Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 187533 (People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Taran alias "Mulo"). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Reynaldo Taran alias "Mulo" (appellant), from the November 27, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01270.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its June 1, 2000 decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon, Branch 170, convicted the appellant of murder^[3]  for the killing of Alejandro Ferrer on May 1, 1996, It gave credence to the positive testimony of prosecution eyewitness Rosalinda Meneses, who had no ill-motive to falsely testify against the appellant, and rejected the appellant's uncorroborated denial. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the appellant attacked the victim suddenly and without warning, noting that the 11 hacked wounds, three stabbed wounds and three incised wounds suffered by the victim were tell-tale signs of the treacherous assault. However, it disregarded the allegation of evident premeditation for lack of proof. The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00^[4] as actual damages.

The CA Ruling

On intermediate appellate review,^[5] the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, giving full respect to the RTC's calibration of the witnesses. It noted that Meneses's delay in reporting the identity of the appellant did not affect her credibility since she was familiar with the appellant's face only, not his name, and the appellant was then at large.^[6] 

The case is now with us for final review.

  Our Ruling

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 Meneses is worthy of belief as it was a straightforward account consistent with the presented physical evidence. The eyewitness had no reason to testify falsely and she was only interested in having the real killer punished; no motive affecting her credibility was ever imputed against her. On the other hand, the appellant offered an uncorroborated denial. Treachery qualified the killing to murder as the attack was unexpected; the victim was in no position to repel the attack.^[7]  Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is mandatory in homicide and murder without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.^[8] With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages, too, of P30,000.00 should have been awarded.^[9]

WHEREFORE, the November 27, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01270 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Reynaldo Taran alias "Mulo" 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 P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P30,000.00 as actual damages. Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1053.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

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

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guari�a III, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.; rollo, pp. 4-9.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 19921-MN; CA rollo, pp. 9-11. 

^[3] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248. 

^[4] At the May 18, 1999 hearing, the parties stipulated that this was the amount of actual damages; CA rollo, p. 9. 

^[5] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review. 

^[6] Supra note 1, at 8. 

^[7] Gandol v. People, G.R. Nos. 178233 & 180510, December 4, 2008, 573 SCRA 108, 124; and People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 671, 697. 

^[8] Romeo Ilisan y Piabol v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179487, November 15, 2010; and People v. Lusobio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 593. 

^[9] People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 805; and People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 825, 837.