Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 190636 (People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Dionaldo y Camongay). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Lorenzo Dionaldo y Camongay (appellant), from the March 26, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00572.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its November 11, 1999 decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, Branch 35, convicted the appellant of murder^[3]  for the killing of Eulogio Gubalane on May 21, 1997. It gave full credence to the natural, spontaneous and straightforward testimony of prosecution eyewitness Eduardo Gubalane, who had no ill-motive to falsely testify against the appellant, and rejected the appellant's defense of denial and alibi. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the appellant shot the victim from behind, suddenly and without warning. The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review,^[4] the appellant did not seek acquittal but only the modification of his conviction from murder to homicide, arguing that the fact that the victim was shot from behind did not necessarily warrant the conclusion that treachery attended the killing. The CA rejected the appellant's argument, finding that treachery qualified the killing to murder. It noted that the appellant came from behind the victim and, without warning, shot the victim twice on the back while the victim was seated on a long bench; the attack on the victim was so sudden and unexpected that eyewitness Eduardo, who was seated facing the victim and who saw the appellant approach the victim from behind, was not even able to warn his brother of the incoming danger. Thus, it affirmed the RTC's decision, but reduced the awarded civil indemnity to P50,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.^[5]

The case is now with us for final review.

Our Ruling 

We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Eduardo is worthy of belief as it was a straightforward account consistent with the presented physical evidence. The witness had no reason to testify falsely and he was only interested in having the real killer punished; no motive affecting his credibility was ever imputed against him. Treachery qualified the killing to murder as the shooting was unexpected; the victim was shot from behind, in no position to repel the attack.^[6] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant. With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages of P30,000.00 should have been awarded.^[7] In addition, we award temperate damages of P25,000.00, even if there is no receipt or competent proof to show the amount of actual damages incurred by the victim's family; it is reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for his coffin and burial, and for food during the wake.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the March 26, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-RC. No. 00572 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Lorenzo Dionaldo y Camongay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Eulogio Gubalane P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1053. Perez, J., on leave; Peralta, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1062.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda; rollo, pp. 5-19.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 5234-0; CA rollo, pp. 15-20. 

^[3] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248. 

^[4] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to People v.Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review; CA rollo, pp. 141-142. 

^[5] Supra note 1. 

^[6] Bug-atan v. People, G.R. No. 175195, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 537, 555; and  People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174371, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 708, 722. 

^[7] Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010; and People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 805. 

^[8] People of the Philippines v. Rodriguez Lucero y Paw-As alias "Kikit," G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010; and People v. Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 593.