THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255507. May 10, 2021.]
SOFJAN SORIANO y CALIGACION, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated May 10, 2021, which read as follows:
"G.R. No. 255507 —(Sofjan Soriano y Caligacion v. People of the Philippines) — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the November 28, 2019 Decision 1 and the January 21, 2021 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42952.
The CA affirmed the February 6, 2019 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 of Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-12-177898 finding petitioner Sofjan Soriano y Caligacion (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
The antecedents:
Petitioner was indicted for the crime of homicide for the shooting of victim Jeffrey Bitudio (Jeffrey). 4 Jonathan Bitudio (Jonathan), the brother of the victim, recounted that on October 22, 2009, they were celebrating the birthday of the victim when petitioner suddenly appeared and pulled him to the street at gunpoint and fired shots in the air. The victim attempted to pacify petitioner but the latter shot him instead. 5
The victim's father, Valentin Bitudio (Valentin), testified that his wife woke him up and told him that petitioner was shooting at their sons. 6 He then asked for his neighbor's help who is a police officer and went together at the place of the incident. 7 Upon arrival, Valentin saw Jeffrey already lying on the ground and covered with blood. 8 He was unable to come to the aid of his son because petitioner threatened to shoot those who would assist the victim. 9 When petitioner left, Valentin brought the victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. 10 The victim sustained several gunshot wounds, 11 including a fatal wound from a shot at the back which exited the front. 12
In defense, petitioner denied the charge and claimed that on the night of the incident, Jonathan's tricycle sideswiped his motorcycle in front of his house. He then confronted Jonathan and called the barangay officials, Jonathan was taken to the barangay hall but he managed to escape. When petitioner returned home, he was informed by his neighbors that Jonathan and his companions threw rocks and bottles at his house. Thereafter, petitioner, together with some barangay officials, went to the house of Jonathan and confronted him. A fight then ensued. A group of men shouted "Putang-ina mo Soriano, papatayin ka namin dito!" and started shooting at them using improvised firearms. Petitioner fired a warning shot but to no avail. Subsequently, two police officers arrived and also fired warning shots. Suddenly, petitioner saw somebody fell on the ground. 13
The defense also presented Arcadio Aguilar (Aguilar) and Ariston Ramos (Ramos) as witnesses, who both corroborated petitioner's version that he merely fired warning shots in the air in order to prevent the people around from ganging up on him. 14
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision dated February 6, 2019, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77 found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, accused SOFJAN SORIANO y CALINGACION is found GUILTY Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Homicide for his act of shooting JEFFREY BITUDIO thereby causing his death.
Consequently, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed is in its medium period (i.e., 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and four months). Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, with full credit of his preventive imprisonment, if any.
Anent the civil liability, the accused is ordered to pay the heirs/family of the victim, Php50,000.00, as Civil Indemnity, Php50,000.00, as moral damages, and Php25,000.00 by way of temperate damages, subject to the legal interest rate of 6% per annum to be computed from the date of the finality of this decision until the items of the civil liability had been fully paid
Issue mittimus/arrest order.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC considered the following: (1) that petitioner was present at the place of the crime during its commission; (2) that petitioner was in possession of a firearm; (3) that Jeffrey was killed by a gunshot wound; and (4) that petitioner fired the shot that killed Jeffrey. 16 The RTC gave more weight to the testimony of Jonathan, who positively identified petitioner as the assailant of his brother Jeffrey. 17 According to the RTC, such identification was direct and categorical and was not impelled by any ill motive on the part of Jonathan. Valentin further testified that petitioner was armed with a gun and prevented people, including himself, from coming near the victim. Finally, the RTC rejected petitioner's defense of denial in view of his positive identification by Jonathan.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA affirmed petitioner's conviction in a Decision dated November 28, 2019. The appellate Court agreed with the RTC that the elements of the crime of homicide were established by the prosecution through the testimonies of Jonathan and Valentin. 18 It rejected petitioner's claim of self-defense for being inconsistent with his denial of shooting the victim. In any event, petitioner failed to convincingly prove the existence of unlawful aggression coming from the victim, which supposedly forced petitioner to counter the attack. 19 As for the alleged inconsistent testimony of Jonathan that petitioner shot the victim on the chest, the CA held that while his account differed as to the actual location of the fatal wound, the same was consistent with the medico-legal records and anatomical sketch, showing that the victim was shot at the front, as well as at the back of his body. 20 Finally, the CA debunked petitioner's claim of voluntary surrender because it happened five months after the warrant of arrest was issued and almost three years after the victim's death. Hence, it was not spontaneous or done in acknowledgment of his guilt or to save the authorities the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in searching and capturing him. 21
The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED, and the Decision dated February 6, 2019 of Branch 77 of the RTC Quezon City in Criminal Case. No. Q-12-177898, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated January 21, 2021, hence, this petition. 23
Issue
Whether the prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The Court DENIES the instant petition and AFFIRMS the assailed rulings of the CA for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error or substantial reason to review his case.
