March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 170048 : March 08, 2010] SEGUNDO PADILLA V. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SECOND DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 170048 : March 08, 2010]
SEGUNDO PADILLA V. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SECOND DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 March 2010:
G.R. No. 170048 (Segundo Padilla v. Honorable Court of Appeals (Former Second Division) and People of the Philippines).-
This case is about the competence of a judge who did not try the case to weigh the credibility of the testimonies given in court.
The Facts and the Case
The Manila City Prosecutor's office charged the petitioner-accused Segundo Padilla (Padilla) and his co-accused, Filomeno Subia (Subia) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 11, of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case 88-63371 and homicide in Criminal Case 88-63372.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the evening of May 19, 1988, Roberto Vicencio (Vicencio), Daniel Mercado (Mercado) and Frederick Rico (Rico) were at the Vicencio family's new house at 657 F. Cayco St., Sampaloc, Manila, when at around 11:00 p.m., Vicencio's sister, Raquel, arrived to check their belongings.[1]
At about midnight, Vicencio, Mercado, and Rico escorted Raquel in going back to the Vicencio's old house on Valencia St. since it was rather late and since some men earlier tried to attract her by calling her "suplada." As the four of them walked by the Maria de Leon Bus Terminal at J. Fajardo St., Raquel pointed to two men, later identified as petitioner-accused Padilla and his co-accused, Subia, who, she said, were the ones who called her "suplada" As soon as they passed Padilla and Subia, they heard a whistling sound from behind them. To avoid trouble, Vicencio told his sister to ignore it.[2]
On their return journey, Vicencio, Mercado, and Rico stopped by at Panahon Store across the bus terminal, bought two bottles of Coke litro and two bottles of beer grande, and then moved on. As they crossed the street heading towards the bus terminal, however, they saw accused Padilla and Subia come towards them from the bus terminal.
Subia attacked and stabbed Vicencio, hitting his stomach and eyebrow.[3] Mercado tried to help Vicencio but Subia stabbed and wounded him as well. The light on the lampposts enabled Vicencio to identify Subia.[4]
Mercado tried to run away but was chased, this time, by petitioner-accused Padilla. The former was about to make a turn at the corner of J. Fajardo and Extremadura Sts. when Padilla caught up with him and stabbed him on the back. Mercado fell on the ground.[5] He became unconscious, having sustained two stab wounds. Some bystanders took him to the UST Hospital. Dr. Sergio Alteza, who attended to Mercado, testified that he tried to resuscitate Mercado but failed. The sharp pointed object used in stabbing him had wounded his heart, resulting in his death.[6]
The bleeding Vicencio, on the other hand, also tried to flee but Subia ran after him. As he got near his house, Vicencio summoned help, prompting his relatives to come out. They brought him to the Chinese General Hospital where he was operated on for the stab wound that ran from the midsection of his stomach down to the navel.[7]
The defense evidence shows, on the other hand, that petitioner Padilla and his co-accused, Subia, were bus drivers of the Maria de Leon Bus Transit.[8] On May 19, 1988, after arriving from Laoag at around 10:00 p.m., Padilla and other company employees took to drinking liquor at Panahon Store on J. Fajardo St., across the bus terminal. Subia joined them at about 11:00 p.m.[9]
At about 12 midnight, three men came to the store, bought beer and Coke, and then left. Suddenly, a commotion took place outside the store. People were running and they heard bottles breaking on the ground.[10] Petitioner Padilla and Subia stood up and tried to look out past the steel door to see what was going on but the store owner, Virginia Beare (Beare), closed it. They could not see anything as the lampposts near the bus terminal were not lighted. Beare told her customers not to go out and so they stayed. After awhile, Padilla and Subia left the store and went to the bus terminal to sleep.[11]
The next day, Beare heard that someone had been stabbed during the previous night's commotion and that Padilla and Subia were suspected to be the assailants. Taking pity on the two, Beare testified for them, corroborating their claim that they had nothing to do with the stabbing incident.[12]
Lourdes Cortez (Cortez), a resident of J. Fajardo St. near the bus terminal, testified that on the night in question she went to Panahon Store four times during the commercial breaks of the basketball game she was watching on television. On her first trip there at around 7:00 p.m., she saw petitioner Padilla and Subia, drinking beer in the store. On her fourth trip, she saw two men and a woman, buying beer, coke, cigarettes, and ice. She went back to her house about the time the three customers left the store.[13]
