THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255036. July 5, 2021.]
DANIEL DENNIS TAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255036 (Daniel Dennis Tan v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to NOTE the Compliance dated June 10, 2021, filed by Atty. Hercules P. Guzman of Guzman & Coronacion Law Firm, counsel for petitioner, with the Resolution dated March 17, 2021, stating that: (1) he already submitted the soft copy of the motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari via email, and (2) his secretary was indisposed at the time of notarization of the affidavit of service of said motion that is why it was notarized prior to the actual date of service of copies thereof upon the Office of the Solicitor General.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 dated December 11, 2019 and January 5, 2021, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 41365 which affirmed the Decision dated June 5, 2017 of Branch 87, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-04-131195 finding Daniel Dennis Tan (petitioner) and his co-accused guilty of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 4
The Antecedents
In an Information dated November 17, 2004, Roberto Llanto y Mateo a.k.a. Dodong (Dodong), Noel Madela y Escoben (Noel), and Noe Madela y Escoben (Noe) (collectively, accused) were originally charged with murder. It was amended and downgraded to homicide after the prosecution conducted a reinvestigation. On March 8, 2006, Branch 87, RTC of Quezon City allowed another amendment of the Information to include petitioner as one of the accused. 5
The amended Information reads:
That on or about the 15th day of November 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one JUN AGAR RAMOS y BUSTALINIO, by then and there mauling and stabbing him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal woun[d]s which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said JUN AGAR RAMOS y BUSTALINIO.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
At around 7:00 p.m. of November 15, 2004, victim Jun Agar Ramos (Jun Agar) and Thelma Jose were having a drinking spree in front of the store of Felomena Cruz-Montillana (Felomena) located along Maginoo Street, Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. 7
When all of the accused arrived, Dodong shouted, "Sino ang matapang? Sino ang siga?" Jun Agar approached them, but Dodong suddenly hit him on the left side of his face. Noel grabbed and strangled Jun Agar using his left arm and then boxed his face with his right fist. Daniel, who was in front of Jun Agar, pulled out his icepick from his left waist using his left hand and transferred it to his right hand. He stabbed Jun Agar on the right chest/side of his body. Thereupon, Dodong used his "tres kantos" to stab Jun Agar on the stomach, while Noe hit him with an "asero" on the right temple. 8 AcICHD
Jay vee Ramos y Artidon (Jay vee), the minor son of Jun Agar, witnessed the crime while he was playing. He ran towards the scene to help his father. Jay vee tried to stop Noel from strangling his father by pulling Noel's clothes. After the attack, Dodong, Daniel, and Noe ran away leaving Noel who continued strangling Jun Agar. Noel was only pacified when his mother and their neighbors arrived. Jun Agar ran towards an owner-type jeepney owned by his brother, Armando Ramos (Armando), who brought him to a nearby hospital. 9
Upon seeing the mauling incident, Felomena rushed inside her store to seek help from Armando, her husband. When he went out of the store, Armando saw Dodong, Daniel, and Noe running away; and Noel hitting the head of his brother with a wooden plank in his right hand and strangling him with his left hand. Posthaste, Armando tried to free his brother from Noel until the latter's mother arrived and pulled him away. Armando noticed that Jun Agar sustained stab wounds on the left chest, left side back portion, and two small wounds on the left side of his back. Thenceforth, Armando brought Jun Agar to the ATP Medical Center where the latter succumbed to death. As it happened, Armando went to the police station to report the incident. 10
Dr. Erwin Jardiniro, the attending physician of Jun Agar, testified that Jun Agar died of hypovolemic shock due to multiple stab wounds (infrascapular area left; left flank) sustained from the use of sharp pointed objects. Meanwhile. Dr. Valentin Bernales confirmed the autopsy conducted by Dr. Ronaldo Mendez (Dr. Mendez) on the body of Jun Agar. In his autopsy report, Dr. Mendez stated that Jun Agar sustained three stab wounds; and that stab wound no. 2 on the left side of the chest was fatal as it involved a vital organ of the victim, particularly the left lung, resulting in massive hemorrhage. The wound was caused by a pointed instrument of triangular shape. This was in contrast to stab wound no. 1 (abdomen, left side) and stab wound no. 3 (back) which were categorized to be elliptical in shape. 11
For their part, all of the accused failed to present any controverting evidence to refute the imputations hurled against them. Through their counsel, they submitted an affidavit of desistance executed by Vivian Ramos (Vivian), Jun Agar's wife. however, she failed to appear before the RTC to confirm and affirm her averments thereof. 12
RTC Ruling
On June 5, 2017, the RTC promulgated a Decision convicting all of the accused of the crime charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Roberto Llanto y Mateo a.k.a. Dodong, Daniel Dennis Tan y Quintano a.k.a. Dandy, Noel Madela y Escoben and Noe Madela y Escoben beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, said accused are hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. They are also ordered to pay the heirs of Junagar B. Ramos the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
SO ORDERED. 13
In so ruling, the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Jay vee, the son of the victim, who was present during the incident. 14 It likewise found that all of the accused acted in conspiracy with one another. 15
Aggrieved, all of the accused appealed to the CA.
CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision 16 dated December 11, 2019, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants and held that although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, they do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused. 17 Nonetheless, the CA modified the award of damages in order to conform with recent jurisprudence 18 and reduced the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages from P75,000.00 to only P50,000.00. At the same time, it increased the awards of temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 5 June 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, in Criminal Case No. Q-04-131195, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that accused-appellants Roberto Llanto y Mate, Noel Madela y Escoben, Noe Madela y Escoben and Daniel Dennis Tan y Quitano are ORDERED to pay the heirs of the late Jun Agar Ramos the following amounts: 1) P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity; 2) P50,000.00 by way of moral damages; and 3) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED. 19
Accused-appellants moved for reconsideration but the CA denied it in a Resolution 20 dated January 5, 2021.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition 21 maintaining that the CA committed reversible error in affirming his conviction despite the fact that: (1) the prosecution failed to establish each and every element of the crime as charged as well as the existence of conspiracy; 22 and (2) Vivian executed an affidavit of desistance stating that "the incident relating to the death of her husband was purely accidental" and praying for the withdrawal of the instant homicide case. 23
Issue
Whether the CA erred when it affirmed petitioner's conviction despite the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the fact that Vivian executed an affidavit of desistance. TAIaHE
The Court's Ruling
The Petition 24 is bereft of merit.
At the outset, the Court notes that the petition suffers from a severe infirmity because the verification of the petition is defective for failure to incorporate additional attestations as required under Section 4, 25 Rule 7 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court. Furthermore, it lacks a soft copy as required under the Rules on E-Filing (A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC) and the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC).
At any rate, it is settled that inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the perpetrator, 26 as in the case. Furthermore, the CA correctly favored the testimonies of Jay vee, Felomena, and Armando in open court over the affidavit of desistance executed by Vivian. For one, affidavits of desistance are generally unreliable and are considered in a river of rulings as a mere afterthought. 27 For another, Vivian never appeared to affirm or confirm the contents of the affidavit. 28 Finally, the CA modified the awards of damages in accordance with recent jurisprudence. 29
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 11, 2019 and the Resolution dated January 5, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41365 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Daniel Dennis Tan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Petitioner and accused, Roberto Llanto y Mateo, Noel Madela y Escoben, and Noe Madela y Escoben, are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Jun Agar Ramos the following amounts:
(1). P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity;
(2). P50,000.00 by way of moral damages; and
(3). P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
All monetary damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833 dated June 29, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-47.
2.Id. at 9-21; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 23-24; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring
4.Id. at 9.
5.Id. at 9-10.
6.Id. at 10.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 10-11.
9.Id. at 11.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 11-12.
12.Id. at 12.
13.Id. at 12-13.
14.Id. at 15-18.
15.Id. at 19.
16.Id. at 9-21.
17.Id. at 20.
18. See People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 213415, September 26, 2018.
19.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
20.Id. at 23-24.
21.Id. at 29-47.
22.Id. at 42-44.
23.Id. at 44-45.
24.Id. at 29-47.
25. Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
26.Plomantes v. People, G.R. No. 248296, March 11, 2020.
27.People v. Gerandoy, 743 Phil. 396, 416 (2014), citing People v. Zafra, 712 Phil. 559, 575-577 (2013).
28.Rollo, p. 19.
29.People v. Evasco, supra note 18. See also Plomantes v. People, supra, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).