Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 172940 : April 22, 2009] HENRY DALO AND RUBEN RAVIDA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 22 April 2009:

G.R. No. 172940 (Henry Dalo and Ruben Ravida v. People of the Philippines).-The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City found appellants Henry Dalo (Dalo) and Ruben Ravida (Ravida) guilty as principal and accomplice, respectively, of murder for the killing of Efren Abad qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.^[1] The RTC found Ravida an accomplice for having driven the jeep and helped dump the body of the victim.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that the victim was last seen alive with appellants. The prosecution's witnesses were able to establish the following facts: On 31 May 19927 the victim and his companions went to Laoag City to purchase construction materials at the behest of his mother. On their way back, they met appellants and the prosecution's witnesses who were having a drinking session. Afterwards, appellants offered to drive them back to Barangay Pagali, Burgos, Ilocos Norte in an owner-type jeep. With Ravida driving the jeep, they dropped their passengers at their destinations leaving only appellants and the victim. What happened afterwards could only be inferred from the prosecution's witnesses Joselito Dalo (Joselito) and Fernando Lopez (Fernando) testimonies on what they saw and heard. Joselito saw the jeep carrying the victim and appellants as it passed by him going to the direction of Ravida's house. After some time, he heard a gunshot coming from the direction traversed by the jeep. On the other hand, Fernando, who was then standing on top of a hill, saw the jeep stop near the goat house of Ravida and then appellants alighted and unloaded something from it. He saw appellants placed something which seemed like a person's body under a palo-palo tree. The body of the victim was found on 2 June 1992 in exactly where Fernando saw appellants put it, under a palo-palo tree near Ravida's goat house. It was also shown that the victim was killed with a .45 caliber copper jacketed bullet, thus explaining why the .45 caliber pistol issued to Dalo was never turned over to the PNP.

On the other hand, appellants denied having participated in the commission of the crime. Dalo offered the alibi that he was in the Session Hall of the Laoag City Hall at the time of the killing as he was one of the policemen detailed to provide security the canvassing in connection with the 30 May 1992 elections.- He reported for duty at around 5:00 p.m. and did not leave the place until he was relieved from duty the next day at around 4:00 in the morning. Ravida testified that he went to Laong City in the afternoon of 31 May 1992 to have his motorcycle checked-up. He waited for the mechanic past 5:00 p.m. then he went home. Ravida reached his house at night fall and did not go out anymore that day.

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 appellants' motion for reconsideration.^[2] The appellate court held that based on jurisprudence the killing of the victim was not attended with treachery even though the fatal wound was inflicted at the back of the head for none of the prosecution's witnesses had seen the mode of attack adopted by appellants.

The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its 8 February 2006 Decision with modifications as to the imposable penalty and damages awarded. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the killing of the victim. The lower courts, in determining evident premeditation, considered that Dalo threatened the victim's mother that he will kill her son if she would not help him in a physical injury case filed against him by Joselito and that Dalo was brandishing his .45 caliber gun at one of the prosecution's witnesses on the day of the killing. To establish the existence of evident premeditation, the following have to be proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act. All the above-enumerated circumstances were not proved nor established by the prosecution. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious; it must be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. In the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient.^[3] Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent any proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was earned out.^[4]

The Court's finding that evident premeditation did not attend the killing will lower the crime committed to homicide. The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Since Dalo is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty whose minimum shall be within the range of prision mayor and whose maximum shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period. As for Ravida, the penalty for an accomplice in the crime of homicide is prision mayor pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code. No aggravating circumstance was established, and Ravida failed to prove any mitigating circumstance. Following Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable on him is prision mayor in its medium period. He is also entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Accordingly, he can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with a minimum within the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the accomplice in homicide and a maximum which is that prescribed by law.

As to the award of damages, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." There being no aggravating circumstance, the heirs of the victim are not entitled to exemplary damages. But jurisprudentially, the Court have held that in cases where the heirs of the victim failed to prove their claim for actual damages, an award of P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages is justified in lieu of an award of actual or compensatory damages.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATIONS the 8 February 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00412 finding appellants Henry Dalo and Ruben Ravida guilty for killing Efren Abad. The Court hereby sentences appellants Henry Dalo and Ruben Ravida to suffer the indeterminate penalties often (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium as maximum respectively, and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Efren Abad P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The award of P25,000.00 exemplary damages is hereby DELETED. Costs against appellants. Quisumbing, J., on official business. Carpio Morales. J., recused herself from the case for being related to a counsel of one of the parties.

WITNESS the Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Minita Chico Nazario (designated additional member per Raffle dated 12 May 2009). Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr.. Arturo D. Brion and Teresita L. De Castro (designated additional member per Special Order No. 619), Members. Second Division, this 29^th day of April. 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 48-76. The 29 September 2004 Decision was penned by Judge Manuel Argel Jr. The dispositive portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this (C)ourt hereby finds the accused Henry Dalo "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt, as principal in the crime of Murder as charged in the Information, qualified by treachery, aggravated by evident premeditation, but having happened before the re-imposement of the Death Penalty, is hereby sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to indemnify the surviving heirs of the victim, Efren (A)bad, the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for his death, and in addition thereto, the payment of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as and for moral damages as well as FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for exemplary damages, plus costs of suit; the co-accused, Ruben Ravida, is hereby found to be "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt, as an accomplice for the crime, and he having neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and applying the indeterminate sentence law, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) years of Pris(i)on Mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and also to indemnify the surviving heirs of the victim, Efren Abad, the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30.000.00) PESOS for his death, and, in addition thereto, THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as and for moral damages as well as THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.
 
 In the service of their sentence, both accused shall be immediately remitted and transferred to the custody of the Director, Bureau of Corrections of the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, issuing the corresponding Commitment Order pursuant to Circular No. 4-92-A which amended Circular No. 4-92 of the Supreme Court, dated April 20, 1992.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 29, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Laoag City in Criminal Case No. 961 -19 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ruben Ravida is required to jointly and severally with accused-appellant Henry Dalo, pay as civil indemnity the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.
 
 SO ORDERED.

 
^[3] People of the Philippines v. Jose Chua y Valencia, G.R. No. 121792, 7 October 1998.

^[4] People of the Philippines v. Timblor, 285 SCRA 64; People v. Medina, 286 SCRA 44.

^[5] People v. Bajar. G.R. No. 143817, 27 October 2003; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 142467 10 June 2003.