March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.
"G.R. No. 193387 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (deceased), and JOSE ENOVESO[*], appellants.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13, which convicted appellants of the crime of murder.
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: At around 11 o' clock in the evening of May 6, 2000, the victim Efren Arpon was drinking near the dancing area at New Road, Barangay San Isidro, Barugo, Leyte, where a dance was being held to celebrate the eve of the feast of San Isidro. Suddenly, appellant Floro Teczon stabbed Efren four times in the front while the two other appellants stabbed Efren on the back thereby causing the victim's death. The stabbing incident was witnessed by Romulo Penaranda y Asis (Romulo) who testified for the prosecution.
On the other hand, appellant Floro claimed that he was acting in self-defense while his two co-appellants denied that they participated in killing Efren. According to appellant Floro, he was at the store near the dancing area and was about to drink his beer when Efren suddenly attacked him. He claimed that Efren stabbed him on the left elbow but he was able to grab the knife away from Efren when the latter was about to stab him again. He then stabbed Efren but he could not remember how many times. Appellant Floro further averred that the two other appellants were not at the scene of the incident that fateful night. Meanwhile, appellant Numeriano Tabuyan claimed that he was asleep in his house at the time of the incident, while appellant Jose Enoveso also claimed he was in his house at the time of the incident.
The RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of treachery. The RTC sentenced appellant Floro to reclusion perpetua because of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession, and sentenced the two other appellants to death. Furthermore, the RTC ordered appellants to pay the heirs of Efren P15,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as moral damages, and P75,000 as civil indemnity. The RTC found that the positive identification made by prosecution witness Romulo that the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime cannot be doubted and deserves credit. The trial court also noted that Romulo's testimony was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal on the number and the location of the stab wounds on Efren's body.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC convicting appellants of murder but modifying the penalty imposed on appellants Numeriano Tabuyan and Jose Enoveso to reclusion perpetua. The CA disbelieved appellant Floro's claim of self defense and agreed with the findings of the RTC including the presence of treachery. The CA held that treachery attended the commission of the crime because the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim did not have an opportunity to defend himself. Being defenseless and unarmed, and having given no provocation whatsoever, Efren was completely taken by surprise when he was stabbed simultaneously by the appellants while he was drinking beer and watching people dance during the festivity.
Undaunted, appellants filed their notice of appeal[3] which was given due course by the CA on May 28, 2010. In the meantime, appellant Numeriano Tabuyan died. Hence, the instant appeal concerns only his two other co-appellants.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.[4]
However, the monetary damages awarded by the CA must be further modified. Based on existing jurisprudence, exemplary damages amounting to P30,000 must be awarded in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery which attended the commission of the crime.[5] Temperate damages likewise should be awarded instead of actual damages because the actual damages proved during trial is only P 15,000. In People v. Magdaraog,[6] the Court pronounced that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.
The deceased appellant Numeriano Tabuyan, however, cannot be held liable for the damages awarded since his death during the pendency of his appeal extinguished his criminal as well as his civil liability, based solely on delict (civil liability ex delicto).[7] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00641 affirming the conviction of appellants Floro Teczon and Jose Enoveso for the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellants are further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 in lieu of the P15,000 actual damages awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals and exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral, temperate and exemplary damages from finality of this Decision.
Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED." DEL CASTILLO, J., on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. 1207 dated 23 February 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] Spelled as Inoveso in some parts of the records.[1] Rollo, pp. 4-12. Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 19-40. The decision was promulgated on February 5, 2002 and was penned by Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido.
[3] Id. at 157.
[4] People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281, citing People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 682, 696-697.
[5] See People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011, p. 9 and People v. Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 432, 444-445.
[6] G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 529, 543.
[7] See People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255.