Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 176529 : December 02, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ABNER JARDEN AND EDDIE JARDEN:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:

G.R. No. 176529 - People of the Philippines v. Abner Jarden and Eddie Jarden

On February 26, 1996, an Information^[1]  was filed charging appellants Abner Jarden and Eddie Jarden with the crime of Murder committed as follows:

That on or about the 22^nd day of February 1996, In the City of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knives and sharp & pointed weapons, with Intent to kill and with treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and hack one Arnold Serinas with said weapons thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple and mortal wounds at the different parts of the body, which wounds had caused the death of the said Arnold Serinas.

Contrary to law, with qualifying circumstance of treachery that the accused stabbed said Arnold Serinas with knives in a sudden and unexpected manner, thus employing means, methods or forms in the commission of the crime which tended directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the accused arising from the defense which the said victim might have made, and taking advantage of superior strength.

That as a consequence of the unlawful act of the accused, the heirs of the said deceased Arnold Serinas suffered compensatory, moral and other damages in the amount that may be awarded by the Honorable Court under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

On arraignment, appellants pleaded "not guilty". Trial on the merits thereafter ensued..

On October 15, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 14, rendered its Decision^[2] finding appellants guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads;

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds accused Abner Jarden and Eddie Jarden GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Section 6 of R.A. 7659 amending Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of Twenty-one (21) years of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify Felipe Serinas, the father of Arnold Serinas in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P17,900.00) as actual damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs. The accused, being detention prisoners, are entitled to the full credit of their detention provided that they agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

SO ORDERED.^[3]

The trial court lent credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Dulcesimo Camacho who positively identified appellant Abner Jarden as the one who suddenly stabbed the victim without any warning or provocation. Camacho likewise testified that appellant Eddie Jarden and one Dodong "Bangga-bangga", also armed with knives, chased and pursued the victim when the latter ran out of the store where the stabbing incident happened.

The prosecution likewise presented Danilo Degones, a member of the Philippine National Police Maritime Command, who testified that in the early morning of February 22, 1996, the victim went to their office bathed in his own blood and screaming that he had been stabbed. After bringing the victim to the hospital, Degones repaired to the crime scene and was told that the appellants fled towards the unlighted portion of the port. After searching the area, he saw appellant Abner Jarden hiding behind a big rock.

The trial court disregarded the testimonies of appellants that it was only Dodong "Bangga-bangga" who stabbed the victim and that their only participation was to pacify the protagonists. The trial court found that �

No doubt was ever cast by the defense as to the identities of accused Abner Jarden and Eddie Jarden as they were positively identified by eyewitnesses to be the assailants of the victim except their self-serving denial as the perpetrators of the crime charged. A mere denial of a positive testimony does not overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion. It is not too farfetched that the two accused pointed to Dodong "Bangga-Bangga", who is at-large as the assailant of Arnold Serinas in order to extricate themselves.

On the other hand, the unsubstantiated defense of denial of the accused is certainly unavailing for them as it will not outweigh the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The defense failed to prove that the prosecution witnesses had any ulterior motive in so testifying against them in court as the assailants and perpetrators of the crime. The law recognizes the innate goodness of every man so that it is contrary to human nature that a man will testify falsely against another until a motive for doing so is clearly shown. (People vs. Gomes, G.R. No. 104869, February 23, 1994).^[4]

Appellants appealed before the Court of Appeals which rendered its Decision^[5]  affirming with modifications the Decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals found that the appellants .and Dodong "Bangga-bangga" conspired in killing their victim. The appellate court held that "[apparently, therefore, a 'division of labor' existed among the assailants which established the existence of conspiracy, x x x Conspiracy in the instant case was sufficiently proven by the synchronized assault of the appellants".^[6]

The appellate court likewise found that treachery attended the commission of the crime. It held that "the swift unfolding of events placed the victim in a position where he could not effectively defend himself from the assault on his person. The prosecution was able to establish that the killing was not preceded by an argument or quarrel. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself'.^[7]

Anent the award of damages, the Court of Appeals found that the award by the trial court of actual damages was not duly supported by receipts. Thus, in lieu thereof, the Court of Appeals awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. It also reduced the award of moral damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. In addition, it awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.

Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of 21 years of reclusion perpetua. It held that while Section 21 of Republic Act No. 7659 fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, its classification as an indivisible penalty remained in the absence of a clear legislative intent. As such, reclusion perpetua should only be imposed without specifying its duration.^[8]

The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 14, Is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellants Abner Jarden and Eddie Jarden are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Arnold Serinas the amounts of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

SO ORDERED.^[9] 

Hence, this appeal.

On April 16, 2007, we notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire;^[10]  however, both manifested that they are no longer filing their supplemental briefs considering that they had already exhaustively discussed their arguments in their appellants'/ appellee's briefs.^[11]

We DENY the appeal and AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATIONS.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who shall kill another shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua if committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In the instant case, we find no reason to overturn the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that treachery attended the killing of Arnold Serinas.

Anent the award of damages, we find that the award of moral damages and civil indemnity each in the amount of P50,000.00 should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.^[12]  The award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is likewise proper. In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages may be recovered where it has been shown that the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty,^[13]  as in this case. In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is also proper m line with prevailing jurisprudence^[14]  considering that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellants guilty of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that moral damages and civil indemnity are increased to P75,000.00 each and that appellants are further ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2^nd day of December, 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, pp. 4-5.

^[2] Id. at 16-32; penned by Judge Salvador S. Gubaton.

^[3] Id. at 32.

^[4] Id. at 30.

^[5] Id. at 118-128; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M.Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Enrico A. Lanzanas.

^[6] Id. at 125.

^[7] Id. at 126.

^[8]  Id. at 127.

^[9] Id.

^[10] Rollo.p. 15.

^[11] Id. at 16-17 & 18-20.

^[12] See People v. Arbalate,    G.R.    No. 183457, September 17, 2009; People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233,
October 2, 2009.

^[13] See People v. Diaz, G.R. No.    185841, August 4, 2009.

^[14] Supra note 12.