June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[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. 195526 (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Alburo and Michael Carvajal accused; Rolando Alburo, accused-appellant).
RESOLUTION
This case is about a conviction in a murder case primarily based on the testimony of a witness whose affidavit was belatedly executed and who admitted that he ran away before he saw the appellant actually stab the victim.
On April 10, 1998 Edelito Labang (Labang) and Roel Zapanta (Zapanta) were drinking with some friends[1] when they decided to buy cigarettes from a store a block away.[2] While walking, Labang, who was a few steps behind Zapanta, saw appellant Rolando Alburo (Alburo) and Michael Carvajal (Carvajal), armed with knives, appear from nowhere, advance towards Zapanta, and started assaulting him.[3] Before Labang fled the scene, he saw that the knives that Alburo and Carvajal held were already bloody. Thereafter, Zapanta was brought to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival.[4]
On June 5, 1998 the city prosecutor formally charged Alburo and Carvajal with murder[5] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Cebu City.[6] To this Alburo pleaded not guilty while Carvajal remained at large.[7]
In his defense, Alburo gave an alibi.[8] He likewise questioned the credibility of the prosecution witness based on the following: (a) according to Labang himself, he did not actually see the accused stab the victim; and (b) the one month delay in the execution of Labang's affidavit gave him enough time to concoct his story.[9]
On October 27, 1988 the RTC convicted Alburo based on the testimony given by the lone witness, Labang, who categorically identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. The trial court appreciated the presence of treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced Alburo to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P50,000.00.
On appeal,[10] the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification Alburo's conviction.[11] Contrary to the finding of the RTC, the CA ruled that there was no proof of evident premeditation. Also, it (1) increased the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00; (2) awarded the heirs of the victim temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in addition to P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Hence, the present appeal.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the lone eyewitness' testimony sufficiently proved that the appellant murdered the victim.
We affirm the ruling of the CA.
In a criminal case, only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof that produced conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[12] And in this case, the testimony of Labang, whom the trial court had assessed as credible,[13] sufficiently established the guilt of appellant Alburo with moral certainty. Similarly in the case of People v. Ballesteros,[14] the prosecution witness did not see the precise moment when the accused drove the knife into the victim. There, the Court likewise concluded that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, it could only be the accused who stabbed the victim. Also, the defense neither alleged nor proved improper motive on the part of Labang. His statements in the witness stand, thus, deserve full faith and credence. Lastly, the one month delay in the execution of Labang's affidavit does not lessen his credibility because such was satisfactorily explained.[15]
Next, we uphold the ruling of the CA that the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof to establish evident premeditation attendant in this case.[16] It was the presence of treachery that qualified the killing to murder.
Lastly, it is settled that when death occurs due to a crime, specific damages may be awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime itself.[17] Following jurisprudence, the CA (1) increased the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00;[18] and (2) awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[19] We uphold these amounts. However, we decrease the amount awarded as temperate damages to P10,000.00[20] because as both lower courts found, Zapanta's mother failed to substantiate the amount she claimed to have been spent on funeral expenses with receipts.[21]cralaw
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR. H.C. 00625 but REDUCES the amount of temperate damages to P10,000.00 and IMPOSES the cost of the suit on the appellant plus interest of 6% per annum on such amounts from the finality of the judgment.[22]
Insofar as accused Michael Carvajal is concerned, considering that he is still at large, this Court REMANDS the case to the trial court for proper disposition. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Velasco, Jr., per Special Order 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN, August 12, 1998, p. 4.[2] Records, p. 33.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 108-110.
[4] Id.
[5] The prosecutor alleged treachery and evident premeditation as aggravating circumstances.
[6] The case was docketed as Criminal Case CBW-47420.
[7] Records, pp. 23-A - 23-B.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 69-70. According to Alburo, on the day of the murder, he allegedly left with Carvajal for Papan, Sibonga, also in Cebu, as early as 7:30 a.m. It was there that Carvajal disclosed that he killed Zapanta to avenge the death of his brother.
[9] Id. at 72-73.
[10] The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR. H.C. 00625.
[11] The CA decision dated March 15, 2010 was penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Socorro B. Inting.
[12] RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 2.
[13] People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 509, 526-527.
[14] G.R. No. 172696, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 657.
[15] See People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 157147, April 17, 2009, 586 SCRA 1.
[16] People v. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, 433 SCRA 389, 400.
[17] People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012, citing People v. Domingo, G R No 184343, March 2, 2009, 580 SCRA 436, 456.
[18] People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011, citing People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 509, 530.
[19] According to People v. Fontanilla, supra note 17, "x x x The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability 'when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.' x x x, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages on account of the attendance of treachery. It was of no moment that treachery was an attendant circumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparable and absorbed in murder." This was properly explained in People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 115-116 (2001).
[20] According to the Civil Code, temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances (Art. 2225) and the amount should be more than what could have been awarded as nominal damages but less than the amount alleged as actual damages (Art. 2224).
[21] In the case of People v. Manlansing [428 Phil. 743, 767-768 (2002)], the prosecution failed to present any receipts to substantiate their claims for expenses allegedly incurred. The Supreme Court ruled as follows, "To be entitled to (actual) damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party. However, as the heirs of the victims did actually incur funeral expenses, we are justified in awarding P10,000 not for purposes of indemnification, but by way of temperate damages x x x"; see also People v. Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 593 and People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 185841, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 379, 408.
[22] People v. Fontanilla, supra note 17; People v Agacer, supra note 18, citing People v. Campos, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011.
