EN BANC
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 145505
March 14, 2003
-versus-
RICARDO
GARCIA
A.K.A.
CARDING, CHRISTOPHER GARCIAAND ANDREW TOMELDEN
A.K.A. ANDUT DULING,
Accused, |
RICARDO GARCIA
A.K.A.
CARDING,
Appellant.D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an automatic review
of the Decision[1]
dated August 30, 2000 of Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court
of
Dagupan City, in Criminal Case No. 99-02815-D, convicting
accused-appellant
Ricardo Garcia a.k.a. Carding of murder and meting on him the supreme
penalty
of death. He was also ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the
victim Ismael dela Cruz. The Antecedents
When Barangay
Captain Jaime (Boy) Garcia of Barangay Pugaro, Dagupan City, was
shot to death, his nephew Christopher Garcia took over as
barangay
captain. PO3 Wilfredo Sanoy was then assigned to the Pugaro
Police
Substation of Dagupan City and came to know of Jaime Garcia and
his
son Christopher and his brother, accused-appellant Ricardo Garcia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in 1998, Wilfredo
was ordered by the Dagupan City Chief of Police to act as security
guard-driver
of Assistant City Engineer Ismael dela Cruz of Dagupan
City.
Wilfredo was told by the chief of police that Engr. dela Cruz had been
receiving death threats from the Garcia family in Barangay
Pugaro.
Engr. dela Cruz likewise told Wilfredo that he had received death
threats
from Jaime and and his brother Ricardo and their nephew
Christopher
because of a family feud.cralaw:red
On February 24, 1999,
at around 9 a.m., Engr. dela Cruz was on board his
Mitsubishi
Gallant car with Plate No. NTN 951 driven by Wilfredo along A.B.
Fernandez (West) Street on his way to the City Engineer's Office at
Careenan
Street, Dagupan City. Engr. dela Cruz sat beside Wilfredo on the front
seat of the car. The windows on both sides of the front section
of
the car were rolled down. Wilfredo saw a motorcycle parked in front of
the Red Cross building with Christopher Garcia, his uncle Ricardo
Garcia
and Andrew (alias Andut) Tomelden seated on the motorcycle. Wilfredo
noticed
that the motorcycle driven by Andrew was following the car. He
also
noticed that Christopher was seated on the motorcycle behind Andrew and
that Ricardo was seated behind Christopher. The car slowed down
when
it reached the intersection of A.B. Fernandez West and Careenan
Streets
preparatory to turning left towards Careenan Street where the
City
Engineer's Office was located. As the car was on its way
towards
Careenan Street, a passenger jeepney with the words "Lingayen-Dagupan"
painted on its panel board was travelling across Careenan Street on its
way to the intersection of A.B. Fernandez West and Careenan Streets
suddenly
stopped about two meters away from the hood of the car and blocked the
path of the car.[2]
Wilfredo was forced to stop the car to avoid a collision with the
jeepney.
Momentarily, the motorcycle driven by Andrew stopped about a meter away
on the right side of the car where Engr. dela Cruz was
seated.
Wilfredo turned his gaze towards the motorcycle and saw Ricardo turn
his
body towards Engr. dela Cruz, raise his two hands holding a .45
caliber
gun and shoot Engr. dela Cruz, hitting the latter on the
forehead.
The victim instinctively raised his right hand to cover his head.
Ricardo fired again hitting the right forearm of Engr. dela Cruz.
Wilfredo was also hit on his upper thigh. Wilfredo drove the car
towards the City Engineer's Office for refuge.[3]
Andrew momentarily drove the motorcycle and followed the car but
drove on when the car had stopped in front of the City Engineer's
Office. Engr. dela Cruz and Wilfredo were brought to the
Lyceum-Northwestern
Hospital for immediate medical treatment. Dr. Arturo de Vera
performed
surgical incision on the head of Engr. dela Cruz. A few hours
later,
Engr. dela Cruz was transferred to the Villafor Hospital of Dagupan
City,
where he was operated on by Dr. Ferdinand Florendo, a
neuro-surgeon.