While she was in her house, Cortez heard sounds of breaking bottles. She went down and saw two men chasing two other men. She described one of the pursuing men as dark skinned, medium built, curly haired, and wearing fatigue pants. He had no shirt. The other man was a bit taller, fair skinned, and wearing a white shirt. She saw the one wearing fatigue pants stab one of the two he was running after.[14] Later, Cortez found out that the police apprehended petitioner Padilla and Subia. Bothered by her conscience, Cortez went to the police station and gave her statement.[15]
Three judges took turns in receiving the evidence in the case. A fourth judge declared the case submitted for decision. The fifth judge wrote the decision in the case. The trial court gave great weight to Vicencio's categorical and positive identification of his assailants, Padilla and Subia, and to the fact that he had no reason to testify falsely against them, if they were indeed not the ones who committed the offenses.[16] The RTC regarded Padilla and Subia's defense of alibi weak and could be considered only when established by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. As for the testimonies of Beare and Cortez, intended to corroborate those of Padilla and Subia, the RTC regarded them as utterly inadequate and inconsistent, rendering them suspect and unreliable.[17]
Thus, the RTC found petitioner Padilla and Subia guilty of the separate charges of attempted homicide and homicide, sentenced them to suffer imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor in its maximum period as minimum to four years of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum and 12 years of prision mayor in the maximum period as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum, respectively, and ordered them to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Mercado P50,000.00 in civil indemnity.[18] Petitioner Padilla and Subia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).[19]
On December 22, 2004, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.[20] Petitioner Padilla and Subia filed a morion for reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied it on October 13, 2005,[21] prompting petitioner Padilla to come to this Court for a review of that decision.
Issues Presented
Petitioner Padilla raises the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA committed error in holding that the RTC judge may rule on the credibility of the witnesses without actually observing their demeanor on the witness stand; and
2. Whether or not the CA committed error in holding that the RTC was not at fault in failing to give credence to the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
Meanwhile, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), ask this Court to award moral damages to the heirs of Mercado for his death and to Vicencio for physical injuries sustained.
The Court's Rulings
One. Petitioner Padilla claims that the judge who penned the RTC decision erroneously ruled on the credibility of the witnesses considering that, since he did not preside over the trial, he was unable to personally observe the demeanors of the witnesses.
But it is not solely by the demeanor of the witness that his credibility can be assessed. Though it is preferable that the judge is personally able to hear the story of the witnesses from their own mouths, such cannot always be the case. At times, another judge has to pen the decision because the judge who heard the case has moved to another court, retired, or died. In this situation, the writer of the decision must rely on the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) in assessing the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses.
The judge who did not hear the case personally can ascertain from the TSN if the parts of each testimony are internally consistent with each other and if they are as a whole consistent with the antecedent, the contemporary, and the subsequent circumstances of the case. Further, the testimonies should be able to stand the test of logic and common experience. Being on the frontline of decision making, the appellate court can rely on the trial judge to unravel the factual issues in the case. The trial judge's dependence on the record does not violate substantive and procedural due process.[22]
For instance, the RTC judge who penned the decision found Vicencio's testimony credible because it was clear, logical, and consistent. Judge Arranz, thus said:
Nowhere in the decision did the trial judge pretend to have observed the deportment of the witnesses during the trial. He based his assessment of their credibility solely on his review of their testimonies.
Petitioner Padilla of course insists that the trial judge may only rule on credibility of the witness if the transcript of his testimony includes the trial judge's observation of the demeanor and deportment of the witness while he testified.[24] Padilla said that this is nowhere to be found in the record.
But petitioner Padilla misunderstands the nature of the TSN. It tries to capture all that is said during the proceeding, including those from the witness, the lawyers from both sides, and the judge. It also describes the discernable physical reactions of the witness, like crying, or his physical demonstration of what he witnessed a person did. The TSN has no place for a running commentary from the judge regarding how he judges the demeanor of the witness on the stand.
