SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201096. August 10, 2016.]
EDGARDO TANGKION Y ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201096— Edgardo Tangkion y Ortega, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, respondent.
After a thorough review of the records of this case, this Court finds the appeal to be unmeritorious. This Court thus adopts the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Malolos City that petitioner Edgardo Tangkion y Ortega is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements of the crime: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed that person without justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or that of parricide or infanticide, Charlie Lozano drowned to death. His medical certificate attested to this fact. Robert Patricio (Patricio) witnessed his death at the hands of petitioner and Reynaldo Balangbang (Balangbang). Their intention to kill can be presumed from their acts of forcibly taking the victim, who was around 4'2" in height, by holding his feet and shoulders and throwing him to the deep portion of the river. They did not stop despite the plea of the victim. They repeated these acts until the victim no longer surfaced. They then hurriedly fled. In the absence of any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide and infanticide, the crime committed by petitioner and Balangbang is homicide.
The positive identification of petitioner by Patricio, without any showing of evil intent on the part of the latter, prevails over petitioner's denial and uncorroborated alibi. Besides, the alibi of petitioner that he was gathering wood with his companions cannot prosper since he failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it occurred.
However, the maximum period of the indeterminate penalty must be modified to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Moreover, the award of actual damages in the amount of P16,000.00 is deleted and in lieu thereof, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is awarded in line with prevailing jurisprudence. An interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all awards of damages from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed September 7, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33167 that affirmed the January 5, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Malolos City in Criminal Case No. 1819-M-2006 finding petitioner Edgardo Tangkion y Ortega GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that petitioner shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. The award of actual damages is deleted; in lieu thereof, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is awarded. An interest of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all awards of damages from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. ASEcHI
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave; Mendoza, J., on official leave from August 4-10, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court