SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-17512. July 27, 2022.]
GILBERT I. YAP, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 27, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"UDK-17512 (Gilbert I. Yap vs. People of the Philippines). — The Sincerest Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review 1 on certiorari, is GRANTED.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 2 assailing the October 23, 2020 Decision 3 and the October 29, 2021 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02189, which found petitioner Gilbert I. Yap (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, and denied his motion for reconsideration, respectively. The CA sentenced the petitioner 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, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P41,400.00 as actual damages. 5
After a judicious study of the records, this Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show any special reason to warrant a review of the findings of the CA. The prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of petitioner through circumstantial evidence. 6
All told, we sustain the CA's finding that petitioner is guilty of Homicide, and was sentenced to suffer the 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, in accordance with Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. In line with current jurisprudence, the CA correctly awarded the heirs of the victim civil indemnity and moral damages of P50,000.00 each. 7 However, we delete the award of actual damages of P41,400.00. In People v. Racal, 8 the court ruled that:
The settled rule is that when actual damages, proven by receipts during trial, amount to less than the sum allowed by the Court as temperate damages, the award of temperate damages is justified, in lieu of actual damages which is of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted. The rationale for this rule is that it would be anomalous and unfair for the victim's heirs, who tried and succeeded in presenting receipts and other evidence to prove actual damages, to receive an amount which is less than that given as temperate damages to those who are not able to present any evidence at all. 9 (Citation omitted)
Hence, the prevailing jurisprudence now fixes the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages. 10 We award temperate damages of P50,000.00, to lieu of actual damages of P41,400.00. Lastly, interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all monetary awards for damages from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 11
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The October 23, 2020 Decision and the October 29, 2021 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02189 are AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION in that the award of actual damages is deleted, instead, P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, is awarded to the heirs of the victim. Petitioner Gilbert I. Yap is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is sentenced to suffer the 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, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. A legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on the total judgment award from the finality of this Resolution until its full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2. Id. at 11-49.
3. Id. at 133-149. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Lorenza Redulla Bordios.
4. Id. at 168-172.
5. Id. at 147-148.
6. Id. at 92.
7. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
8. 817 Phil. 665 (2017).
9. Id. at 685-686.
10. Supra note 7 at 826.
11. People v. Ronquillo, 318 Phil. 641 (2017); and People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 353 (2011).