Two. Padilla claims that the prosecution evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But this claim substantially presents a question of fact since it requires a calibration of the evidence, an assessment of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, a determination of the existence and relevance of surrounding circumstances, and an estimate of the probability of specific situations. These are matters that the Court as a rule cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Under this rule, the Court can review only questions of law.
This limited scope of review stands absent any showing that facts and circumstances of weight and value have been overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by the courts below which, if considered, would affect the result or outcome of the case. The trial court's rulings in this case suffer no such infirmities. And petitioner actually does not raise any such infirmity but only the failure of the trial judge to personally hear the evidence during the trial.[25]
Three. The trial court held petitioner Padilla and Subia liable only for civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Mercado's heirs. The OSG claims that the trial court failed to award moral damages to the heirs of Mercado, who died in the incident, and to Vicencio, who sustained physical injuries.
The rule is that, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. Regarding moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[26] The death of Mercado as a result of the homicide committed by petitioner Padilla and Subia has been established by evidence. Thus, the heirs of Mercado are entitled to moral damages of P50,000.00.
Meanwhile, according to Article 2219, paragraph 2 of the New Civil Code, the victim of a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries is entitled to moral damages. Vicencio testified that he suffered injuries as a result of the incident. Thus, he is entitled to moral damages of P10,000.00.[27]
Furthermore, the heirs of Mercado are entitled to temperate damages. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact amount was not proved. Thus, temperate damages in P25,000.00 is proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court.[28]
Petitioner, however, claims that it is improper for him alone to shoulder the payment of moral damages since the liability should be solidary between him and co-accused Subia. Such claim cannot stand in light of Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court which provides that "An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter."
In People v. Arondain,[29] the Court, in applying the rule, did not impose the additional monetary liability to the co-accused who did not join the petitioner in his appeal.
In this case, Subia did not join Padilla in this appeal, in fact, he filed his own petition which was denied by this Court. Hence, the additional monetary award imposed on Padilla cannot be imposed on Subia because it is not favorable to him.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition, AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Segundo Padilla is further directed to pay the heirs of Daniel Mercado P50,000.00 in moral damages and P25,5000.00 in temperate damages and Roberto Vicencio P10,000.00 in moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of March, 2010.
G.R. No. 170048 (Segundo Padilla v. Honorable Court of Appeals (Former Second Division) and People of the Philippines).-
This case is about the competence of a judge who did not try the case to weigh the credibility of the testimonies given in court.
The Facts and the Case
The Manila City Prosecutor's office charged the petitioner-accused Segundo Padilla (Padilla) and his co-accused, Filomeno Subia (Subia) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 11, of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case 88-63371 and homicide in Criminal Case 88-63372.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the evening of May 19, 1988, Roberto Vicencio (Vicencio), Daniel Mercado (Mercado) and Frederick Rico (Rico) were at the Vicencio family's new house at 657 F. Cayco St., Sampaloc, Manila, when at around 11:00 p.m., Vicencio's sister, Raquel, arrived to check their belongings.[1]
At about midnight, Vicencio, Mercado, and Rico escorted Raquel in going back to the Vicencio's old house on Valencia St. since it was rather late and since some men earlier tried to attract her by calling her "suplada." As the four of them walked by the Maria de Leon Bus Terminal at J. Fajardo St., Raquel pointed to two men, later identified as petitioner-accused Padilla and his co-accused, Subia, who, she said, were the ones who called her "suplada" As soon as they passed Padilla and Subia, they heard a whistling sound from behind them. To avoid trouble, Vicencio told his sister to ignore it.[2]
On their return journey, Vicencio, Mercado, and Rico stopped by at Panahon Store across the bus terminal, bought two bottles of Coke litro and two bottles of beer grande, and then moved on. As they crossed the street heading towards the bus terminal, however, they saw accused Padilla and Subia come towards them from the bus terminal.