The Court in People v. Console24 held that:
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on such findings are accorded respect, if not, conclusive effect. This specially holds true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, as this case. 25
As such, these findings are generally binding upon us.
In the prosecution of the crime of homicide, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. 26
The prosecution was able to prove these elements.
First, Jeffrey was killed by a gunshot wound.
Second, Jonathan positively and directly identified petitioner as his brother's assailant during the October 22, 2009 shooting incident. 27 Valentin also established petitioner's presence at the scene of the crime and the fact that he had in his possession a firearm at that time, threatening the people around not to come near the victim or else he would shoot. 28
Third, petitioner's claim of sell-defense cannot be appreciated. "[One] who pleads self-defense admits the authorship of the crime." 29 In contrast, petitioner here denied shooting the victim. He insisted that he merely fired warning shots upwards. 30 Moreover, the defense failed to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor or that he initiated the attack. 31
Fourth, petitioner's intent to kill the victim was evident in his act of shooting the victim at close range, thereby inflicting upon him several injuries, one of which was fatal that caused his untimely death. 32
Finally, no qualifying circumstances attended the commission of the crime.
Given the foregoing, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court and the CA absent any indication that they committed any error in their appreciation of the evidence that petitioner was guilty of the charge. 33
As for the penalties, the CA correctly affirmed the imposition of the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum in accordance with law and jurisprudence. 34 Likewise, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each are proper in light of prevailing jurisprudence. 35
However, the Court finds that there is a need to modify the award of temperate damages pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence. 36 Thus, the said award should be increased to P50,000.00 from P25,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 37
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The November 28, 2019 Decision and the January 21, 2021 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42952 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused Sofjan Soriano y Calingacion is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for homicide for his act of shooting Jeffrey Bitudio thereby causing his death.
Consequently, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period (i.e., 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and four months). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years and one day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, with full credit of his preventive imprisonment, if any.
Anent the civil liability, the accused is ordered to pay the heirs/family of the victim, ₱50,000.00, as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00, as moral damages, and ₱50,000.00 by way of temperate damages, subject to the legal interest of 6% per annum to be computed from the date of the finality of this decision until the items of the civil liability had been fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 119-139; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2.Id. at 161-163; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
3.Id. at 45-57; Penned by Presiding Judge Ferdinand C. Baylon.
4.Id. at 46.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 93.
12.Id. at 51.
13.Id. at 46-47.
14.Id. at 46.
15.Id. at 56-57.
16.Id. at 55.
17.Id. at 52.
18.Id. at 128.
19.Id. at 132.
20.Id. at 130.
21.Id. at 134-135.
22.Id. at 136.
23.Id. at 162
24. 738 Phil. 723 (2014).
25.Id. at 732.
26.Wacoy v. People, 761 Phil. 570, 578 (2015).
27.Id. at 52.
28.Id. at 53.
29.People v. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24, 36 (2015).
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Supra note 1 at 128-130.
33.People v. Villegas, Jr., G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019.
34.Ansay v. People, G.R. No. 249138, March 4, 2020.
35.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 852, April 5, 2016.
36.Id. at 853.
37.Cayat v. People, G.R. No. 221286 (Notice), November 20, 2019.