SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240449. March 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.TEDERICO VILLARENTE y GARCIANO @ TED, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240449 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusTEDERICO VILLARENTE y GARCIANO @ TED, 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 January 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC-No. 09140. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Tederico Villarente y Garciano @ Ted (Ted) 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, there being no supplemental briefs filed, 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 victim, 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.
The CA was correct in appreciating the presence of treachery in the killing of the victim. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. 5 These elements are present in the facts of this case. Based on the narration of one of the eyewitnesses, Honorio Norte, at the time of the incident, the accused was standing on the road and appeared to be waiting for someone. 6 When the victim, Gregorio De Guzman (victim) arrived, he suddenly drew a gun from his waist and shot the victim in the chest without any warning. 7 It is obvious from this that Ted consciously and deliberately adopted the particular form of attack employed by him as he was anticipating the arrival of the victim and had a .45 caliber gun ready. The victim was not in a position to defend himself as the attack was done so swiftly, he barely had time to run away. Even more telling is that before dying, the victim uttered to Danilo De Guzman that he did not expect that Ted would shoot him. 8 CAIHTE
The CA was likewise correct in ruling that Ted's defense of alibi is bereft of merit. In alibi, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time thereof. 9 Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. 10 Ted contends that at the time of the incident, he was at his farm. However, he himself admitted that his farm is only one (1) kilometer away from the crime scene. 11 Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 12 in lieu of actual damages, he is likewise ordered to pay P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The legal interest is also modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated January 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC-No. 09140. The Decision finding accused-appellant TEDERICO VILLARENTE y GARCIANO @ TED guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Gregorio De Guzman 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. 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 wellness leave; HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018, no part; GESMUNDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630-K dated February 8, 2019)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez 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. See Decision dated December 19, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan in Crim. Case No. 07-M-2006, penned by Presiding Judge Corazon A. Domingo-Rañola; CA rollo, pp. 38-58.
5.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733 (2012).
6.Rollo, p. 4.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 5.
9.People v. Agcanas, 674 Phil. 626 (2011).
10.People v. Anticamara, 666 Phil. 484 (2011).
11. CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
12.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
13.Id.