Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 188311 (People of the Philippines v. Felimon Almonte y Revilla @ "Liloy"). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Felimon Almonte y Revilla @ "Liloy" (appellant), from the November 10, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02531.^[1]

The RTC Ruling

In its May 10, 2006 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Boac, Marinduque, Branch 94, convicted the appellant of murder^[2] for the killing of Robert Pergis y Rey on April 11, 2004. It gave credence to the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Restituto Pergis and Ruel Pergis who had no ill motives to falsely testify against the appellant. The RTC rejected the appellant's alibi, noting that the four-kilometer distance from the appellant's house to the crime scene could be easily traversed in an hour by walking, or in a shorter time when one is on horseback. It appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the 12-year old victim was totally helpless against the appellant who was in his late 40s, tall, and with medium-size built. The RTC noted that abuse of superior strength was already absorbed by treachery. It disregarded the allegation of evident premeditation for lack of proof. The RTC sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.^[3]

The CA Ruling

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, but modified the award of damages. It further awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[4]

The case is now with us for final review.

Our Ruling

We affirm the appellant's conviction for murder.

We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness accounts of Restituto Pergis and Ruel Pergis are straightforward accounts consistent with the presented physical evidence. Relationship with the victim strengthens the witnesses' credibility since it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit.^[5] On the other hand, the appellant failed to show by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene.^[6] Treachery qualified the killing to murder since a minor child cannot be expected to put up a defense.^[7] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The CA correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages since this award is mandatory in cases of murder or homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.^[8] We also sustain the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages even if there was no receipt or competent proof to show the amount of actual damages incurred by the victim's family; it is reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for his coffin and burial, and the food during the wake.^[9] We likewise affirm the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, but increase the amount to P30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.^[10]

WHEREFORE, the November 10, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02531 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Felimon Almonte y Revilla @ "Liloy" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Robert Pergis y Rey P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 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] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marino L. Guari�a III and Arturo G. Tayag; rollo, pp. 2-32.

^[2] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248.

^[3] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 49-04; CA rollo, pp. 17-28.

^[4] Supra note 1.

^[5] People v. Guillera, G.R. No. 175829, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 160, 169; and People v. Sameniano, G.R. No. 183703, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 840, 850.

^[6] People of the Philippines v. Nonoy Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010; and People v. Perez, G.R. No. 179154, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 701, 713.

^[7] People v. Malolot, G.R. No. 174063, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 676: 690; and People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, January 26, 2007, 5 13 SCRA 156, 177.

^[8] People v. Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 593; and People v. Bajar, 460 Phil. 683, 700 (2003).

^[9] People v. Lusabio, Jr., supra, and People v. Caritativo, 451 Phil. 741, 770 (2003).

^[10] People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010; and People v. Lusabio, Jr., supra note 8, at 593-594.