Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT. :




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 June 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 190316THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, appellant. 

Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' September 25, 2009 Decision[1]  which affirmed the judgment[2]  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, convicting appellant of robbery with homicide.

Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts. On March 3, 2002, appellant went to the house of Mocrito Arellano's parents to talk to Mocrito's father concerning the purchase of two carabaos. As Mocrito and his wife Evelyn lived just across Mocrito's parents, Evelyn learned of appellant's purpose and told Mocrito about it. Immediately, Mocrito talked to appellant. After a while, he went back to their house to get P40,000 with which to buy the two carabaos. Then he left with appellant. At that time, Evelyn saw that Mocrito was wearing his gold-plated wristwatch. When Mocrito failed to return, his family started to look for him. It was then that they received news of a stabbing incident involving a man who was buying carabaos. They went to the funeral home to see the dead body. Evelyn barely recognized her husband Mocrito due to the multiple wounds inflicted on him and his head was almost detached from the body due to a neck wound. Mocrito's wallet was also recovered, but the money inside was missing together with Mocrito's gold-plated wristwatch that was worth P2,500.

After investigation, the police found that appellant's house was near the place where Mocrito's cadaver was discovered and that the bolo sheath near the body belongs to appellant. The police were not able to find appellant until the latter was arrested for another robbery case in Bi�an, Laguna.

In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant simply relied on his testimony without even offering any documentary evidence. Appellant claimed that on March 3, 2002, he was working for a construction company in Barangay Tagapo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. However, appellant could not anymore remember the name of the company as well as his immediate superior at that time. Appellant denied having committed the crime and claimed that he does not know Mocrito and his family.

As aforesaid, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the heirs of Mocrito P21,250 as actual damages, P50,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as civil indemnity. The RTC ruled that while there is no direct evidence pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, the prosecution was able to establish through circumstantial evidence which pointed beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the one who robbed and killed Mocrito. The trial court also found no merit in appellant's denial and alibi since they were not supported by any other independent evidence. Moreover, appellant's defense crumbled in the face of the prosecution witnesses� positive identification of appellant as the last person seen with Mocrito before he was killed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide, but lowered the actual damages awarded by the trial court to P20,000. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and its ruling that the evidence has shown beyond reasonable doubt that appellant killed Mocrito.

After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the CA affirming appellant's conviction. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[3] All the foregoing elements are present in this case. Appellant was not only the last person seen with the victim who earlier went with him to buy carabaos, it was also near his house that the victim's dead body was found. The weapon (bolo) used in stabbing the victim also belonged to appellant. Further, appellant's claimed whereabouts when the crime was committed did not rule out such physical impossibility of his being present at the crime scene. Lastly, appellant immediately disappeared after the commission of the crime and was arrested only later for another similar offense in another place. These duly proven facts point to no other conclusion except that it was appellant who killed the victim by stabbing him with a bolo. 

It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[4] Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses. And as aptly observed by the CA, there is no evidence of improper motive for the prosecution's witnesses to falsely implicate appellant.

However, as regards the award of damages, the Court deems a slight correction to be proper and hereby orders the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages considering that the actual damages proved during trial amounts only to P20,000. In People v. Magdaraog,[5] the Court pronounced that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The September 25, 2009 Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02854 affirming the conviction of appellant Zaldy C. Rafer a.k.a. Salvador Rafer is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 is hereby awarded in lieu of actual damages.

Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral and temperate damages from March 3, 2002 up to the finality of this Decision, and interest at 12% per annum on said damages from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by accused appellant to the heirs of Mocrito Arellano.

With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1227 dated 30 May 2012.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 2-21. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo concurring. The Decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02854.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 28-39. Penned by Judge Mariano A. Morales, Jr. 

[3] People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 532, 539-540; People v. Espa�ol, G.R. No. 175603, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 326, 337. 

[4] People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281, citing People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 682 696-697. 

[5] G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 529, 543.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012] MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181427 : June 13, 2012] JOMIL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SPOUSES GLORIA AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO

  • [G.R. No. 171243 : June 13, 2012] SPOUSES ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. CONCORDIA BARTOLOME AND VICTORIA BARTOLOME

  • [G.R. No. 195775 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARITES ROBLES Y LARIOS

  • [G.R. No. 195526 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALBURO AND MICHAEL CARVAJAL ACCUSED; ROLANDO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 199206 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OMAR WANDAY Y AMPASO

  • [G.R. No. 192548 : June 13, 2012] ANTONIO T. CHU v. SPOUSES ALFRED & LAUREANA ESTOE, FELIX GRAVIDEZ, ALFREDO GRAVIDEZ, ANGELO VIOLENA, ARACELI SORIA AND FRANCISCO CALONGE

