considering that his arguments have been sufficiently presented in his appellant's brief and submits the case for resolution.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated October 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, in CA G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01952, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jaymar O. Sapu-An." The assailed ruling affirmed with modification the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Dumaguete City which found accused-appellant Jaymar O. Sapu-an guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows:
An Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 2013-21529 was filed against defendant-appellant, charging him as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of January, 2013, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack assault, and stab and use personal violence upon the person of one JONATHAN SAPU-AN NAMOCO, thereby inflicting upon the latter hemorrhage [s]ec. to stabbed wound [on the] chest, which injury directly caused the death of said JONATHAN SAPU-AN NAMOCO. AIDSTE
That the crime was committed with the qualifying/aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
Contrary to law. 2
On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial ensued.
The prosecution's witness, John Raymund Pagadura (Pagadura), testified that on January 8, 2013, around 10 o'clock in the evening, he saw accused-appellant, with a bolo under his shirt, drinking under a cacao tree, and walking back and forth. Then, when it began to drizzle, he saw the victim step clown from a fence and head towards the cacao tree where he was, for shelter. Then, he saw accused-appellant walk towards the victim and stab the latter on the chest with a long knife. He then failed to remove it as it got stuck in the victim's chest. According to Pagadura, the place was illuminated by a lamp post and lights from a nearby "pulong-pulong" area, thereby allowing him to see the incident. 3
To bolster its position, the prosecution presented Cheryl Namoco (Namoco), the victim's wife, who testified that prior to the incident, accused-appellant had altercations with the victim and even got to a point where accused-appellant followed the victim to the latter's house, armed with a bolo, and harassed their family. 4
PO1 Relly Viernes narrated that on the day of the incident, at around 10:15 in the evening, the police station received a stabbing incident report in Barangay Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City. During the investigation, Pagadora approached them and informed them that accused-appellant was the perpetrator. The police then conducted a hot pursuit operation and, the following day, at around 11:00 a.m., they received information as to accused-appellant's whereabouts. They arrested accused-appellant, handcuffed him, and informed him of his constitutional rights. Too, when accused-appellant raised his hand, they saw that it was wounded. He explained that the injury was caused by a knife that he grabbed because the victim had attacked him first. Allegedly, however, when asked about the injury at the police station, he admitted that he sustained such when he stabbed the victim and the knife slipped from his hand. 5
The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Maria Sara B. Talla revealed that the victim died due to: "Hemorrhage sec. to stab wound on the chest." 6
For his part, accused-appellant waived his right to present evidence but reserved the right to argue on the legal merits of the case, particularly that the prosecution failed to prove the element of treachery.
In a Decision 7 dated September 15, 2014, the RT Cruled that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of murder, reasoning that his act of hiding the knife, which gave him the opportunity to go near the victim to inflict the killing blow, constituted treachery. Too, his act of bringing the knife and waiting for the victim shows evident premeditation. Thus, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused JAYMAR SAPU-AN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. He is sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.
The accused Jaymar Sapu-an is directed to pay the heirs of Jonathan Namoco the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest of six [percent] (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.8
On October 15, 2014, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal which was given due course in an Order dated November 12, 2014.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the CA, in the assailed October 26, 2016 Decision, held that Pagadura's testimony and positive identification of accused-appellant is worthy of belief, and any minor inconsistency in his testimony is inconsequential and does not affect his credibility as an eyewitness. Too, the CA noted, there is no showing that Pagadura had any ill-motive to testify against accused-appellant. 9
The appellate court, however, did not agree with the RTC's finding that accused-appellant should be found guilty of the crime of murder. Emphasizing the alleged inadequacy of the Information filed against him, particularly on its failure to state the specific act that would amount to treachery or evident premeditation, the CA held that these two circumstances which would qualify the killing from homicide to murder cannot be considered against accused-appellant. 10 As such, the CA reduced the crime to homicide and accordingly adjusted the penalties imposed. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 15 September 2014 of the [RTC], Branch 40, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2013-21529, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that [accused-appellant] Jaymar O. Sapu-an is hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE. [Accused-appellant] is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Jaymar O. Sapu-an is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim the following:
1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity;
2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and
3) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages.
Six Percent Interest (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages from the finality of judgment until such damages shall have been fully paid. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED. 11
Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated the case to this Court.
We agree with the CA. However, the amount of damages awarded calls for modification for it to be consistent with recent jurisprudence.
In People v. Valdez, 12 where the Court reduced the penalty from murder to homicide for the same reason — the omission to specify in the Information the particular act that constitutes treachery — this Court has in great detail discussed the indispensability of specifying the acts that constitute a qualifying circumstance for it to be appreciated against an accused, as well as the underlying reason for said rule.
In Valdez, We enunciated, in essence, that the very nature of treachery is that it encompasses a wide variety of acts which necessarily allows for varied defences dependent on each particular instance. This, coupled with the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him in order to enable him to prepare his defense, brings about the need for the State to specifically aver the factual circumstances or acts that qualify or aggravate the liability. And to discharge its burden of informing him of the charge, the State must specify in the information the details of the crime and any circumstance that aggravates his liability for the crime.
To have the facts stated in the body of the information determine the crime of which he stands charged, and for which he must be tried, thoroughly accords with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice. It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not solely from the caption or preamble of the information or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. Additionally, said rule is designed to prohibit the introduction or consideration against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that detail. The allegations in the information are controlling in the ultimate analysis. 13
As to the specification in the Information that "the crime was committed with the qualifying/aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation," such is not a sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an averment of a fact. 14
For this reason, We affirm the CA's modification of the crime for which accused-appellant was found guilty from murder to homicide.
As for the damages awarded, We deem it proper to reduce the amounts of civil and moral damages awarded, and increase the award of temperate damages consistent with this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 15 Thus:
In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide x x x:
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
b. Moral damages — P50,000.00
xxx xxx xxx
VII. In all of the above instances, 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.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The October 26, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, in CA G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01952 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby amended to read:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 15 September 2014 of the [RTC], Branch 40, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2013-21529, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that [accused-appellant] Jaymar O. Sapu-an is hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE. [Accused-appellant] is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Jaymar O. Sapu-an is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim the following:
1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity;
2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; and
3) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages.
Six Percent Interest (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages from the finality of judgment until such damages shall have been fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Edward B. Contreras.
2.Rollo, p. 6.
3.Id. at 6-7.
4.Id. at 7.
5.Id. at 7-8.
6.Id. at 8.
7. By Presiding Judge Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr.
8. CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
9.Rollo, pp. 11-14.
10.Id. at 15.
11.Id. at 18-19.
12. G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012.
13.Valdez, id.
14.Id.
15. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.