June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 190316 � THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, appellant.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' September 25, 2009 Decision[1] which affirmed the judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, convicting appellant of robbery with homicide.
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts. On March 3, 2002, appellant went to the house of Mocrito Arellano's parents to talk to Mocrito's father concerning the purchase of two carabaos. As Mocrito and his wife Evelyn lived just across Mocrito's parents, Evelyn learned of appellant's purpose and told Mocrito about it. Immediately, Mocrito talked to appellant. After a while, he went back to their house to get P40,000 with which to buy the two carabaos. Then he left with appellant. At that time, Evelyn saw that Mocrito was wearing his gold-plated wristwatch. When Mocrito failed to return, his family started to look for him. It was then that they received news of a stabbing incident involving a man who was buying carabaos. They went to the funeral home to see the dead body. Evelyn barely recognized her husband Mocrito due to the multiple wounds inflicted on him and his head was almost detached from the body due to a neck wound. Mocrito's wallet was also recovered, but the money inside was missing together with Mocrito's gold-plated wristwatch that was worth P2,500.
After investigation, the police found that appellant's house was near the place where Mocrito's cadaver was discovered and that the bolo sheath near the body belongs to appellant. The police were not able to find appellant until the latter was arrested for another robbery case in Bi�an, Laguna.
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant simply relied on his testimony without even offering any documentary evidence. Appellant claimed that on March 3, 2002, he was working for a construction company in Barangay Tagapo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. However, appellant could not anymore remember the name of the company as well as his immediate superior at that time. Appellant denied having committed the crime and claimed that he does not know Mocrito and his family.
As aforesaid, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the heirs of Mocrito P21,250 as actual damages, P50,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as civil indemnity. The RTC ruled that while there is no direct evidence pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, the prosecution was able to establish through circumstantial evidence which pointed beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the one who robbed and killed Mocrito. The trial court also found no merit in appellant's denial and alibi since they were not supported by any other independent evidence. Moreover, appellant's defense crumbled in the face of the prosecution witnesses� positive identification of appellant as the last person seen with Mocrito before he was killed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide, but lowered the actual damages awarded by the trial court to P20,000. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and its ruling that the evidence has shown beyond reasonable doubt that appellant killed Mocrito.
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the CA affirming appellant's conviction. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[3] All the foregoing elements are present in this case. Appellant was not only the last person seen with the victim who earlier went with him to buy carabaos, it was also near his house that the victim's dead body was found. The weapon (bolo) used in stabbing the victim also belonged to appellant. Further, appellant's claimed whereabouts when the crime was committed did not rule out such physical impossibility of his being present at the crime scene. Lastly, appellant immediately disappeared after the commission of the crime and was arrested only later for another similar offense in another place. These duly proven facts point to no other conclusion except that it was appellant who killed the victim by stabbing him with a bolo.
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.[4] 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. And as aptly observed by the CA, there is no evidence of improper motive for the prosecution's witnesses to falsely implicate appellant.
However, as regards the award of damages, the Court deems a slight correction to be proper and hereby orders the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages considering that the actual damages proved during trial amounts only to P20,000. In People v. Magdaraog,[5] 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.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The September 25, 2009 Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02854 affirming the conviction of appellant Zaldy C. Rafer a.k.a. Salvador Rafer is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 is hereby awarded in lieu of actual damages.
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral and temperate damages from March 3, 2002 up to the finality of this Decision, and interest at 12% per annum on said damages from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by accused appellant to the heirs of Mocrito Arellano.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1227 dated 30 May 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-21. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo concurring. The Decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02854.[2] CA rollo, pp. 28-39. Penned by Judge Mariano A. Morales, Jr.
[3] People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 532, 539-540; People v. Espa�ol, G.R. No. 175603, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 326, 337.
[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] G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 529, 543.