Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 194289 (People of the Philippines v. Roberto Zacarias y Ulanday). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Roberto Zacarias y Ulanday (appellant), from the July 16, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA -G.R. CR HC No. 03121.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its November 7, 2007 joint decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC of Liugayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38, convicted the appellant of murder and attempted homicide committed against Eduardo Ventayen y Tamin and Rey Padayao, respectively, on July 5, 2004. It gave credence to Rey's testimony, as corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Antonette L. Rico. It rejected the appellant's bare denial of killing Eduardo and his uncorroborated self-defense theory against Rey. It noted that conspiracy attended the attack on the victims, demonstrated by the concurrent acts of the accused: the appellant struck Eduardo's head with a stone while his co-accused Frandy Castro^[3] held Eduardo's arms, and the appellant tried to stab Rey and then ordered Castro to strike Rey's head with a stone. It held that the killing of Eduardo was qualified by abuse of superior strength because the accused took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the crimes against the victims. It did not consider abuse of superior strength with respect to the attempted killing of Rey because the accused's attacks were not simultaneous. It disregarded the allegation of use of a motor vehicle for lack of proof that it was used in the commission of the crimes.

For the murder of Eduardo, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the heirs of Eduardo the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000;00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as burial expenses, and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. For the attempted killing of Rey, it sentenced the appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered him to pay Rey the amount of P23,698.00 for loss of earnings for one (1) month.

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's appreciation of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, but additionally imposed P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[4]

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling 

We dismiss the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Rey, as corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Rico, amply established the case for the prosecution. Conspiracy attended the crimes, manifested by the coordinated manner of attacks against Eduardo and Rey. Abuse of superior strength qualified the killing of Eduardo to murder since the appellant and his co-accused took advantage of their collective strength to overwhelm their defenseless victim.^[5] The lower courts correctly rejected the appellant's bare denial, which is an inherently weak defense^[6] and which was contradicted by Rey's testimony and the medico- legal findings.

The imposable penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.^[7] In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.

We agree that the appellant is also guilty for the attempted killing of Rey. The lower courts correctly rejected the appellant's uncorroborated self- defense theory since he failed to establish Rey's unlawful aggression, a requisite for the claimed justifying circumstance. Abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated since the attacks on Rey were successive or alternate; there is no evidence that the accused took advantage of their collective strength. Since Rey sustained non-life threatening injuries, and in the absence of any showing that his injuries would have led to his death were it not for timely medical assistance, the crime committed is attempted homicide.^[8]

The imposable penalty for attempted homicide is prision correccional, which is two (2) degrees lower than reclusion temporal, the penalty for homicide.^[9] The maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the imposable penalty of  prision correccional, taking into account the absence of any modifying circumstance. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be imposed in its medium period. ^[10] "To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision correccional has to be reduced by one degree, which is arresto mayor. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor in any of its periods."^[11] Thus, the lower courts correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer an indeterminate penalty of five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum.

On the award of damages, we reduce the award of moral damages for Eduardo's death to P50,000.00 to conform to recent jurisprudence.^[12]  We uphold the grant of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as actual damages for the receipted burial expenses, and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, since Eduardo's mother hired a private prosecutor to prosecute the case.^[13] We sustain the award of exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was firmly established in Eduardo's death, but we increase the amount to P30,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence."^[14]  In addition to P23,698.00 for proven loss of earnings,^[15] Rey is also entitled to moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00^[16] in accordance with settled jurisprudence.^[17]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the July 16, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03121 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Appellant Roberto Zacarias y Ulanday is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and attempted homicide. For the crime of murder, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Eduardo Ventayen y Tamin the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as actual damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. For the crime of attempted homicide, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered him to pay Rey Padayao P23,698.00 for loss of earnings for one month, and P20,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 2-30.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. L-7315 and L-7316; CA rollo, pp. 87-96. 

^[3] Remains at large. 

^[4] Supra note 1. 

^[5] People v. Drew, 422 Phil. 614, 626 (2001). 

^[6] People of the Philippines v. Arnold Castro y Yanga, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011. 

^[7] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248. 

^[8] Quidet v. People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010, 618 SCRA 1, 17; and Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 149988, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 1, 13. 

^[9] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 249, in relation to Article 51. 

^[10] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 64; Cabildo v. People, G.R. No. 189971, August 23, 2010, 628 SCRA 602, 611-612. 

^[11] Cabildo v. People, supra at 612. 

^[12] People of the Philippines v. Allan Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011. 

^[13] People v. Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 485, 501; and Esqueda v. People, G.R. No. 170222, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 489, 513. 

^[14] People of the Philippines v. Alex Paling, et al., G.R. No. 185390, March 16, 2011; and People of the Philippines v. Rodrigo Salcedo alias "Digol," G.R. No. 178272, March 14, 2011. 

^[15] Exhibit "E1"; original records, pp. 108-109. 

^[16] Arnel Colinares v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011. 

^[17] Under Article 2219, paragraph 1 of the New Civil Code, the victim is entitled to moral damages in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries (Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 322, 341).