The doctor issued a Clinical Abstract of the injuries of the victim and
the procedures he performed on him.[4]
Engr. dela Cruz remained in comatose condition. Despite the
operation,
Engr. dela Cruz died on March 11, 1999. Acting on the request of
Germinia dela Cruz, the widow of Engr. dela Cruz, Dr. Winston Tan, the
Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory performed an autopsy[5]
on the cadaver of Engr. dela Cruz. Dr. Tan drew a
sketch
depicting a human body where he indicated the locations and number of
the
wounds sustained by the victim.[6]
Dr. Tan prepared and signed a Medico-Legal Report No. M-494-99
indicating
his postmortem findings, namely:
FINDINGS:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished, male cadaver in rigor mortis with postmortem lividity at the
dependent portions of the body. Conjunctivae are pale, lips and
nailbeds
are cyanotic. There is a postcraniotomy incision at the parietal
and occipital region, measuring 14.5 cm and 28 cm respectively.
There
are bore holes at the occipital and interparietal regions.
Cut-down
incision at the distal third of right arm.cralaw:red
HEAD, TRUNK AND EXTREMITIES:
1) Hematoma, right
infraorbital region, measuring 7 x 5 cm, 7 cm from the anterior
midline.cralaw:red
2) Hematoma, left
supraorbital region, measuring 4 x 2 cm, 4 cm from the anterior midline.cralaw:red
3) Hematoma, left
infraorbital region, measuring 4 x 2 cm, 4.5 cm from the
anterior
midline.cralaw:red
4) Area of multiple
abrasion, left scapular region, measuring 26 x 14 cm, 24 cm from the
posterior
midline.cralaw:red
5) Lacerated wound,
right cubital fossa, measuring 4.5 x. 0.3 cm, 3 cm lateral to its
anterior
midline with 5 stitches applied.cralaw:red
6) Lacerated wound,
right elbow, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, 3 cm lateral to its posterior
midline.cralaw:red
7) Lacerated wound,
proximal third of right forearm, measuring 3 x 0.5 cm 5 cm medial to
its
posterior midline with 3 stitches applied.cralaw:red
8) Abrasion, proximal
third of right forearm, extending to the middle third, measuring 15 x 1
cm, 2 cm medial to its posterior midline.[7]
Dr. Tan concluded that
the victim sustained three gunshot wounds and died because of
intracranial
hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound on the head.[8]
He found no gunpowder residue in the periphery of the wounds of
the
victim. The doctor signed a postmortem certificate of death of the
victim.[9]
Wilfredo was discharged from the hospital after 12 days.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, PO1
Gaspar Dacpano conducted an on-the-spot investigation of the incident
and
found three empty bullets of a .45 caliber gun at the scene of the
crime.[10]
The policeman took the sworn statement of Wilfredo at the
hospital
in the course of his investigation. The incident and
investigation
conducted in connection therewith were recorded in the police blotter.[11]
On May 4, 1999, an Information[12]
was filed with the Regional Trial Court charging Ricardo Garcia,
Christopher Garcia and Andrew Tomelden with murder which reads:
That on or about the
24th day of February, 1999, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
RICARDO
GARCIA @ Carding, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA and ANDREW TOMELDEN @ Andut
duling,
being then armed with guns, with treachery, evident premeditation and
with
intent to kill one ENGR. ISMAEL DELA CRUZ, confederating together,
acting
jointly and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully
and criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
latter,
by shooting him, hitting him on the chest and head, thereby causing his
death shortly thereafter due to ‘Intracranial hemorrhage as a result of
a gunshot wound of the head' as per Postmortem Certificate of
Death
issued by Dr. Winston S. Tan, Medical Legal Officer, Biological Science
Division, Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, to the damage and
prejudice of the legal heirs of said deceased, ENGR. ISMAEL DELA CRUZ,
in the amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00),
Philippine
currency, and other consequential damages.cralaw:red
Contrary to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
On May 10, 1999, the
trial court issued a warrant of arrest for the arrest of
all
the accused. Ricardo was arrested on December 10,
1999.
It turned out that he was also facing a murder charge before
Branch
44 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No.
2031
and an attempted murder charge before Branch 41 of the same court in
Criminal
Case No. 99-02816-D.[13]
Andrew and Christopher remain at large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 22, 1999,
Ricardo, assisted by counsel de parte, was arraigned before the
trial
court and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Thereafter,
trial ensued.cralaw:red
The prosecution also
adduced testimonial and documentary evidence to prove actual
damages.