Subia attacked and stabbed Vicencio, hitting his stomach and eyebrow.[3] Mercado tried to help Vicencio but Subia stabbed and wounded him as well. The light on the lampposts enabled Vicencio to identify Subia.[4]
Mercado tried to run away but was chased, this time, by petitioner-accused Padilla. The former was about to make a turn at the corner of J. Fajardo and Extremadura Sts. when Padilla caught up with him and stabbed him on the back. Mercado fell on the ground.[5] He became unconscious, having sustained two stab wounds. Some bystanders took him to the UST Hospital. Dr. Sergio Alteza, who attended to Mercado, testified that he tried to resuscitate Mercado but failed. The sharp pointed object used in stabbing him had wounded his heart, resulting in his death.[6]
The bleeding Vicencio, on the other hand, also tried to flee but Subia ran after him. As he got near his house, Vicencio summoned help, prompting his relatives to come out. They brought him to the Chinese General Hospital where he was operated on for the stab wound that ran from the midsection of his stomach down to the navel.[7]
The defense evidence shows, on the other hand, that petitioner Padilla and his co-accused, Subia, were bus drivers of the Maria de Leon Bus Transit.[8] On May 19, 1988, after arriving from Laoag at around 10:00 p.m., Padilla and other company employees took to drinking liquor at Panahon Store on J. Fajardo St., across the bus terminal. Subia joined them at about 11:00 p.m.[9]
At about 12 midnight, three men came to the store, bought beer and Coke, and then left. Suddenly, a commotion took place outside the store. People were running and they heard bottles breaking on the ground.[10] Petitioner Padilla and Subia stood up and tried to look out past the steel door to see what was going on but the store owner, Virginia Beare (Beare), closed it. They could not see anything as the lampposts near the bus terminal were not lighted. Beare told her customers not to go out and so they stayed. After awhile, Padilla and Subia left the store and went to the bus terminal to sleep.[11]
The next day, Beare heard that someone had been stabbed during the previous night's commotion and that Padilla and Subia were suspected to be the assailants. Taking pity on the two, Beare testified for them, corroborating their claim that they had nothing to do with the stabbing incident.[12]
Lourdes Cortez (Cortez), a resident of J. Fajardo St. near the bus terminal, testified that on the night in question she went to Panahon Store four times during the commercial breaks of the basketball game she was watching on television. On her first trip there at around 7:00 p.m., she saw petitioner Padilla and Subia, drinking beer in the store. On her fourth trip, she saw two men and a woman, buying beer, coke, cigarettes, and ice. She went back to her house about the time the three customers left the store.[13]
While she was in her house, Cortez heard sounds of breaking bottles. She went down and saw two men chasing two other men. She described one of the pursuing men as dark skinned, medium built, curly haired, and wearing fatigue pants. He had no shirt. The other man was a bit taller, fair skinned, and wearing a white shirt. She saw the one wearing fatigue pants stab one of the two he was running after.[14] Later, Cortez found out that the police apprehended petitioner Padilla and Subia. Bothered by her conscience, Cortez went to the police station and gave her statement.[15]
Three judges took turns in receiving the evidence in the case. A fourth judge declared the case submitted for decision. The fifth judge wrote the decision in the case. The trial court gave great weight to Vicencio's categorical and positive identification of his assailants, Padilla and Subia, and to the fact that he had no reason to testify falsely against them, if they were indeed not the ones who committed the offenses.[16] The RTC regarded Padilla and Subia's defense of alibi weak and could be considered only when established by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. As for the testimonies of Beare and Cortez, intended to corroborate those of Padilla and Subia, the RTC regarded them as utterly inadequate and inconsistent, rendering them suspect and unreliable.[17]
Thus, the RTC found petitioner Padilla and Subia guilty of the separate charges of attempted homicide and homicide, sentenced them to suffer imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor in its maximum period as minimum to four years of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum and 12 years of prision mayor in the maximum period as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum, respectively, and ordered them to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Mercado P50,000.00 in civil indemnity.[18] Petitioner Padilla and Subia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).[19]
On December 22, 2004, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.[20] Petitioner Padilla and Subia filed a morion for reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied it on October 13, 2005,[21] prompting petitioner Padilla to come to this Court for a review of that decision.
