FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200156. June 13, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALLAN UBOD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 13, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200156 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleeversus ALLAN UBOD, accused-appellant.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 18, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: At around 3:30 in the morning of September 28, 2003, Joaquin Gabunada (Joaquin) saw appellant shoot Romeo B. Vega (Romeo) from behind. When Romeo fell to the ground, appellant tried to fire another shot but nothing came out of the gun. As appellant ran away, he passed infront of Joaquin who saw his face clearly. Romeo died instantaneously as a consequence of the gunshot wound.
For his defense, appellant denied shooting Romeo and gave the alibi that he was somewhere else during the incident. Appellant claimed that from 12 o'clock midnight to 4 o'clock in the morning of September 28, 2003 he was in a drinking spree at his house with a certain Bobby Balisi. EAIaHD
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as the killing was qualified by treachery. The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the heirs of Romeo P50,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P25,000 as temperate damages. The RTC ruled that appellant's uncorroborated alibi crumbled in the face of the positive identification by prosecution witness Joaquin. Moreover, appellant's house is just several meters away from the place of the incident; thus, it was not physically impossible for him to be in the vicinity of the crime and shoot Romeo. As regards the presence of treachery, the RTC noted that Romeo was defenseless when appellant without warning suddenly shot him from behind.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty of murder but modified the monetary damages awarded. The CA increased the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each and further awarded the heirs of Romeo P30,000 as exemplary damages. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC that the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that appellant killed Romeo. There was treachery since the attack was so sudden and unexpected that Romeo had no chance to defend himself when he was shot from behind.
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. 3 Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses. AEcTCD
However, the monetary damages awarded must be modified. In line with our ruling in People v. Dacillo, 4 temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 is proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses was presented in the trial court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved. Also, the amount of moral damages awarded should be reduced to only P50,000 in line with our ruling in People v. Laurio. 5
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01054 affirming the conviction of appellant Allan Ubod is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is also ordered to pay temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 but the amount of moral damages is reduced to P50,000.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of this decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by appellant to the heirs of Romeo Vega.
With costs against the appellant. CDcHSa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-10. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01054 on June 29, 2011.
2.CA rollo, pp. 33-38. Penned by Presiding Judge Gilbert P. Moises.
3.People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.
4.G.R. No. 149368, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 528, 538.
5.G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 572 & 573.