Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 181746 : October 15, 2008] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RICHARD SARCIA Y OLIVERA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 October 2008:

G.R. No. 181746 (The People of the Philippines v. Richard Sarcia y Olivera). � The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of Ligao, Albay convicted appellant for the killing of seven (7)-year old Mae Christine Camu qualified by abuse of superior strength.^[1]

The evidence for the prosecution showed that the victim was last seen alive with appellant. The prosecution witnesses saw appellant took the victim from her nipa hut in which she was staying, and held her hand as they walked toward his house. Also, the physical evidence found near the crime scene all pointed to appellant as the assailant. Other that the fact that the crime scene was just a few meters away from appellant's house, the police found blood and eight (8) footprints going to the direction of appellant's house. They also found the victim's slipper and a candy wrapper in the grass near the cock-house owned by the appellant's family. Thirteen (13)-year old Sherrylin Malate and her sister, eight (8)- year old Sheila May Malate, both testified that appellant had attempted to molest them before when they were still seven (7) years old and six (6) years old, respectively. The other prosecution witnesses testified on appellant's actuations before and after the discovery of the victim's lifeless body in the rice mill which was several meters away from appellant's house

In the face of the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, all that appellant offered was his naked denial of having participated in the commission of the crime. He tried to show that he was inside his house with his family and doing house work the whole time when the ghastly crime occurred.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification on the amount of damages awarded to the victim's family, and later on denied appellant's motion for reconsideration.^[2] The appellate court held that based on jurisprudence, it is treachery which qualified the killing to murder since the victim was defenseless seven (7)-year old child, with abuse of superior strength absorbed by treachery.

The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its 24 February 2006 Decision, with modifications on the amounts of the damages awarded. In view of prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds that the civil indemnity awarded should be increased to P75,000.00.^[3] Also in accordance with current case law, the Court awards temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.^[4]

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the 24 February 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00966 finding Richard Sarcia y Olivera guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the MODIFICATIONS that appellant shall pay the heirs of Mae Christine Camu P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the P15,000.00 actual damages. Costs against appellant.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, p. 35. The 22 August 2002 Decision was penned by Judge Jose S. Sa�ez. The dispositive portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Richard Sarcia y Olivera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code[,] as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and hereby sentences said accused, there being no attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, to [r]eclusion [p]erpetua together with the accessory penalties provided for by law.

The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following:

1) P50,000.00 by way of indemnity for the death Mae Christine Camu;
2) P100,000.00 by way of moral damages;
3) P15,000.00 by way of reimbursement for funeral and burial expenses;
4) P15,000.00 by way of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and to pay the costs.

The benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code regarding preventive imprisonment may be extended to the accused if the conditions laid down in Republic Act No. 5127[,] as amended are satisfied.

SO ORDERED.

^[2] Rollo, p. 20. THe 24 February 2006 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Marina Buzon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Aurora Santiago-Lagman and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by reducing the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 and awarding exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to the heirs of Mae Christine Camu.

SO ORDERED.

^[3] People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 727, 742-743: People v. Bangcado, 399 Phil. 768, 792 (200). See also People v. Amion, 405 Phil. 917, 934 (2001), People v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil 247, 269 (2001), citing People v. Pedroso, G.R. No. 125158, July 19, 2000; People v. Go-od, 387 Phil. 628 (2000); People v. Rosalina Flores, 385 Phil. 159 (2000); People v. Mindanao, 390 Phil 510 (2000); People v. Quijon, 382 Phil. 339 (2000); People v. Buluran, 382 Phil. 364 (2000).

^[4] People v. Werba, G.R. No. 144599, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 482; citing People v. Villanueva, G,R, No. 139177, August 11, 2003, 408 SCRA 571.