At the time of his death, Engr. dela Cruz was 52 years old and
was
receiving an annual gross salary of P208,008 effective January 1, 1997.[14]
He was survived by his wife, Germinia dela Cruz and their two children,
23 and 27 years old, respectively. Germinia and her two children
who have been residing in the United States of America, did not anymore
testify for the prosecution.cralaw:red
Ricardo interposed the
defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that on February 22,
1999,
he left Barangay Pugaro and proceeded to Barangay Angio of San Fabian,
Pangasinan, where he worked as a mason in the construction of the house
of Emilia Baldonade, the daughter of Sinforoso Baldonade, located about
20 meters from the house of the latter. Ricardo and Sinforoso
were
members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Ricardo informed Sinforoso that
his brother Jaime Garcia was shot to death on February 10, 1999 and
that
he learned that he, Ricardo and his brothers would be liquidated by
those
who killed his brother Jaime. Ricardo mentioned the name of
Willy alias Sanoy as one of the suspects. Ricardo
worked
in the construction site the whole day of February 24, 1999. He
stayed
in San Fabian until almost the end of May 1999 because he noticed men
spying
on him and his life was in danger. Ricardo had to leave San
Fabian
to avoid being killed.cralaw:red
The Verdict of the Trial
Court
After trial, the court
rendered judgment on August 30, 2000 convicting Ricardo of murder
qualified
by treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor
vehicle in the commission of the crime, the decretal portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, accused RICARDO GARCIA alias "Carding" is hereby
found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER defined by
Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, penalized by Republic Act 7659 otherwise
known as the Heinous Crime Law and aggravated by the use of a motor
vehicle
and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death to be
administered by lethal injunction. In addition, he is ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the late Engr. Ismael dela Cruz the amount of
P50,000.00
and to pay the following sums: P309,640.36 as actual and compensatory
damages
which include expenses for medical attendance and religious services
during
the burial of the victim; P1,941,336.00 for lost earnings of victim;
P20,000.00
as moderate damages; plus costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant assails the
decision of the trial court contending that:
The Lower Court erred
in believing hook, line and sinker the testimony of prosecution witness
Wilfredo Sanoy thus concluding the existence of positive identification.[16]
Appellant avers that
Wilfredo is not a credible witness. His testimony is barren of
probative
weight, pockmarked as it is with inconsistencies. More so when
his
testimony is juxtaposed with his sworn statement to PO1 Dacpano.[17]
Appellant asserts that Wilfredo stated in his sworn statement that
Engr.
dela Cruz was hit on the head and chest but on direct examination, the
policeman declared that Engr. dela Cruz was hit on the forehead and
right
arm. Likewise, in his sworn statement, Wilfredo declared that
when
he was driving the car along A.B. Fernandez West Street, he noticed a
passenger
jeepney travelling on the same street infront of the car of Engr.
dela Cruz. However, when Wilfredo testified, he said that the
passenger
jeepney travelled from the direction of Careen Street toward the
intersection
of said street and A.B. Fernandez West Streets and blocked the way of
the
car when it was turning left towards the City Engineer's Office along
Careenan
Street. It is incredible, appellant says, that he,
Christopher
and Andrew did not flee from the scene of the shooting but tarried and
followed the car towards the City Engineer's Office where the NBI and
Narcom
offices are situated. Moreover, Wilfredo testified that he
heard five gunshots, however, PO1 Dacpano was able to recover only
three
empty shells of a .45 caliber gun at the scene of the crime. Appellant
states that it is hard to believe that the assailants would wait for
the
car of Engr. dela Cruz to pass by in front of the Red Cross building,
in
full view of commuters and passersby. If appellant, Christopher
and
Andrew were bent on killing Engr. dela Cruz, it is incredible that only
appellant fired his gun and shot Engr. dela Cruz and Wilfredo but
Christopher
and Andrew did not. The testimony of Wilfredo that Engr. dela
Cruz
was shot by appellant on board the motorcycle which stopped beside his
car is belied by the physical evidence showing that Engr. dela
Cruz
was shot on the front portion of his forehead and not on the right side
of the head. Considering the trajectory of the bullets, the
assailant of Engr. dela Cruz must have been in front of the car and not
beside the car. Contrary to the testimony of Wilfredo, Engr. dela
Cruz was shot from a far range because when Dr. Tan performed an
autopsy
of the cadaver of the victim, the doctor did not see any gunpowder
residue
on the wound of the victim. Wilfredo did not even conduct any
investigation
of the driver of the passenger jeepney.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention of accused-appellant
is not convincing. This Court has consistently held that the findings
of
facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
witnesses,
its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the
contending
parties, and its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by
the appellate court great respect if not conclusive effect because of
the
unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at
close
range, the conduct, deportment and demeanor of the witness.[18]
If the trial court overlooked, ignored or misconstrued
misinterpreted
facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would warrant
a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case, the appellate
court
may formulate its own findings and conclusions. In this case,
this
Court carefully reviewed the record and it is convinced beyond cavil of
the credibility of Wilfredo and the verisimilitude of his
testimony.
