FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227658. February 6, 2019.]
MOISES QUIROL, JR., A.K.A. "BOBOT", petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 6, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227658 (MOISES QUIROL, JR., a.k.a. "BOBOT", Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and to AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION the May 13, 2016 decision 1 and September 8, 2016 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00970-MIN for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in sustaining his conviction for the crime of homicide as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The petitioner herein questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and claims that the lower courts did not give credence to the testimonies of the defense witnesses. However, these arguments by the petitioner had already been discussed squarely by the CA which found that the alleged inconsistencies refer to minor details which have nothing to do with the essential elements of the crime charged.
We agree with the CA.
Firstly, both the CA and the RTC had consistently accorded credence and weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which it found to be sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of homicide. Notable herein that both prosecution witnesses Rogelio and Fernando, had positively identified the petitioner and his brother Ormenio as the persons who ran after and shot the victim. Their categorical and positive identification of the authors of the crime therefore prevails over the defense of denial by the petitioner.
Furthermore, the CA had reason to doubt the belated invocation of defense of a relative by Ormenio. As the CA had keenly observed, the defense employed the principal strategy of delaying the proceedings below for it took them 6 years to present their evidence. At any rate, if Ormenio had indeed tried to protect his brother, the justifying circumstance of defense of relative could have been invoked and a reverse trial would have been in order. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the trial court had noted the shift in the strategy adopted by the defense following the death of Ormenio by attributing sole authorship of the crime to him.
Secondly, the petitioner's claim of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses 3 should fail as these are not material to the categorical identification of the petitioner by the prosecution witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime. It is settled rule that minor inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily weaken or diminish the testimonies of witnesses who displayed consistency on material points. 4
All told, the prosecution had proved all the elements of the crime of homicide as well as the petitioner's participation in the tragic death of the victim. Furthermore, the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently proven, making the conviction for homicide proper.
Finally, the Court deems necessary to modify the penalty imposed against the petitioner.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua. Since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances herein and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 (1) in relation to Article 249 of the RPC as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, 5 the maximum imposable penalty for the crime of homicide should be taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal, which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years. However, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the lower courts is only fourteen (14) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, thus the sentence should be modified accordingly.
Lastly, following People v. Jugueta, 6 the grant of temperate damages by the CA should be increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the May 13, 2016 decision and September 8, 2016 resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 00970-MIN; IMPOSES an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal; and INCREASES the award of temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 59-99; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
2.Id. at 101-107.
3. Such as the inconsistent testimony as to who was actually driving the tractor; improbable travel time from one location to another; uncanny speed at which the witnesses were able to glance toward the direction of the gunshot; inconsistency as to whether the first gunshot was aimed at the group of the victim, or merely a warning shot; and relative distance between persons at the scene of the crime.
4.People v. Petalino, G.R. No. 213222, September 24, 2018.
5. Entitled "An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code."
6. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.