Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > August 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 186500 : August 17, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PRIMO PASTIDIO, ET AL., ACCUSED; ANTONIO RADONIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 August 2011 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 186500 (People of the Philippines v. Primo Pastidio, et al., accused; Antonio Radonis, accused-appellant). - We resolve the appeal, filed by Antonio Radonis (appellant), from the decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 22, 2008 in C.A.-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 00633. The CA decision affirmed with modification the April 23, 2004 judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Dumaguete City, finding the appellant and his co-accused, Primo Pastidio, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

In its April 23, 2004 judgment, the RTC found the appellant and Primo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. It gave credence to Roxanne Teoxon's testimony that she saw the appellant and Primo enter the window of their house and, thereafter, box and stab her grandmother, Candelaria Delasas. The lower court further found that Roxanne's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Helen Teves. It also ruled that the appellant acted in concert with Primo in committing the crime. Accordingly, it ordered the appellant and Primo to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to jointly pay the victim's heirs the amounts of P70,000.00 and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and moral damages, respectively.^[2]

On intermediate appellant review, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, but modified the penalty imposed on the appellant from reclusion perpetua to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. It also increased the awarded civil indemnity from P70,000.00 to P75,000.00; and ordered the appellant to further pay the victim's heirs the amounts of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.

Our Ruling 

In this final review, we deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of the victim's granddaughter, Roxanne, is worthy of belief as it was a clear and straightforward account consistent with the findings of Dr. Teves. In addition, the appellant never imputed any ill motive on Roxanne's part to falsely testify against him. Treachery qualified the killing to murder, as the victim was lying down and about to sleep at the time of the assault. The attack was swift and sudden; the unsuspecting victim had no expectation of the coming assault, and was totally defenseless against it.

The lower courts correctly ruled that the appellant and Primo acted in conspiracy with one another. The successive acts of the two accused � their simultaneous entry into the victim's house through the window and the stabbing by Primo, followed immediately by the punch delivered by the appellant � clearly manifested the existence of a common intent between them to commit the crime; each of the accused performed distinct but simultaneous acts which when considered together showed unity of purpose and design. Both accused are therefore liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation; in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.^[3]

The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659), with reclusion perpetua to death. Since the aggravating circumstance of dwelling of the offended party had been proven during trial, the appellant should be sentenced to death pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code.^[4] The CA correctly imposed on the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."^[5]

The CA correctly awarded the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as temperate damages as they are in accord with current jurisprudence in murder cases. The award of moral damages, however, must be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 as the imposable penalty against the appellant would have been death had it not been for the enactment of R.A. No. 9346.^[6]  The amount of exemplary damages should also be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence.^[7]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2008 in C.A.-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 00633 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) the amount of moral damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; and (b) the amount of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. Perez, J., on leave; Peralta, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1062.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

  (Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 5-28-A; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, and concurred in by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 26-33. 

^[3] People v. Francisco, 388 Phil. 94, 123 (2000). 

^[4] Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - x x x x

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

^[5] R.A. No, 9346 was published in Malaya and Manila Times, two national newspapers of general circulation, on June 29, 2006. Accordingly, R.A. No. 9346 took effect on June 30, 2006.

^[6] See Bug-atan v. People, G.R. No. 175195, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 537, 559; and People v. Jadap, G.R. No. 177983, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 179.

^[7] See People of the Philippines v. Allan Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011; People of the Philippines v. Arnold Pelis, G.R. No. 189328, February 21, 2011; and People of the Philippines v. Herminiano Marzan y Olonan, G.R. No. 189294, February 21, 2011.