The number of empty shells found at the scene of the crime by PO1
Dacpano
is not conclusive of the number of times appellant fired his .45
caliber
gun. Indeed, appellant must have fired his gun more than three
times
because Wilfredo was shot in the thigh and Engr. dela Cruz sustained
three
or four gunshot wounds as evidenced by the Medico-Legal Report[19]
and the testimony of Dr. Winston Tan, thus:
Q
From the injuries that you have seen at the body of the victim, how
many
times was the victim shot?
A
We can consider the lacerated wounds as possible gunshot wounds, there
were three or four possible gunshot wounds, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
How many on the head?
A
It's possible that one gun shot wound is on the head, one at the right
arm and one on the left, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And that could [be] cause by a bullet?
A
The proximity of the lacerated wounds located at the right arm and the
one located at the elbow, it is possible that there was a thru and thru
laceration, Your Honor.[2]
Moreover, errorless
testimony cannot be expected from Wilfredo as he recounted the details
of a harrowing and life-threatening experience.[21]
Witnesses, including policemen, are not expected to recall every single
minute detail of a startling occurrence, such as the number of times
the
assailant fired his gun, with perfect or total recall taking into
account
the treachery of human memory and the lapse of time from the time of
the
shooting and his testimony.[22]
On the contrary, such minor lapses tend to justify rather than
debilitate
the credibility of Wilfredo because they show that he was not coached
or
his answers contrived.[23]
Admittedly, Wilfredo
erred when he stated in his affidavit[24]
that Engr. dela cruz was shot on the chest when in fact he was
shot
on the forehead and right forearm as shown by the physical
evidence.
However, he clarified the error when he testified that:
ATTY. BELEN
Q
What part of the body of the victim, Engr. dela Cruz, was hit?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
He was hit on the right arm and forehead, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Are you very sure of that?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
A perusal again of your statement on question No. 14 you declared that
Engr. dela Cruz who was seated beside you was hit on the chest and on
the
forehead, which is which, he was hit on the right arm and forehead or
he
was hit on the chest?
A
That he was hit on the arm and forehead, sir.cralaw:red
Q
When you stated in your statement that he was hit on the chest is one
again
of your lapses when you give your statement?
A
I thought he was hit on the chest because of the blood that comes from
his head.[25]
That Wilfredo did not
state in his affidavit at the hospital that Engr. dela Cruz was also
shot
on his forearm is of de minimis. It bears stressing that
Wilfredo
gave his affidavit in the hospital shortly after he was shot. He
was still in daze when PO1 Dacpano interrogated him. And
case
law has it that:
A Sinumpaang Salaysay
or a sworn statement is merely a short narrative subscribed to by
the complainant in question and answer form. Thus, it is only to
be expected that it is not as exhaustive as one's testimony in open
court.
The contradictions, if any, may be explained by the fact that an
affidavit
can not possibly disclose the details in their entirety, and may
inaccurately
describe, without deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences
narrated.
Being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete
and
often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes
from
the want of suggestions and inquiries. It has thus been held that
affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court
declarations
because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental
faculties
are not in such a state as to afford her a fair opportunity of
narrating
in full the incident which has transpired. Further, affidavits
are
not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because
they
are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant
simply
signs them after the same have been read to her.[26]
Wilfredo never claimed
in his sworn statement that before the shooting, the car he was
driving
was following the passenger jeepney. He merely stated that the
car
had to stop because of a passenger jeepney ahead of the car:
12-Q-Before the group
of Carding fired upon you, do you know where did they come from?
A- I first saw them
infront of Phil. National Read Cross Bldg. along ABF Ave West and
tailed
us until we reached the corner of Careenan where they fired upon us
while
we were momentarily stranded caused by a passenger jeepney, ahead of us.[27]
The sworn statement
of Wilfredo is consistent with his testimony in court that the
passenger
jeepney blocked the path of the car when the passenger-jeepney suddenly
stopped or before completing its turn towards Fernandez Street from
Careenan
Street.cralaw:red
Wilfredo's testimony
that appellant was perched on the motorcycle on the right side of
the car when he shot the victim and the testimony of Dr. Tan that when
he examined the victim on March 11, 1999 that he did not see any
gunpowder
residue are not inconsistent with the physical evidence and the
doctor's
testimony that the victim was shot on the forehead. Dr. Tan testified
that
the assailant could have been infront of the victim or at the side of
the
victim when the latter was shot:
Q
What was the position of the arm of the assailant when the body of the
victim was hit by a bullet?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Since the lacerated wound noted was located at the anterior aspect of
the
body it is possible that the assailant could have been looking infront
of the victim, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
What is the position of the hand of the assailant at the time the
bullet
hit the body of the victim and at the time the bullet hits him at the
front
portion?
