February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185180 : February 12, 2009] NARCISO DELOS SANTOS Y INOCENCIO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 185180 : February 12, 2009]
NARCISO DELOS SANTOS Y INOCENCIO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 January 2009:
G.R. No. 185180 (Narciso Delos Santos y Inocencio v. People of the Philippines) .�Petitioner was charged with the crime of homicide for hitting the victim, Marcelo Dio, causing him traumatic injuries to the head that eventually caused his death. Evidence for the prosecution showed that petitioner hit Dio on the forehead with a bottle of gin which caused the latter to slip and hit his head on the pavement. Petitioner interposed as defense the exempting circumstance of accident, averring that while he was trying to pacify Dio who was then drunk and challenging anyone to a fight, the latter fell and hit his head. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found to the contrary and sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and awarded to the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Both the RTC[1] and the CA[2]found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of homicide. Both courts found the defense evidence weak to support its claim of accident and held that petitioner's act of hitting Dio on the forehead was the proximate cause of his falling to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement. It gave great weight, as part of res gestae, to Dio's statement taken by SPO3 Mario Garcia while lying on the hospital bed pointing to petitioner as the one who hit him. Both courts held that although petitioner did not prove the exempting circumstance of accident, the mitigating circumstance of no intent lo commit so grave a wrong should be appreciated in his favor. The CA then modified the penalty and sentenced petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The CA further ordered him to pay the victim's heirs the amount of P22,000.00 as actual damages representing the funeral expenses incurred by them.
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari[3] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Considering however the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
This Court however rules that the indeterminate penalty as computed and imposed by the RTC is correct and should not have been modified by the CA considering the mitigating circumstance attendant to the offense committed and the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 13 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 29717, finding petitioner Narciso Delos Santos y Inocencio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day reclusion temporal as maximum.
G.R. No. 185180 (Narciso Delos Santos y Inocencio v. People of the Philippines) .�Petitioner was charged with the crime of homicide for hitting the victim, Marcelo Dio, causing him traumatic injuries to the head that eventually caused his death. Evidence for the prosecution showed that petitioner hit Dio on the forehead with a bottle of gin which caused the latter to slip and hit his head on the pavement. Petitioner interposed as defense the exempting circumstance of accident, averring that while he was trying to pacify Dio who was then drunk and challenging anyone to a fight, the latter fell and hit his head. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found to the contrary and sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and awarded to the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Both the RTC[1] and the CA[2]found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of homicide. Both courts found the defense evidence weak to support its claim of accident and held that petitioner's act of hitting Dio on the forehead was the proximate cause of his falling to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement. It gave great weight, as part of res gestae, to Dio's statement taken by SPO3 Mario Garcia while lying on the hospital bed pointing to petitioner as the one who hit him. Both courts held that although petitioner did not prove the exempting circumstance of accident, the mitigating circumstance of no intent lo commit so grave a wrong should be appreciated in his favor. The CA then modified the penalty and sentenced petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The CA further ordered him to pay the victim's heirs the amount of P22,000.00 as actual damages representing the funeral expenses incurred by them.
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari[3] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Considering however the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
This Court however rules that the indeterminate penalty as computed and imposed by the RTC is correct and should not have been modified by the CA considering the mitigating circumstance attendant to the offense committed and the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 13 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 29717, finding petitioner Narciso Delos Santos y Inocencio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day reclusion temporal as maximum.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 37-43. In a Decision promulgated on 10 September 2007 and penned by Judge Amelia A. Fabros of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 120948.
[2] Id. at 64-78. In a Decision promulgated on 13 March 2008 and penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Arturo G. Tayag.
[3] Id. at 9-25.
