September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 194839 : September 14, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMON S. MIRANDA, RICHARD LUMIBAO Y CABRERA AND ELY ESPINO MIRANDA, ACCUSED; ELY ESPINO MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 194839 (People of the Philippines v. Ramon S. Miranda, Richard Lumibao y Cabrera and Ely Espino Miranda, accused; Ely Espino Miranda, accused-appellant). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Ely Espino Miranda {appellant), from the August 31, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. 02779.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its February 9, 2007 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 59, convicted the appellant, along with co-accused Ramon S. Miranda and Richard Lumibao y Cabrera, of murder for the killing of Emerito Deang y Fajardo on December 5, 2000. It gave credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Eloisa de Guzman, Adelaida Quiambao, and Alexander Pineda, as corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Joven D.G. Esguerra. It rejected accused Ramon's claim of self-defense, based on the absence of unlawful aggression on the victim's part, and the location and severity of the wounds he sustained. It also rejected the presented defenses of denial and alibi for being weak and uncorroborated. It noted that conspiracy attended the killing, demonstrated by the concurrent acts of the accused of holding the victim while stabbing him, of chasing him when he got free from their grasp, and of stabbing him when they caught him. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength because the accused were armed with bladed weapons, while the victim was alone and unarmed. It disregarded the allegation of evident premeditation for lack of proof. It appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused Ramon who surrendered to SPO2 Domingo A. Palma immediately after the killing. The RTC sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim P10,000.00 as actual damages for wake and burial expenses, and P2,880,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.[2]
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's appreciation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but modified the awarded damages.[3] It deleted the award of P2,880,000.00 for loss of earning capacity due to lack of documentary evidence; it found as insufficient the testimony of Conrado Deang, the victim's father, that the victim earned P15,000.00 a month as manager and maker at his noodle factory. The CA also awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Only the appellant appealed his conviction.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.
We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. We are convinced that the eyewitness accounts of Adelaida and Alexander have amply established the case for the prosecution. No motive affecting their credibility was ever imputed against them. The lower courts correctly held that conspiracy attended the killing, manifested by the coordinated manner of attack committed against the victim. Abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder since three armed persons attacked an unarmed victim; they took advantage of their collective strength to overwhelm their defenseless victim.[4] The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.
We find it necessary to modify the appellant's civil liability. When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, we have ruled that the proper amount should be P50,000.00 each for civil indemnity and moral damages.[5] Also, since the receipted expenses of the victim's family are less than P25,000.00, temperate damages in the said amount should be awarded in lieu of actual damages.[6] Considering that the reduction of the amounts for civil indemnity and moral damages is beneficial to all the accused, the same should also apply to accused Ramon and Richard who did not appeal, while the amount of temperate damages shall be enforced only against the appellant.[7]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the August 31, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02779 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Ely Espino Miranda 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, jointly and severally, along with Ramon S. Miranda and Richard Lumibao y Cabrera, the heirs of the victim Emerito Deang y Fajardo P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, the appellant is solely liable to pay the heirs of Emerito Deang y Fajardo the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, .J., on leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 1077 dated September 12, 2011. Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao; rollo, pp. 2-19.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-1147; CA rollo, pp. 129-154.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] People v. Drew, 422 Phil. 614, 626 (2001).
[5] People of the Philippines v. Allan Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011.
[6] People of the Philippines v. Charlie Aba�o y Ca�ares, G.R. No. 188323, February 21, 2011.
[7] RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, Section 11; and People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 668, 706.
