March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176501 : March 11, 2009] PIO CASTILLO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 176501 : March 11, 2009]
PIO CASTILLO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 March 2009:
G.R. No. 176501 (Pio Castillo v. People of the Philippines).- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 44 found appellant Pio Castillo guilty of homicide for the killing of Romeo Enriquez but acquitted him from the charge of violation of P.D. No. 1866.[1]
The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the one who shot the victim three (3) times as the latter was pacifying a fight. The victim was merely helping his brothers, Danilo and Ariel Enriquez, as they were being beaten by Edmund, Francisco and Daniel, all surnamed Castillo. The victim appeared and tried to stop the fight. Subsequently, appellant appeared and poked his .38 caliber pistol at the victim. Despite the plea of the victim for his life, appellant shot him thrice. The gunshot wounds were corroborated by Dr. Florante Baltazar, the medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police who conducted the post-mortem examination on the victim.
On the other hand, appellant admitted having killed the victim but he claimed defense of a relative and accident. Appellant claimed that he was at home when he heard someone shout that his son was being killed so he got a lead pipe and proceeded to the place where there was a commotion. He saw the victim pointing a gun at a person whom he thought was his son Edmund Castillo but who turned out to be Francisco Castillo. Appellant hit the victim with the lead pipe causing the gun to fall. But because of the impact of the strike, he lost his grip on the pipe so he instead picked up the gun. As they were allegedly grappling for possession of the gun, it fired which caused the victim's death. After realizing that he had killed the victim, appellant went into hiding.
Jurisprudence is settled that findings of fact of the trial court command great weight and respect unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence.[2] But these exceptions are unavailing in this case. The RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses when it found that the victim was not the unlawful aggressor. The defense failed to impute any ill-motive on the prosecution's witnesses which would discredit their testimony on the events leading to the victim's killing. Absent any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[3]
Suffice it to state that where the accused owned up to the killing of the victim, the burden of evidence shifts to him; perforce he must show by clear and convincing proof that he indeed acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative or stranger.[4] Appellant failed to present sufficient proof of the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Also, his flight negates self-defense or defense of a relative and indicates guilt.[5]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with the modification that appellant be further ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages.[6]
Finding no reversible error in the assailed decision, the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its 11 September 2006 Decision. However, in accordance with jurisprudence, the Court has to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. As explained in People v. Werba[8] to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000.00 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.
WHEREFORE, the 11 September 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23491 finding appellant Pio Castillo guilty of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant should pay the heirs of Romeo Enriquez temperate damages of P25,000.00. Costs against appellant.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing. Chairperson. Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga. Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr. and Arturo D. Brion. Members, Second Division, this 11th day of March. 2009.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 85-86. The 21 July 1999 Decision was penned by Judge Lolita Gal-Iang. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
[2] People v. Quinevista,, 314 Phil. 540, 547 (1995), citing People v. Gumahin, No. L-22357, 31 October 1967, 21 SCRA 729.
[3] People v. Mendoza, 388 Phil. 279, 288 (2000), citing People v. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, 7 March 2000, citing People v. Rada, G.R. No. 128181, 10 June 1999, p. 15 and People v. Aguinas. G.R. No. 121993, 12 September 1997, 279 SCRA 52, 65. See also People v. Benito, 363 Phil. 90, 98 (1999).
[4] See People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 255 (1996); People v. Tobias, 334 Phil. 881, 908 (1997); People v. Galapin, 355 Phil. 212, 228 (1998); People v. Dorado, 362 Phil. 404 (1999).
[5] People v. Gregorio, 325 Phil. 689, 707 (1996).
[6] Rollo, p. 37. The 11 September 2006 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina Buzon and Regalado Maambong. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
[7] 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 482.
[8] Id. at 499, citing People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003, 408 SCRA 571.
