SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224772. September 7, 2016.]
ROBERTO C. SAMOY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 7 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224772 — Roberto C. Samoy vs. People of the Philippines
RESOLUTION
The Court has gone over the records and resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32587 committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the March 20, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 223, Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. Q-97-69273-74 finding petitioner guilty of two counts of homicide.
We are not persuaded by petitioner's contentions that he was not sufficiently identified as the assailant; he was not within the vicinity of the place where the shooting incident occurred; and, that the principal eyewitness was motivated by bad faith in testifying against him.
The issues raised by petitioner entail a re-examination of the evidence presented. He would have Us delve into the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the determination of which generally involves a question of fact. It must be stressed that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, the jurisdiction of this Court being generally limited to reviewing errors of laws. This Court is not a trier of facts.
In any event, petitioner was positively identified by SPO2 Nestor F. Estadilla (Estadilla) as the assailant. The incident could not have escaped Estadilla's attention because it unfolded within his view and he was just a few meters away from the assailant.
Petitioner makes an issue out of the delay in making the identification of the assailant. "Delay[, however,] in revealing the identity of the [perpetrator] of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given." 1 In this case, Estadilla's delay was justified considering that he suffered from a mild shock. Moreover, despite the delay in reporting the identity of petitioner, Estadilla testified in a categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous manner all of which bear the marks of a credible witness.
Respecting the alibi of petitioner, We cannot accord any value to it. For the defense of alibi to prosper, proof of being in another place when the crime was committed is not enough; the accused must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. Petitioner failed in this regard.
Petitioner ascribes ill motive to Estadilla by theorizing that the latter was merely ordered by his superior Major Prudencio Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) to testify against him to gain a leverage on the drug case filed against Dela Cruz. This assertion, however, remains unsubstantiated. Besides, "motive is not essential for conviction for a crime where there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit, and that the lack of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for such crime when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely proved." 2
In fine, this Court defers to the finding of the RTC which were affirmed by the CA, there being no persuasive ground to veer away from such findings.
However, as regards the damages awarded, the same must be modified. The awards for civil indemnity and moral damages are each reduced to P50,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. cHECAS
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed January 28, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32587 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity are REDUCED to P50,000.00 each for each count, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People vs. Berondo, Jr., 601 Phil. 538, 544 (2009).
2. People vs. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 256 (2009).