Issues Presented
Petitioner Padilla raises the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA committed error in holding that the RTC judge may rule on the credibility of the witnesses without actually observing their demeanor on the witness stand; and
2. Whether or not the CA committed error in holding that the RTC was not at fault in failing to give credence to the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
Meanwhile, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), ask this Court to award moral damages to the heirs of Mercado for his death and to Vicencio for physical injuries sustained.
The Court's Rulings
One. Petitioner Padilla claims that the judge who penned the RTC decision erroneously ruled on the credibility of the witnesses considering that, since he did not preside over the trial, he was unable to personally observe the demeanors of the witnesses.
But it is not solely by the demeanor of the witness that his credibility can be assessed. Though it is preferable that the judge is personally able to hear the story of the witnesses from their own mouths, such cannot always be the case. At times, another judge has to pen the decision because the judge who heard the case has moved to another court, retired, or died. In this situation, the writer of the decision must rely on the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) in assessing the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses.
The judge who did not hear the case personally can ascertain from the TSN if the parts of each testimony are internally consistent with each other and if they are as a whole consistent with the antecedent, the contemporary, and the subsequent circumstances of the case. Further, the testimonies should be able to stand the test of logic and common experience. Being on the frontline of decision making, the appellate court can rely on the trial judge to unravel the factual issues in the case. The trial judge's dependence on the record does not violate substantive and procedural due process.[22]
For instance, the RTC judge who penned the decision found Vicencio's testimony credible because it was clear, logical, and consistent. Judge Arranz, thus said:
The same observation is true with reference to the testimony of Lourdes Cortez whose account was not only inaccurate but contradictory with the testimonies of the other witnesses. The most notable are: (1) according to her, there are two tables inside the store - one being occupied by Subia and Padilla, while the other, by one "Kirat" [TSN, p. 32, August 29, 1995]; the store owner herself testified that there is only one table inside her store [TSN, p. 3, July 3, 1990]; (2) both Subia and Padilla claimed that there were three men who entered the Panahon store to buy beer and coke litro [TSN, p. 5, October 24, 1990; p. 8, May 30, 1995]. In contrast, what she saw in the store were two men and a female [TSN, pp. 9 and 10, August 29, 1995]; (3) she was certain that when she went for the first time in the store at about 7:00 or 7:30 o'clock in the evening of May 19, 1988, accused Subia and Padilla were already drinking thereat [TSN, pp. 34 and 35, August 29,1995], not knowing that the bus driven by Subia arrived in Manila at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening and that thereafter, the latter proceeded to his sister's place at Tandang Sora, Quezon City, where he stayed until 11:00 [TSN, p. 5, August 31, 1994; pp. 2 and 3, October 27, 1994]. Like Subia, Padilla could not have been at the store at about the time testified to by witness Cortez because the bus of Padilla arrived from the trip to Manila at aboutl0:00 o'clock in the evening [TSN, p. 5, May 30, 1995]. Padilla proceeded to the bus terminal only at about an hour later [TSN, p. 6, ibid.].[23]
Nowhere in the decision did the trial judge pretend to have observed the deportment of the witnesses during the trial. He based his assessment of their credibility solely on his review of their testimonies.
Petitioner Padilla of course insists that the trial judge may only rule on credibility of the witness if the transcript of his testimony includes the trial judge's observation of the demeanor and deportment of the witness while he testified.[24] Padilla said that this is nowhere to be found in the record.
But petitioner Padilla misunderstands the nature of the TSN. It tries to capture all that is said during the proceeding, including those from the witness, the lawyers from both sides, and the judge. It also describes the discernable physical reactions of the witness, like crying, or his physical demonstration of what he witnessed a person did. The TSN has no place for a running commentary from the judge regarding how he judges the demeanor of the witness on the stand.
Two. Padilla claims that the prosecution evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But this claim substantially presents a question of fact since it requires a calibration of the evidence, an assessment of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, a determination of the existence and relevance of surrounding circumstances, and an estimate of the probability of specific situations. These are matters that the Court as a rule cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Under this rule, the Court can review only questions of law.