G.R. No. 176501 (Pio Castillo v. People of the Philippines).- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 44 found appellant Pio Castillo guilty of homicide for the killing of Romeo Enriquez but acquitted him from the charge of violation of P.D. No. 1866.[1]
The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the one who shot the victim three (3) times as the latter was pacifying a fight. The victim was merely helping his brothers, Danilo and Ariel Enriquez, as they were being beaten by Edmund, Francisco and Daniel, all surnamed Castillo. The victim appeared and tried to stop the fight. Subsequently, appellant appeared and poked his .38 caliber pistol at the victim. Despite the plea of the victim for his life, appellant shot him thrice. The gunshot wounds were corroborated by Dr. Florante Baltazar, the medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police who conducted the post-mortem examination on the victim.
On the other hand, appellant admitted having killed the victim but he claimed defense of a relative and accident. Appellant claimed that he was at home when he heard someone shout that his son was being killed so he got a lead pipe and proceeded to the place where there was a commotion. He saw the victim pointing a gun at a person whom he thought was his son Edmund Castillo but who turned out to be Francisco Castillo. Appellant hit the victim with the lead pipe causing the gun to fall. But because of the impact of the strike, he lost his grip on the pipe so he instead picked up the gun. As they were allegedly grappling for possession of the gun, it fired which caused the victim's death. After realizing that he had killed the victim, appellant went into hiding.
Jurisprudence is settled that findings of fact of the trial court command great weight and respect unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence.[2] But these exceptions are unavailing in this case. The RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses when it found that the victim was not the unlawful aggressor. The defense failed to impute any ill-motive on the prosecution's witnesses which would discredit their testimony on the events leading to the victim's killing. Absent any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[3]
Suffice it to state that where the accused owned up to the killing of the victim, the burden of evidence shifts to him; perforce he must show by clear and convincing proof that he indeed acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative or stranger.[4] Appellant failed to present sufficient proof of the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Also, his flight negates self-defense or defense of a relative and indicates guilt.[5]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with the modification that appellant be further ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages.[6]
Finding no reversible error in the assailed decision, the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its 11 September 2006 Decision. However, in accordance with jurisprudence, the Court has to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. As explained in People v. Werba[8] to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000.00 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.
WHEREFORE, the 11 September 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23491 finding appellant Pio Castillo guilty of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant should pay the heirs of Romeo Enriquez temperate damages of P25,000.00. Costs against appellant.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing. Chairperson. Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga. Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr. and Arturo D. Brion. Members, Second Division, this 11th day of March. 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
[1] CA rollo, pp. 85-86. The 21 July 1999 Decision was penned by Judge Lolita Gal-Iang. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, this court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accused is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Romeo Enriquez the amount of P50,000 and to pay actual damages of P13,500.
In Criminal Case No. 97-156144 for Illegal Possession of Firearm [sic], for insufficiency of evidence, accused is hereby ACQUITTED from the offense charged.
SO ORDERED.
[2] People v. Quinevista,, 314 Phil. 540, 547 (1995), citing People v. Gumahin, No. L-22357, 31 October 1967, 21 SCRA 729.
[3] People v. Mendoza, 388 Phil. 279, 288 (2000), citing People v. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, 7 March 2000, citing People v. Rada, G.R. No. 128181, 10 June 1999, p. 15 and People v. Aguinas. G.R. No. 121993, 12 September 1997, 279 SCRA 52, 65. See also People v. Benito, 363 Phil. 90, 98 (1999).
[4] See People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 255 (1996); People v. Tobias, 334 Phil. 881, 908 (1997); People v. Galapin, 355 Phil. 212, 228 (1998); People v. Dorado, 362 Phil. 404 (1999).
[5] People v. Gregorio, 325 Phil. 689, 707 (1996).
[6] Rollo, p. 37. The 11 September 2006 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina Buzon and Regalado Maambong. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant PIO CASTILLO is ordered to pay P50,000.00 by way of moral damages to the heirs of deceased ROMEO ENRIQUEZ.�
SO ORDERED.
[7] 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 482.
[8] Id. at 499, citing People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003, 408 SCRA 571.
