People v. Tolentino

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232622. October 10, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. FEMAR ANTES CABOBOS, RYAN TOLENTINO AND DANILO DELA CRUZ, accused, RYAN TOLENTINO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 October 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 232622 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, versus FEMAR ANTES CABOBOS, RYAN TOLENTINO AND DANILO DELA CRUZ,accused;RYAN TOLENTINO,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 assailed Decision. 1 The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Ryan Tolentino (Tolentino) is indeed guilty of the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the Court of Appeals (CA), were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.

Tolentino seeks his acquittal by arguing that he was not positively identified as one of the perpetrators who killed Arnulfo Suyat (Suyat) and injured Domingo Nalzaro (Nalzaro). Tolentino also avers that the prosecution failed to prove that he and his co-accused Femar Antes Cabobos (Cabobos) conspired with one another because he did not commit any overt acts that would indicate that he helped the latter in shooting the victims.

Tolentino argues that Nalzaro has poor eyesight and failed to observe the physical features of the persons who shot him and Suyat. The law requires not simply an eyewitness account of the act of committing the crime but the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime made by the witness in open court. 2 In the case at bar, Nalzaro unequivocally identified Tolentino and Cabobos as the perpetrators who shot them while they were in the forest park. The Court agrees with the CA that there is no reason to doubt Nalzaro's identification as the attack happened in broad daylight (before lunchtime), such that even if Nalzaro has poor eyesight, it would not be impossible for him to see and identify Tolentino and Cabobos as their assailants.

Moreover, the defense failed to establish any ill-motives on Nalzaro's part that will defile his narration and eradicate his credibility. It is settled that where there is no evidence and there is nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witness was not so actuated, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 3

As to the conspiracy between Tolentino and Cabobos, the prosecution successfully established that they acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting Suyat and Nalzaro. Their acting in concert was undeniably demonstrated when they went together to the forest park, armed with .45 caliber pistols in their hands, ascertained the identity of Suyat from the group and fled together after the assault. While Tolentino did not shoot Suyat and Nalzaro, the fact that he was also holding a gun, coupled with the other mentioned acts, sufficiently shows that his conduct before, during and after the incident, indicated a joint purpose and concerted action with Cabobos which was — to kill Suyat and Nalzaro.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 4 It may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. 5 It does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct — before, during, and after the commission of the crime — indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments as in conspiracy. 6 In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 7

Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 8 the damages awarded in the questioned Decision are hereby modified. For the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. T-4322, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P75,000.00 each. The temperate damages are increased to P50,000.00. For the crime of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. T-4323, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P25,000.00 each.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06541 finding accused-appellant RYAN TOLENTINO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case No. T-4322 for the murder of Arnulfo Suyat, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Arnulfo Suyat the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages; and

2. In Criminal Case No. T-4323 for the attempted murder of Domingo Nalzaro, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered to pay the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as civil indemnity, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as moral damages, and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary 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." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on wellness leave)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Decision dated July 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06541, penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes; rollo, pp. 2-21.

2.People v. Aleman, 715 Phil. 107, 124 (2013).

3. See People v. Guillera, 601 Phil. 155, 165 (2009).

4. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 8.

5.People v. Pondivida, 705 Phil. 201, 207 (2013).

6.People v. Las Piñas, 739 Phil. 502, 525 (2014).

7. See People v. Medice, 679 Phil. 338, 349 (2012).

8. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).