October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > October 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185201 : October 05, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BENJIE DELIMA:
[G.R. No. 185201 : October 05, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BENJIE DELIMA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 05 October 2009:
G.R. No. 185201 - People of the Philippines v. Benjie Delima
This is an appeal from the October 26, 2007 Decision [1]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00065 which affirmed with modification as to the civil liability the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Manolo, Fortich, Bukidnon, Branch 11 convicting appellant Benjie Delima of the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case 97-1835.
The prosecution evidence hinge mainly on the eyewitness account of Noel Alburo, which goes: In the afternoon of June 4, 1997 Alburo was on board and seated near the aisle of a Rural Transit bus with plate number KBF-773 bound for Malaybalay, Bukidnon. At around 5:30 in the afternoon, while the bus was cruising along Mangima, Manolo, Fortich, Bukidnon, Alburo saw appellant walked past him from behind towards the front portion of the bus. He was wearing a brown jacket and sunglasses and holding a firearm which he aimed at the victim who was seated three seats away to the left of Alburo. Thinking that appellant will stage a robbery, Alburo tucked his wallet in his sock.
Someone shouted that appellant pulled the trigger, but when he looked up, the gun did not fire. Appellant stepped forward, poked the gun on the victim's nape and fired. This time the gun went off. The victim stood up and attempted to get something from his waist. Thereafter, appellant pulled the victim's green bag containing an armalite rifle, dragging the victim who held on to the bag before he fell dead on the floor in front of Alburo. Appellant aimed the gun at the passengers and said: "don't be afraid because there is no problem, I will answer this." As the bus stopped he got off with the green bag and rifle of the victim. Thereafter, the bus proceeded to the police station of Kisolon, Sumilao, Bukidnon where the victim was identified to be PO1 Victor Olano.
Testifying as the lone witness for the defense, appellant denied the accusation against him and claimed that he was in his house at Purok 4, Barangay Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur at the time the incident occurred.
After trial, appellant was convicted as charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death indemnity; P60,500.00 for wake and burial expenses; and to pay the government P30,000.00 for the service firearm he took from said victim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction and debunked his contention that it was impossible for Alburo to recognize the assailant in a crowded bus. The appellate court observed the vivid recollection of Alburo who was able to note accused-appellant's face and body profile. As to the civil liability, appellant was ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to the P50,000.00 death indemnity decreed by the trial court. The award of P60,500.00 actual damages was deleted for lack of receipts and appellant was directed to pay P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The P30,000.00 for the value of the service firearm was also deleted for lack of basis as to its actual value.
The Court sustains the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The testimony of Alburo positively identifying appellant as the person who shot the victim and who took the armalite rifle proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of robbery with homicide. The most natural reaction of witnesses of criminal violence would be to strive to see the looks and the faces of the malefactors. The stressful condition of the witness, as in the present case, can even serve to be a catalyst to memory.[3] Alburo could not have erred in identifying appellant because he had a close and an unobstructed view of the incident which happened in broad daylight only three seats away from him. He was able to observe not only the side and back head and body profile of appellant but also the frontal view because the latter aimed the gun at the passengers and told them not to be scared before getting off the bus. We thus find no reason to doubt such identification.
The Court of Appeals is correct in disregarding the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi which cannot prevail over his positive identification by a credible witness.[4] Apart from being uncorroborated, appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime because the house of appellant where he claimed to be when the incident happened is only about 7 to 8-hour travel from the place where the shooting occurred.
The deletion for lack of proper basis of the �60,500.00 actual damages is correct and the award of P25,000.00 temperate damages in lieu of actual damages is in accord with current jurisprudence.[5] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is also proper. Moral damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because the violent and sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[6]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto. Quisumbing, J., on sabbatical leave.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 718), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 5th day of October, 2009.
G.R. No. 185201 - People of the Philippines v. Benjie Delima
This is an appeal from the October 26, 2007 Decision [1]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00065 which affirmed with modification as to the civil liability the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Manolo, Fortich, Bukidnon, Branch 11 convicting appellant Benjie Delima of the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case 97-1835.
The prosecution evidence hinge mainly on the eyewitness account of Noel Alburo, which goes: In the afternoon of June 4, 1997 Alburo was on board and seated near the aisle of a Rural Transit bus with plate number KBF-773 bound for Malaybalay, Bukidnon. At around 5:30 in the afternoon, while the bus was cruising along Mangima, Manolo, Fortich, Bukidnon, Alburo saw appellant walked past him from behind towards the front portion of the bus. He was wearing a brown jacket and sunglasses and holding a firearm which he aimed at the victim who was seated three seats away to the left of Alburo. Thinking that appellant will stage a robbery, Alburo tucked his wallet in his sock.
Someone shouted that appellant pulled the trigger, but when he looked up, the gun did not fire. Appellant stepped forward, poked the gun on the victim's nape and fired. This time the gun went off. The victim stood up and attempted to get something from his waist. Thereafter, appellant pulled the victim's green bag containing an armalite rifle, dragging the victim who held on to the bag before he fell dead on the floor in front of Alburo. Appellant aimed the gun at the passengers and said: "don't be afraid because there is no problem, I will answer this." As the bus stopped he got off with the green bag and rifle of the victim. Thereafter, the bus proceeded to the police station of Kisolon, Sumilao, Bukidnon where the victim was identified to be PO1 Victor Olano.
Testifying as the lone witness for the defense, appellant denied the accusation against him and claimed that he was in his house at Purok 4, Barangay Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur at the time the incident occurred.
After trial, appellant was convicted as charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death indemnity; P60,500.00 for wake and burial expenses; and to pay the government P30,000.00 for the service firearm he took from said victim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction and debunked his contention that it was impossible for Alburo to recognize the assailant in a crowded bus. The appellate court observed the vivid recollection of Alburo who was able to note accused-appellant's face and body profile. As to the civil liability, appellant was ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to the P50,000.00 death indemnity decreed by the trial court. The award of P60,500.00 actual damages was deleted for lack of receipts and appellant was directed to pay P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The P30,000.00 for the value of the service firearm was also deleted for lack of basis as to its actual value.
The Court sustains the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The testimony of Alburo positively identifying appellant as the person who shot the victim and who took the armalite rifle proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of robbery with homicide. The most natural reaction of witnesses of criminal violence would be to strive to see the looks and the faces of the malefactors. The stressful condition of the witness, as in the present case, can even serve to be a catalyst to memory.[3] Alburo could not have erred in identifying appellant because he had a close and an unobstructed view of the incident which happened in broad daylight only three seats away from him. He was able to observe not only the side and back head and body profile of appellant but also the frontal view because the latter aimed the gun at the passengers and told them not to be scared before getting off the bus. We thus find no reason to doubt such identification.
The Court of Appeals is correct in disregarding the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi which cannot prevail over his positive identification by a credible witness.[4] Apart from being uncorroborated, appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime because the house of appellant where he claimed to be when the incident happened is only about 7 to 8-hour travel from the place where the shooting occurred.
The deletion for lack of proper basis of the �60,500.00 actual damages is correct and the award of P25,000.00 temperate damages in lieu of actual damages is in accord with current jurisprudence.[5] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is also proper. Moral damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because the violent and sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[6]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto. Quisumbing, J., on sabbatical leave.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 718), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 5th day of October, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p.3.
[2] CA rollo, p. 43.
[3] People v. Bragat, 416 Phil. 829, 836 (2001).
[4] People v.Andres, 357 Phil. 321,341 (1998).
[5] People v. Barcenal, G.R. No. 175925, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 706, 727.
[6] People v. Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No. 179499, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 769, 785.