A
For the lacerated wounds on the right, the hand could have been brought
down at a normal position but the lacerated wound noted at the right
elbow
measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, 3 cm lateral to its posterior midline.cralaw:red
Q
Where was the assailant?
A
Considering the projectible, it's possible that assailant positioned
himself
infront of the victim having an injury at the back of the elbow
it's
possible that the elbow could have been raised, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And the lower part of the arm was placed infront of the driver's seat?
A
It is possible, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
What else or what other injuries which are minors?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Here is also a lacerated wound proximal third right forearm
measuring 3. X 0.5 cms., 9 cms lateral midline. This is our
arm
there is laceration at the middle portion. (Witness pointing to his
upper
right arm).cralaw:red
Q
What made that cause that injuries?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
It is possible, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
If that is the cause, where is the assailant?
A
It is possible that the victim was standing, facing down, the assailant
is at the back of the victim but if the assailant is infront or at the
side of the victim, it's possible that the victim could have raised his
left arm, sir.[28]
What must have happened
was that, when the motorcycle stopped on the right side of the car
driven
by Wilfredo, he and Engr. dela Cruz looked towards the
motorcycle.
Momentarily, appellant aimed at Engr. dela Cruz and shot him on the
forehead.
The victim instinctively raised his right hand to cover his
forehead.
Appellant fired his gun anew, hitting the right forearm of the
victim.cralaw:red
That Dr. Tan did not
notice any gunpowder residue in the periphery of the wounds of the
victim
is not inconsistent with the testimony of Wilfredo that
accused-appellant
shot Engr. dela Cruz at a distance of about one meter. The
records show that on February 24, 1999, surgical incisions were made on
the forehead of the victim by Dr. de Vera. Whatever gunpowder
residue
may have been in the periphery of the wounds must have been obliterated
when Dr. de Vera made surgical incision on the forehead of Engr. dela
Cruz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What did you find out in your autopsy examination of the cadaver of
Ismael
dela Cruz?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
It was noted during the autopsy that there were surgicial incisions on
the head. One at the parietal region and one at the occipital
region
measuring 14.5 cm. and 28 cms. respectively, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Now, would you explain your post-mortem findings in reference to this
drawing
you have shown to the Hon. Court?
A
Yes, the victim underwent an operation procedure at the hospital
wherein
the holes was (sic) made in the scalp to evacuate the blood clot inside
his head which is alife (sic) saving procedure, sir.[29]
It was only on March
11, 1999 or long after Engr. dela Cruz was shot and operated on by Dr.
de Vera that the latter prepared an autopsy on the victim. The
absence
of gunpowder at or near the entrance of the wounds will not preclude
near
fire because other factors might have intervened.[30]
That Andrew followed
the car after the shooting as it sped towards the City Engineer's
Office
and tarried for a while when the car reached the City Engineer's
Office
is not incredible. In the first place, appellant failed to adduce
evidence that the NBI and Narcom offices were in the periphery of
the situs of the crime. Neither did the trial court take
discretionary
judicial notice thereof. There is no standard behavior of
criminals
before, during and after the commission of a crime. Some may be
so
bold and daring at the point of recklessness in committing a
crime
in broad daylight in full view of bystanders and shoot it out with
officers
to consummate their crime. Others may be so cunning such that
they
commit crime in the darkness of the night to avoid detection and arrest
by peace officers.cralaw:red
Wilfredo cannot be blamed
for not conducting after the shooting an investigation of the
whereabouts
of Andrew and procuring his arrest. It must be noted that
Wilfredo
was confined in the hospital for 12 days. The Dagupan City
police had assigned PO1 Dacpano to conduct an investigation.