This limited scope of review stands absent any showing that facts and circumstances of weight and value have been overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by the courts below which, if considered, would affect the result or outcome of the case. The trial court's rulings in this case suffer no such infirmities. And petitioner actually does not raise any such infirmity but only the failure of the trial judge to personally hear the evidence during the trial.[25]
Three. The trial court held petitioner Padilla and Subia liable only for civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Mercado's heirs. The OSG claims that the trial court failed to award moral damages to the heirs of Mercado, who died in the incident, and to Vicencio, who sustained physical injuries.
The rule is that, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. Regarding moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[26] The death of Mercado as a result of the homicide committed by petitioner Padilla and Subia has been established by evidence. Thus, the heirs of Mercado are entitled to moral damages of P50,000.00.
Meanwhile, according to Article 2219, paragraph 2 of the New Civil Code, the victim of a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries is entitled to moral damages. Vicencio testified that he suffered injuries as a result of the incident. Thus, he is entitled to moral damages of P10,000.00.[27]
Furthermore, the heirs of Mercado are entitled to temperate damages. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact amount was not proved. Thus, temperate damages in P25,000.00 is proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court.[28]
Petitioner, however, claims that it is improper for him alone to shoulder the payment of moral damages since the liability should be solidary between him and co-accused Subia. Such claim cannot stand in light of Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court which provides that "An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter."
In People v. Arondain,[29] the Court, in applying the rule, did not impose the additional monetary liability to the co-accused who did not join the petitioner in his appeal.
x x x. Considering that the conclusions arrived at in the present case are similarly applicable to accused Jose Precioso, he should likewise be found guilty only for the crime of homicide.
The same goes for the modifications of the civil liability. Thus, the reduction of the award of moral damages and funeral, burial, and wake expenses to P50,000.00 and P17,818.40, respectively, as well as the deletion of exemplary damages, which are favorable to accused Jose Precioso, should also be applied to him.
The additional monetary award imposed upon accused-appellant Sherjohn Arondain, which are clearly not favorable to accused Jose Precioso, shall, however apply only to the former who pursued the present appeal.[30](Emphasis supplied)
In this case, Subia did not join Padilla in this appeal, in fact, he filed his own petition which was denied by this Court. Hence, the additional monetary award imposed on Padilla cannot be imposed on Subia because it is not favorable to him.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition, AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Segundo Padilla is further directed to pay the heirs of Daniel Mercado P50,000.00 in moral damages and P25,5000.00 in temperate damages and Roberto Vicencio P10,000.00 in moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of March, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN, December 8, 1988, pp. 4-5.
[2] Id. at 5-7,10; TSN, June 8,1989, p. 12.
[3] Id. at 8-11.
[4] Id. at 11-12, 16-17.
[5] Id. at 5-7, 12 and 20.
[6] Id. at 7; TSN, December 19, 1989, pp. 5-17; TSN, February 6, 1990, pp. 2-3.
[7] TSN, June 8, 1989, pp. 7-10; TSN, July 18, 1989, pp. 3-11.
[8] TSN, August31, 1994, pp. 3-4; TSN, May 30, 1995,p.3.
[9] TSN, October 27, 1994, pp. 3-4 and 21.
[10] TSN, My 3,1990, pp. 8-10.
[11] TSN, October 27,1994, pp. 5-6 and 8-9.
[12] TSN, July 3,1990, p. 12.
[13] TSN, August 29, 1995, pp. 5-11.
[14] Id. at 12-17.
[15] Id. at 18-19.
[16] CA rollo, pp. 37-39.
[17] Id. at 44-45.
[18] Id. at 47.
[19] Id. at 64-99.
[20] Rollo, pp. 44-56.
[21] Id. at 41-42.
[22] People v. Tumulak, 448 Phil. 57, 67 (2003).
[23] CA rollo,p.45.
[24] Rollo, p. 26.
[25] Cabaron v. People, G.R. No. 156981, October 5, 2009.
[26] People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162, April 24, 2009.
[27] People v. Flores, 462 Phil. 330, 345 (2003).
[28] People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 185841, August 4, 2009.
[29] 418 Phil. 354 (2001).
[30] Id. at 373-374.
