March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 170570 : March 16, 2009]
DANILO CAMPOS @ DANNY V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 170570 (Danilo Campos @ Danny v. People of the Philippines)-The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Branch 55 found appellant Danilo Campos guilty of homicide for the killing of Agustin Reyes but acquitted his two co-accused of the same charge.[1]
The prosecution's main witness positively identified appellant as the one who struck the victim with a stone from behind. The victim appeared to be drunk and was challenging everyone to a fight. Appellant and two other persons ganged up on the victim causing him to retreat. As the victim was retreating, he fell down into sitting position.'Appellant tried to hit the victim with a stone but was stopped by his companions. Subsequently, appellant went behind the victim and struck him with a stone at the back of the head.
On the other hand, appellant admitted having killed the victim but he claimed to have done so out of self-defense. Appellant claimed that he and his two companions were waiting for their rides to their respective barangay when he joined his wife and 10-month old daughter who were in a nearby store. The victim, who appeared drunk at that time, was challenging everyone to a fight and was causing a commotion. His two companions tried to pacify the victim but were ignored. Appellant then tried to pacify the victim himself while he was carrying his baby daughter. The victim suddenly punched appellant and hit him on the right shoulder, and as the victim missed him on the second punch appellant countered with his left hand. Appellant was able to hit the jaw of the victim causing him to fall flat on his back, with his head hitting a stone in the pavement.
Noting that appellant admitted having killed the victim but rejecting his defense that he acted in defense of himself, the RTC found appellant guilty of homicide with the presence of two mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution's main witness that appellant struck the victim at the back of his head with a stone.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with modification that appellant be further ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P15,000.00 as nominal damages.[2]
As the issue raised ultimately boils down to a question of credibility, it bears reiterating that findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect given that trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[3]
Although the Court of Appeals had reached the same conclusion relative to appellant's guilt as that of the RTC's and affirmed the penalty imposed by the RTC, the Court has to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the RTC in its 15 July 2002 Decision.
The findings of the RTC is further bolstered by the police blotter entry concerning the report of a certain Rey Daren (Rey), a tricycle driver who witnessed the incident and rushed the victim to the clinic, attesting that appellant had punched the victim causing the latter to hit his head on the concrete pavement that led to his death. In other words, Rey had affirmed appellant's version of the incident. Although Rey was not presented as a witness, the entry was authenticated by SPO3 Robert Cabalbad, the police who took the report and made the entry in the police blotter. Rey's statements to the police officer may be considered as part of the res gestae.[4] The statements of Rey were made on the same day, 4 November 1993 at around. 5:00 p.m, after the killing of the victim. Under the Rules of Court,[5] a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[6] All these requisites are present in the instant case. Rey had just been through a startling and gruesome occurrence-the killing of the victim. The statements were made while he was still under the influence of said startling occurrence and before he had an opportunity to concoct or contrive a story. His declaration to the police concerned the circumstances surrounding the killing of the victim.
Moreover, the RTC's finding is more favorable to appellant. Should the appellate court's factual finding be upheld, there would be no mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed because if it is true that appellant had hit the victim with a stone then it would follow that he clearly intended to kill the victim.
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, however, the RTC erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law when it took into account the two mitigating circumstances which had already been considered as privilege mitigating circumstances in lowering the penalty by one degree.[7] The penalty for homicide prescribed by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Since two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the offense, said penalty should be lowered by one degree pursuant to Article 64 paragraph 5 of the same Code, which in this case is prision mayor. This penalty should be imposed in its medium period considering that no other modifying circumstance attended the commission of the offense, the two mitigating circumstances having been already taken into account in reducing the penalty by one degree lower.
Also, in accordance with jurisprudence, the Court deletes the award of P31,460.00 as actual damages and lowers the P15,000.00 nominal damages awarded to P10,000.00. The actual damages was awarded by the RTC despite the fact that such was not supported by official receipts[8] The list of expenses offered as evidence cannot replace receipts. Nevertheless, the Court has previously deemed it proper to award P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages in an instance where actual damages was not properly established.[9] Award of nominal damages is proper whenever there has been a violation of an ascertained legal right, although no actual damages resulted or none are shown.[10] It is awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.[11]
WHEREFORE, the 28 June 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRNo. 27649 finding appellant Danilo Campos guilty of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of three (3) years of prison correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as maximum.
The Court of Appeals' award of nominal damages, in lieu of actual damages, is lowered to P10,000.00,
Costs against appellant. Brion, J., on sick leave.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson. Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante 0. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr. and Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per Special Order No. 587), Members, Second Division, this 16th day of March, 2009.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 41-51. The 15 July 2002 Decision was penned by Judge Lilia Espanol. The dispositive portion reads as follows;
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused Danilo Campos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide for the death of Agustin Reyes and imposes upon him the penalty of three (3) years of prison correctional as minimum to eight (8) years of prison mayor as maximum and to indemnify the heirs of Agustin Reyes in the amount of P31,460.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as compensation for the death of the victim.
As regards accused Alejandro Cuaresma alias Boying and Marcelino Gamalang, jr., alias Junior, the Court, as stated earlier, hereby acquits them for insufficiency of the evidence against them.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
[2] Rollo, pp. 28-38. The 28 June 2005 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Magdangal De Leon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Salvador Valdez, Jr. and Mariano Del Castillo. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant DANILO CAMPOS alias Danny is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Agustin Reyes, the following sums: (1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and (2) Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as nominal damages. The penalty imposed as well as the death indemnity and the actual damages awarded by the trial court are MAINTAINED.
SO ORDERED.
[3] People v. Gamiao, et al., 310 Phil. 252, 261 (1995); People v. Nuestro, 310 Phil. 221, 229(1995); People v. Alilio, 311 Phil. 395, 402 (1995).
[4] See People v. Montemayor, 452 Phil. 283, 298 (2003); "Gracia rushed to the police station after the incident and spontaneously told Barangay Captain Adoracion Montemayor. the wife of the appellant, that the latter had just shot the victim. The spontaneous declaration of Gracia was part of the res gestae: hence, is entitled to full probative weight. The act of reporting the crime to the police authorities and describing the malefactor immediately after the shooting enhanced Gracia's credibility as a witness." See also People v. Guillermo, 465 Phil. 248 (2004).
[5] RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, SEC. 42. Part of the res gesiae. - Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
[6] People v. Lobrigas, 442 Phil. 382, 391 (2002).
[7] See Sps. Bacar v. Judge de Guzman, Jr., 338 Phil. 41, 55 (1997), citing Basan v. People, L-39483, 29 November 1974, 61 SCRA 275.
[8] People v. De Castro, 451 Phil 664 (2003); People v. Bonifacio, 426 Phil. 511 (2002); People v. Ballesteros, 349 Phil. 366(1998).
[9] People v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 303, 310 (2000), citing People v. Candare, G.R. No. 129528, 8 June 2000; People v. Garillo, 388 Phil. 1010 (2000).
[10] People v. Gopio, 400 Phil. 217,244(2000), citing Sumalpong v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764, 775-776(1997).
[11] CIVIL CODE, Art. 2221. See also Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., 405 PhiL. 741, citing Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 602, 621 (1999) and Areola v. Court of Appeals. 236 SCRA 643 (1994).; Pedrosa v. Court of Appeals, 406 Phil. 167 (2001) citing PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402, 425 (1998).
