Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 194378 (People of the Philippines v. Edmundo Puso y Repomanda). - We resolve the appeal, filed by Edmundo Puso (appellant), from the decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03238. The CA decision affirmed in toto the October 30, 2007 decision^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98, Quezon City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

In its October 30, 2007 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the death of Vicente Besada. It gave credence to the testimony of Oscar Rabino, Jr. that he saw the appellant stab Vicente on the left side of his abdomen on the evening of March 13, 1994. It held that treachery qualified Vicente's killing to murder, as the attack on him was sudden and unexpected. The RTC, however, ruled out the presence of evident premeditation, for the prosecution's failure to show that the appellant meditated and reflected upon his decision to commit the crime. It also disregarded the appellant's alibi, as he had been positively identified as the victim's assailant by a credible eyewitness. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the victim's heirs the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It held that the eyewitness' categorical and consistent positive identification prevails over the appellant's denial and alibi. The appellate court likewise affirmed the trial court's finding of treachery, as the victim was totally unprepared to defend himself against the attack.

Our Ruling 

After due consideration, we dismiss the appeal, but modify the amount of the awarded indemnities.

We find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Oscar is worthy of belief as it was a clear and straightforward account, consistent with the testimony and findings of Dr. Florante Baltazar. We stress that Oscar was merely two meters, more or less, from the victim when the latter was stabbed by the appellant; a fluorescent lamp also illuminated the area where the stabbing took place. In addition, the appellant did not impute any ill motive on Oscar's part to falsely testify against him.

As the lower courts did, we find that treachery attended the killing of Vicente. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.^[3] The evidence in this case shows that the victim was sitting down and waiting for his turn to play pool, when the appellant suddenly came from his rear and stabbed him on his lower left abdomen. Clearly, the attack was sudden and while the victim was in an unguarded position. The appellant's manner and mode of attack, to our mind, bespeak of treachery; he deprived the victim of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring without risk to himself the commission of the crime.

The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with reclusion perpetua to death. Since there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lower courts correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua  only, pursuant to Article 63(2)^[4]  of the Revised Penal Code.

The courts a quo correctly awarded the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, as they are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence on murder cases when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only.^[5] We also affirm the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, with the qualification that this amount is awarded in lieu of proven actual damages of a lesser amount.^[6] We further award P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim's heirs, as the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.^[7]  We cannot award loss for earning capacity to the victim's heirs because the prosecution failed to establish this claim. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03238 is AFFIRMED  with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) Edmundo Puso y Repomanda is ordered to pay the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages; and (b) he is further ordered to pay the heirs of Vicente Besada the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 64-79; penned by Presiding Judge Evelyn Corpus-Cabochan. 

^[3] See People of the Philippines v. Barangay Captain Tony Tomas, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011. 

^[4] Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. x x x

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalities, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 

x x x x 

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

^[5] See People of the Philippines v. Larry Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22, 2011; People of the Philippines v. Rex Nimuan y Cacho, G.R. No. 182458, March 21, 2011; and 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] People of the Philippines v. Efren Patelan Lamberte a "Kalbo," et al., G.R. No. 182918, June 6, 2011; and People of the Philippines v. Antonio Sabella y Bragais, G.R. No. 183092, May 30, 2011.