SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243138. February 4, 2019.]
NONITO SOLIVEN y TARUC, 1petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243138 (Nonito Soliven y Taruc v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the July 12, 2018 Decision 3 and the November 14, 2018 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09639 finding petitioner Nonito Soliven y Taruc (petitioner) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with Attempted Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, 5 and P72,862.00 as actual damages 6 to the heirs of Pete Gerald Lewis Cruz Ocampo (Ocampo); and (b) P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, 7 and P50,000.00 as temperate damages 8 to Miguel Franco Yabut Maglanoc (Maglanoc). Moreover, all monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution competently established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of Ocampo's dying declaration and Maglanoc's positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator. 9 Records show that Ocampo's utterance was related to the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death, and that the same was made under the consciousness of an impending death. 10 Furthermore, such declaration was corroborated by Maglanoc on its material points when he testified in open court and positively identified petitioner as their assailant. 11 In fine, the said testimonies were thus sufficient to convict petitioner of the crime of Murder with Attempted Murder.
SO ORDERED." (JARDELEZA, J., designated Additional Member viceREYES, J., JR., J., per Raffle dated January 30, 2019. HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Turuc" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 9-22.
3.Id. at 26-42. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
4.Id. at 43-44. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
5. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
6. Supported by Official Receipts; see rollo, p. 40.
7. See People v. Jugueta, supra note 4.
8. In People v. Libre (792 Phil. 12, 35 [2016]), the Court deemed it proper to further impose the award of temperate damages — even if the prosecution failed to prove the amount actually expended for medical expenses — since the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss due to the crime committed. Moreover, in line with People v. Jugueta (supra note 5, at 853), the amount of the said award is increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00.
9. See rollo, p. 33.
10. It is settled that "[i]n order for a dying declaration to be held admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending death; third, the declarant is competent as a witness; and fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim." (People v. Serenas, 636 Phil. 495, 507-508 [2010], citing People v. Cerilla, 564 Phil. 230, 241-242 [2007].) See also rollo, p. 36.
11. See rollo, pp. 33-35.