Wilfredo
had not been tasked to himself conduct a parallel investigation of the
incident.cralaw:red
The Crime Committed
by Appellant and Appropriate Penalty of the Crime
The trial court convicted
appellant of murder qualified by treachery and appreciated against him
the generic aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle
(motorcycle)
in the commission of the crime.cralaw:red
Although appellant used
a .45 caliber gun to commit the crime, the trial court did not consider
such circumstance as a special aggravating circumstance in the
commission
of the crime. While this Court agrees with the trial court that
indeed
appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery, however, the use
of said motorcycle cannot be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance
because the same was not alleged in the information as mandated by
Section
8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
SEC. 8. Designation
of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the
designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.cralaw:red
Although the rule took
effect only on December 1, 2000, the same may, however, be given
retroactive
effect because it is more favorable to the appellant.cralaw:red
This Court, likewise,
agrees that the use of the .45 caliber gun is not a special aggravating
circumstance because there is no allegation in the information
that
appellant had no license to possess the .45 caliber gun, which
allegation
is an essential element of the crime.[31]
The prosecution even failed to prove that appellant had no license to
possess
the said firearm.cralaw:red
Under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion
perpetua
to death. Since there is no modifying circumstance in the
commission
of the crime, the appellant should be meted the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua, conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
Civil Liability of Appellantchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution proved
that the heirs of the victim spent the total amount of
P349,640.36
for hospital and doctor's fees.[32]
In the summary of expenses adduced by the prosecution, it appears that
the heirs spent the total amount of P40,000 during the wake.cralaw:red
Case law holds that
the prosecution must prove actual or compensatory damages with the best
available proof.[33]
The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is the testimony of
Engr. Ricardo dela Cruz, the brother of the victim. Since the
prosecution
failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the claim of
P40,000,
the heirs of the victim are not entitled to said amount. However,
temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 may be awarded by the Court
in lieu of actual damages.[34]
Conformably with the ruling of the Court in People vs. Catubig,[35]
the heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.
The
heirs of the victim are, likewise, entitled to the unearned income of
the
victim. Following case law, the heirs of the victim are entitled
to the total amount of P1,941,754.68 computed as follows:
Age of
victim
= 52 years old
Life
expectancy
= 2/3 x (80-age
of
the victim at the time of his death)
= 2/3 x (80-52)
= 2/3 x 28
= 18.67 years
Gross Annual Income
=
P208,008chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Living Expenses
=
50% of Gross Annual Income
= P208,008 x 0.5
= P104,004
Lost Earning Capacity=
Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income-Living expenses]
=
18.67 x [P208,008 - P104,004]
= 18.67 x P104,004
= P1,941,754.68
The accused-appellant
is also obliged to pay to the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000
by way of civil indemnity. However, since none of the heirs
testified
for the prosecution, they are not entitled to moral damages.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, judgment is rendered AFFIRMING with MODIFICATION the
Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 42 in Criminal Case
No. 99-02815-D. Appellant RICARDO GARCIA a.k.a. Carding is found
guilty of murder defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and
there
being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, is
hereby
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered
to pay to the heirs of the victim, Engr. Ismael dela Cruz, the
amounts
of P50,000 by way of civil indemnity, P25,000 as temperate
damages, P25,000 as exemplary damages and P1,941,754.68 as unearned
income
of the victim. Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Luis M. Fontanilla.
[2]
Exhibits "L-3" and "L-4."
[3]
Exhibit "L-2."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit "H."
[5]
Exhibit "I."
[6]
Exhibit "B."
[7]
Exhibits "B," and "B-3."
[8]
Exhibit "B-4."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "A."
[10]
Exhibit "J" to "J-2."
[11]
Exhibit "F."
[12]
Records, p. 2.
[13]
Exhibit "V."
[14]
Exhibit "S."
[15]
Records, p. 202.
[16]
Rollo, p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Exhibit "K."
[18]
People vs. Marquez, et al., 365 SCRA 200 (2000).
[19]
Exhibit "B."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, March 7, 2000, p. 14.
[21]
People vs. Osorio, 330 SCRA 576 (2000)
[22]
People vs. Ebrada, 296 SCRA 353 (1998).
[23]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Exhibit "K."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, April 3, 2000, p. 17.
[26]
People vs. Liwanag, 363 SCRA 62 (2001).
[27]
Exhibit "K."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
TSN, March 7, 2000, pp. 12-13.
[29]
Id., at 6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
SOLIS LEGAL MEDICINE, 1964 ed., p. 259.
[31]
People vs. Cerveto, 315 SCRA 611 (1999).
[32]
Exhibit "N."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People vs. Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257 (1999).
[34]
People vs. Tongga, 336 SCRA 687 (2000).
[35]
363 SCRA 621 (200).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People vs. Pirame, 327 SCRA 557 (2000). |