FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206935. August 28, 2013.]
DOMINIC BALUYA RODRIGUEZ, accused-petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 28, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206935 — DOMINIC BALUYA RODRIGUEZ, Accused-Petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Respondent.
The factual antecedents show that at about 4 p.m. on September 8, 2001, petitioner repeatedly struck Juanito Roque, Sr. and Juanito Roque, Jr. (father and son) in their heads with a lead pipe on Hermosa Street, Tondo, Manila. The attack was witnessed personally by Jeffrey Roque (another son of Juanito Sr. and the elder brother of Juanito Jr.) and by Ronnie Roque (a nephew of Juanito Sr.), who both testified during the trial and positively identified petitioner as the assailant. Jeffrey and Ronnie then brought the victims to the hospital where the latter were both pronounced dead. Also testifying for the State were Dr. Romeo Sales, the Medico-Legal Officer of Manila Police District, and SPO1 Edmundo Cabal, the case investigator of the Manila Police District. Dr. Sales stated that upon his post mortem examination of the victims' bodies, he found that they had suffered brain hemorrhage, and their skulls had been fractured. Dr. Sales certified that the victims had died from their traumatic injuries on the head. On his part, SPO1 Cabal recovered from the crime scene the lead pipe and jungle bolo used in the killing of the victims.
In contrast, petitioner claimed that the attacker's name was Edwin Caballes; that he was not Edwin Caballes; that he did not know Edwin Caballes; and that at the time of the commission of the crime, he had been at work as a helper in a woodcraft shop. AcCTaD
Under its decision dated December 22, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, in Manila (RTC) convicted petitioner Dominic Baluya Rodriguez of two counts of homicide, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 02-199222, accused EDWIN CABALLES a.k.a DOMINIC BALUYA RODRIGUEZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and to indemnify private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 02-199223, accused EDWIN CABALLES a.k.a DOMINIC BALUYA RODRIGUEZ, is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and to indemnify private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 1
On September 24, 2012, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated its decision affirming petitioner's conviction with modification of the indeterminate penalty and civil damages, 2 as follows:
Now, as to the criminal penalties imposed, Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of homicide shall be punishable by reclusion temporal which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. In view of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of any modifying circumstance attending the instant case, We hold that the medium period of reclusion temporal shall serve as the maximum period. The medium period of reclusion temporal is Fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. The minimum period shall then be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor in any of its periods, which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. In view of the penalty imposed by the lower court which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years, We rule to modify the minimum penalty imposed by the latter because the said penalty corresponds to a period of reclusion temporal, which is erroneous. Hence, We hold that the correct penalty applicable in the instant case is twelve (12) years to seventeen (17) years of imprisonment.
Now discussing the civil liability of appellant, We rule to modify the civil liability awarded by the lower court.
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Hence, in a 2012 case, the Honorable Supreme Court discussed the new rule on damages that may be awarded in cases of murder or homicide. The said decision is hereby quoted, to wit:
When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of PhP75,000.00 and moral damages of PhP50,000.00 are awarded automatically. Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.
The Supreme Court went further and held in another 2012 case that an interest of six percent (6%) per annum shall likewise be imposed. The said decision is hereby quoted, to wit:
In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v. Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
Applying the above-mentioned rules in this case, We hold that appellant shall be civilly liable to private complainant for each case, (Criminal Case No. 02-199222 and 02-199223) in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) representing the civil indemnity ex delito, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) representing moral damages and although private complainant claims the amount of Seventy One Thousand Pesos (P71,000.00) as actual damages, We hold that the same cannot be granted because it was not properly substantiated by receipts. Instead, we hold to grant temperate damages in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 02-199222 and 02-199223, promulgated on January 26, 2011 finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. For each criminal case, namely Criminal Case No. 02-199222 and 02-199223, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years to seventeen (17) years. Appellant is also adjudged to indemnify private complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) representing the civil indemnity ex delito, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) representing moral damages and the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages. The award of actual damages is hereby deleted. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. EIAScH
Hence, petitioner is now on a final appeal, posing the single issue of:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED.
In support of his position, petitioner insists that the name of the culprit was Edwin Caballes; and that the Prosecution did not establish that he and Edwin Caballes were one and the same person.
Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
The issue petitioner poses herein involves an issue of fact. Considering that the Court cannot re-examine the records to determine the issue because it is not a trier of facts, it has perforce to rely on the findings thereon by the RTC and the CA.
The CA concurred with the RTC's holding that petitioner's identification as the assailant of the victims was positively made by eyewitnesses, resulting in the rejection of his alibi. Noting that the name Edwin Caballes had cropped up after the attack when somebody working near the crime scene mentioned to the police investigator that the probable culprit was one Edwin Caballes, the CA held that petitioner had been facially recognized by the eyewitnesses who had not been tainted with any bad faith or ill motive to falsely accuse him of the crimes unless he had really committed them. It further held that a positive identification based on recognition sufficed, and did not need to be by name.
We affirm their unanimity. The positive identification during the trial emanated from the credible and competent recognition of petitioner as the assailant of the victims by his face and physical appearance. The eyewitnesses were reliable in that regard, for Jeffrey was only four meters away from the crime scene during the attack, 3 and Ronnie 15 meters away. 4 The possibility of another person by the name of Edwin Caballes being the assailant was effectively precluded by the firm and positive identification of petitioner under such circumstances. It did not matter that Jeffrey and Ronnie did not initially know the assailant by his true name, because he was later on identified by his true name as Domingo Baluya Rodriguez.
Anent the penalty, we observe that although the CA correctly deleted the one-day increment from the minimum of the indeterminate sentence prescribed by the RTC, it inadvertently did not rectify the trial court's omission of the statutory designations of the penalties according to the Revised Penal Code. The indeterminate penalty of petitioner should be explicitly stated in the judgment as 12 years of prision mayor,as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal,as maximum. Verily, the statutory designations of the penalties are not pointless nomenclatures, for unless the penalties were properly designated, there might result the unwanted doubt and confusion in the future about whether the accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code had likewise been imposed. That kind of uncertainty and confusion should be avoided by all courts when they write down their judgments of conviction.
Lastly, the CA's pronouncement of the civil liabilities of petitioner may likely be misunderstood because of the omission from the fallo of the statement that petitioner's civil liability "to indemnify private complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) representing the civil indemnity ex delito, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) representing moral damages and the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages" was for each count of homicide. The omission should be set right by expressly declaring such liabilities as for each count of homicide. SDHacT
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on September 24, 2012 subject to the MODIFICATIONS that:
(a) The indeterminate sentence for each count of homicide is 12 years of prision mayor,as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and
(b) Petitioner's liability "to indemnify private complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) representing the civil indemnity ex delito, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) representing moral damages and the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages" is for each count of homicide.
We further ORDER petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."VILLARAMA, J., on leave; MENDOZA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1502 dated August 8, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 42.
2.Id. at 66-91 (penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon).
3.Id. at 37.
4.Id. at 38.