  • [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

  • [G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2870 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3235-P) : June 13, 2012] PRESTIDIO HAIR SALON CO., REPRESENTED BY MARITA L. ESTABALAYA v. EFREN P. LUNA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, QUEZON CITY.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

  • [G.R. No. 199220 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISMAIL DALAMBAN MAGDATU

  • [G.R. No. 175016 : June 13, 2012] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • [G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012] PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 198790 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONIE ORCALES Y LANAGA

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188850 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MONTES Y CABONILAS

  • [G.R. No. 182524 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO PINEDA Y BORJA

  • [G.R. No. 196008 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM Y MALIGA

  • [G.R. No. 194462 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILFREDO FAUSTINO Y MENDOZA

  • [G.R. No. 198017 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL RAMOS Y CARBONEL ALIAS "ENGOL"

  • [G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012] MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY

  • [G.R. No. 189947 : June 13, 2012] MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION V. HENRY DELADA

  • [G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012] PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012] LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 194070 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GALICIA Y ROBLAS

  • [G.R. No. 188726 : June 18, 2012] CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARKET PURSUITS, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARLO V. LOPEZ.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.

  • [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

  • [G.R. No. 196971 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES AGAPOR Y AZUELA, A.K.A. "ODETTE".

  • [G.R. No. 196985 : June 18, 2012] ALEXANDER G. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VERSUS GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND HONORABLE ROBERT VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 201183 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO BERSABE

  • [A.C. No. 8178 : June 18, 2012] NAPOLEON CHIU v. ATTY. ALAN A. LEYNES

  • [A.M. No. 11-8-151-RTC : June 19, 2012] RE: BURNING OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

  • [A.M. No. 14265-Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ERNESTO D. MERCADO, RTC, BRANCH 3, BATANGAS CITY; JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY; JUDGE PORFIRIO A. PARIAN, RTC, BRANCH 33, ILOILO CITY; JUDGE SANTIAGO F. BAUTISTA, JR., MTCC, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA; AND JUDGE PEDRO R. SUYAT, MCTC, NATIVIDAD, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1924 : June 19, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL; FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14297- Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. NORA L. HERRERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. MANUEL C. HERRERA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.C. No. 3375 : June 20, 2012] FEDENCIO BALICOLON v. ATTY. LAWRENCE CORDOVA

  • [G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.

  • [A.C. No. 6998 : June 20, 2012] CLARITA O. SANTIANO v. ATTY. TEODULO PUNZALAN.

  • [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA.

  • [G.R. No. 201560 : June 20, 2012] DR. JOSE CESAR CABRERA v. AMECO CONTRACTORS RENTAL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 200939 : June 25, 2012] SPOUSES CARMELO, JR. AND ELIZABETH AFRICA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS BANK OF COMMERCE, THE PURPORTED TRANSFEREE OF TRADERS ROYAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012] RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)

  • [G.R. No. 139472 : June 26, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELFIN S. RODRIGO

  • [A.M. No. 12-6-110-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF CLERK OF COURT CLARENCE G. CHERREGUINE, RTC, BRANCH 42, BALANGIGA, EASTERN SAMAR, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR HIS FATHER

  • [A.M. No. 12-5-89-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOCELYN SUNDIANG DILIG, RTC, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, AS TO WHO MAY RESOLVE THE PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF ATTY. CONRADO B. LAGMAN AND THE OPPOSITION THERETO

  • [G.R. No. 196530 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO TULANG Y LLANITA, A.K.A "LOUIE"

  • [G.R. No. 175779 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA MENDOZA Y ARBO @ CRIS

  • [G.R. No. 181323 : June 27, 2012] LILIAN MANTO AND EMMANUEL FAUSTINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199493 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMIE ASPACIO Y MAYOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196490 : June 27, 2012] LEONARDO IGOT v. BANCO SAN JUAN

  • [G.R. No. 188778 : June 27, 2012] ANTONIO HERMANO v. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, JR., LEONORA CASTRO-BATAC, GILBERTO C. CASTRO, JR., MANUEL C. CASTRO, CONSUELO CASTRO-CASTRO, JAKE CASTRO, MA. ELISA CASTRO-VILLANUEVA AND ROSELINO CASTRO

  • [G.R. No. 192817 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO MALABANAN Y ANAHAN

  • [G.R. No. 185165 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MACAWILI Y PALLER.

  • [G.R. No. 182210 : June 27, 2012] PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1687 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-830-MTJ) : June 27, 2012] DOMINGO B. PANTIG v. JUDGE PASCUALA CLEOFE G. CANLAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT [MTC], SASMUAN, PAMPANGA.