SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206693. September 25, 2013.]
DOMINGO WADEMES y BORLON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 September 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 206693 — Domingo Wademes y Borlon v. People of the Philippines
Petitioner, Domingo Wademes y Borlon (petitioner), and his brother, co-accused Nestor Wademes y Borlon (Nestor), were charged with frustrated murder in an Information 1 dated August 1, 1997 which reads as follows:
That on or about 12:15 in the afternoon of October 31, 1996 at Barangay Antipolo, Municipality of Tinambac, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, conspiring and mutually helping one another, while armed with bolos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloneously [sic] assault, attack and hack for several times with said weapon, one Rodolfo Velez y Castillo, wounding the latter on the head and parts of his body, which injuries could have caused his death had no medical attention been rendered to him, thus, the accused performed all the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason or come [sic] cause independent of the will of the accused, to the damage of the victim.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. cADEHI
During trial, the prosecution satisfactorily established that on October 31, 1996, at about 12:15 in the afternoon, private complainant Rodolfo Velez (Rodolfo) was home when petitioner "hacked" him from behind with a long bolo. Rodolfo was hit on the left side of his head. Immediately thereafter, Nestor hacked Rodolfo on the right arm with a curved bolo. When Rodolfo tried to run inside his house, petitioner again hacked Rodolfo, this time on the right thigh. The siblings then fled from the scene. One of the three persons with Rodolfo at the time was his cousin, Ernesto Velez. The latter rushed Rodolfo to a medical center for treatment of his wounds; while the other two rushed to the nearby military detachment to call for back-up and pursue petitioner and Nestor.
The next day, petitioner left for Manila. He was arrested seven years later when he returned to attend his father's wake. Nestor, on the other hand, remains at-large.
In a Decision 2 dated February 25, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63 convicted petitioner of the crime as charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused Domingo Wademes y Borlon beyond reasonable doubt, said accused is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of Frustrated Murder as charged.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Domingo Wademes y Borlon is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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 with the accessory penalty provided for by law. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim Rodolfo Velez y Castillo the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages, P9,192.95 as actual damages and to pay the costs.
As regards accused Nestor Wademes y Borlon who is still at large, let the records of this case be sent to the archives insofar as the said accused is concerned without prejudice of reviving the same in the event the said accused is arrested. Meanwhile, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against accused Nestor Wademes y Borlon. SaDICE
SO ORDERED. 3
Petitioner appealed 4 to the Court of Appeals (CA) which found the same without merit.
The CA, in its Decision 5 dated October 31, 2012, found that intent to kill Rodolfo was clearly established as the wound on his head, though not fatal, could have killed him. 6 The appellate court held that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established conspiracy and treachery as can be seen in the suddenness of the attack against Rodolfo. 7 The appellate court did not give credence to petitioner's bare denial that he did not attack Rodolfo and that it was only Nestor who should be held responsible for the crime as the witnesses for the prosecution, including Rodolfo himself, positively identified petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the crime. 8 Petitioner was unable to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive as to taint their testimony. 9 Lastly, the CA stated that petitioner's act of going into hiding for seven years after the incident and a warrant of arrest was issued against him and his brother further militates against his denial and insistence on his innocence. 10
The appellate court found the penalty imposed on petitioner and the corresponding award of actual and moral damages to be proper. 11
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated February 25, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63, in Criminal Case No. RTC 97-204 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. 12
Petitioner moved for reconsideration 13 but the same was denied in a Resolution 14 dated April 11, 2013 for lack of merit.
Petitioner filed before this Court the present Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
2. WHETHER TIME COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF FRUSTRATED MURDER WERE PROVEN. 15 aEcTDI
Our Ruling
We have consistently ruled that this Court will not overturn the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility when there is no showing that the trial court overlooked material facts or gravely abused its discretion. This is especially true where, as in this case, the trial court's assessment is affirmed by the appellate Court. 16 Here, there is no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of both the RTC and the CA.
As to the penalty imposed, we rule that both the RTC and CA imposed the correct penalty for frustrated murder. In People v. Baldomar, 17 we held that:
Under Article 61, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal has a range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the medium of reclusion temporal, since no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal.Prescinding from the foregoing discussion, the imposed indeterminate penalty 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, was proper. (Emphasis supplied)
However, we modify the award of damages, to wit:
1) Moral damages is awarded in the amount of P40,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence; 18
2) Likewise, petitioner is ordered to pay private complainant P20,000 as exemplary damages; 19 and
3) Lastly, in lieu of actual damages, we award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, as the receipted expenses amounted to only P9,192.95. 20
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The October 31, 2012 Decision and the April 11, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33320 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioner Domingo Wademes y Borlon is ordered to pay the amounts of P40,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave; Leonen, J., additional member per Special Order No. 1560 dated 24 September 2013)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 39, as cited in the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur.
2.Id., at 39-54; penned by Judge Freddie D. Balonzo.
3.Id. at 53-54.
4.Id. at 27-38.
5.Id. at 84-97; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.
6.Id. at 90.
7.Id. at 94-95.
8.Id. at 92-93 and 95.
9.Id. at 95-96.
10.Id. at 96.
11.Id. at 96-97.
12.Id. at 97.
13.Id. at 99-104.
14.Id. at 112-113.
15.Id. at 15-16.
16.People v. Baldomar, G.R. No. 197043, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 415, 417.
17.Id. at 418.
18.Id. at 419, citing People v. Mokammad, G.R. No. 180594, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 497, 513.
19.Id., citing People v. Mokammad at 514.
20.In People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 221, we held:
. . . Ligaya, on the other hand, presented receipts for her hospitalization and medication but the receipts were less than P25,000.00. In People v. Magdaraog citing People v. Andres, Jr., when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00 as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. (Emphasis supplied).