G.R. No. 167454
September 24, 2014
EMERITU C. BARUT, Petitioner, vs. PEOPE O! T"E P"IIPPINES, Respondent.
It appears that at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 2, !""# SP$ %icente %icente &ca' (as comin' from a picnic in )a'una and returnin' home to *a'ui', *a'ui', +etro +anila on board a passen'er eepne- driven b- his brother Rolando on the South )uon /press(a-. /press(a-. &ca'’s (ife and !6 -ear1old son %incent %incent (ere then ridin' an o(ner1t-pe eep driven b- Rico %illas %illas on the same route. hen the latter vehicle eited at the Sucat Interchan'e ahead of &ca'’s passen'er eepne-, P344 'uards 4onrado 5ncheta and arut stopped %illas and directed him to park his vehicle at the road side. 5fter informin' %illas that his vehicle had no headli'hts, 5ncheta asked for his drivin' license, but it took a (hile before %illas produced the same apparentl- (aitin' for his companions in the passen'er eepne- to arrive. 3onetheless, %illas %illas ultimatelultimatel- surrendered his drivin' license, and 5ncheta 5ncheta issued to him a traffic violation report 7*%R8 ticket. Ri'ht about then, the passen'er eepne- carr-in' &ca' stopped (here %illas’ %illas’ eep eep had parked. &ca' and 9anilo abiano, a co1passen'er, co1passen'er, ali'hted and approached 5ncheta and arut to in;uire (hat the matter (as. 5pprised of the reason for the stoppa'e of %illas’ eep, &ca' re;uested the return of %illas’ drivin' license. ut 5ncheta refused because hehad alread- issued the *%R ticket. &ca' ar'ued (ith 5ncheta and arut. )ater on, ho(ever, &ca' turned around in order to avoid further ar'ument,and simpl- told %illas to return for his drivin' license the net da-. *his apparentl- irked 5ncheta, 5ncheta, (ho dared &ca' to finish the issue ri'ht there and then. 5ncheta suddenl- pulled out his .<= caliber revolver and fired it several times, hittin' &ca' on both thi'hs. &ca' fired back and hit 5ncheta. 5ncheta. abiano and %illas %illas (itnessed the echan'e of 'unshots bet(een &ca' and 5ncheta.< &pon seein' the echan'e of 'unshots, %incent &ca' rushed to(ards his father to 'o to his succor. efore %incent could reach his father, ho(ever, arut fired at %incent in the chest. %incent, badl- bleedin', tried to 'o back to the o(ner1t-pe eep (here his mother (as, but fell to the 'round before reachin' the eep. %incent (as rushed to the Para>a;ue +edical 4enter, (here he epired (hile under'oin' emer'enc- sur'er-. ?is father (as brou'ht to the 4amp Panopio ?ospital in @ueon 4it- for treatment and medical attendance. Issues In his petition for revie( on certiorari, arut arut submits that: 7a8 *he 45 misapprehended, overlooked or ne'lected facts that (ere favorable to himA and 7b8 *he findin' on the supposed consistenc- of the testimonies of the State’s (itnesses constituted a s(eepin' conclusion. Rulin' e find no reversible error committed b- the 45. *o start start (ith, the 45 held that it could not find from its revie( of the records an- compellin' reason to set aside the factual findin's of the trial court. It ruled that %illas %illas and abiano had clearl- and consistentl- testified that arut had been the person (ho had shot %incentA and that arut’s bare denial of firin' at %incent %incent did not prevail over their positive and cate'orical cate'orical identification identification of him him as the perpetrator. perpetrator. 5lthou'h the record of the trial islaid bare and open durin' ever- appeal in a criminal case, the credibilit- of (itnesses is a factual issue that the 4ourt cannot disturb in this appeal. # e reiterate that the findin's of fact b- the trial court are accorded 'reat respect especiall- (hen affirmed on appeal b- the 45. 6 *his 'reat respect for such findin's rests mainl- on the trial ud'e’s access to the (itnesses (hile the- testif- in her presence, 'ivin' the trial ud'e the personal and direct observation of their manner and decorum durin' intensive 'rillin' b- the counsel for
the accused, thereb- enablin' her to see if the (itnesses (erefid'etin' and prevaricatin', or (ere sincere and trust(orth-. Secondl-, arut adverts to the etra1udicial s(orn statement that %illas 'ave at about !:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 2#, !""# B barel- a da- follo(in' the fatal shootin' of %incent B in (hich he declared not havin' seen arut fire a 'un. arut contends that this declaration definitel- contradicted %illas’ court testimon- on Cune !0, !""6, and manifested that he (as Dnot clear and convincin' because he never pointed out (ho EhadF reall- shot %incent &ca'.DG 4itin' %illas’ ans(er of D+a-be he (as hitD to the ;uestion on direct eamination: Dhat (as the reason if -ou kno( (h- he Ereferrin' to %incent &ca'F (as (eakHD = arut insists that %illas (as thereb- ambi'uous and 'ave rise to the doubt as Dto (ho EhadF reall- shot and killed the victim,D (hether it (as 5ncheta 7(ho had traded shots (ith the victim’s father8, or himself. " 3otin' that neither &ca' nor 5ncheta had shot %incent, the R*4 eplained that the former could not an-more fire his 'un at %incent not onl- because %incent (as his o(n son but also because he himself had alread- been l-in' on the 'round after bein' hit in his lo(er etremitiesA and that 5ncheta could not have fired at %incent at all because he, too, had been alread- (ounded and l-in' on the 'roundand profusedl- bleedin' from his o(n 'unshot (ounds. *he R*4 further noted that the slu' etracted from the bod- of %incent had come from a .<= caliber revolver, not from &ca'’s .# caliber firearm. arut’s contention did not itself'o unnoticed b - the 45, (hich observed that the R*4 could not takethe declaration of %illas into consideration because %illas’ etra1udicial s(orn statement containin' the declaration had not been offered and admitted as evidence b- either side. *he 45 stressed that onl- evidence that(as formall- offered and made part of the records could be consideredA and that in an- event, the supposed contradiction bet(een the etra1 udicial s(orn statement and the court testimon- should be resolved in favor of the latter. *he 45’s ne'ative treatment of the declaration contained in %illas’ etra1udicial s(orn statement (as inaccord (ith prevailin' rules and urisprudence. Pursuant to Section <, Rule !<2 of the Rules of 4ourt, the R*4 as the trial court could consideronl- the evidence that had been formall- offeredA to(ards that end, the offerin' part- must specif- the purpose for (hich the evidence (as bein' offered. *he rule (ould ensure the ri'ht of the adverse part- to due process of la(, for, other(ise, the adverse part- (ould not be put in the position to timel- obect to the evidence, as (ell as to properl- counter the impact of evidence not formall- offered.!0 5s stated in 4andido v. 4ourt of 5ppeals: !! It is settled that courts (ill onl- consider as evidence that (hich has been formall- offered. 5 document, or an- article for that matter, is not evidence (hen it is simpl- marked for identificationA it must be formall- offered, and the opposin' counsel 'iven an opportunit- toobect to it or cross1eamine the (itness called upon to prove or identif- it. 5 formal offer is necessar- since ud'es are re;uired to base their findin's of fact and ud'ment onl- and strictl-upon the evidence offered b- the parties at the trial. *o allo( a part- to attach andocument to his pleadin' and then epect the court to consider it as evidence ma- dra( un(arranted conse;uences. *he opposin' part- (ill be deprived of his chance to eamine the document and obect to its admissibilit-. *he appellate court (ill have difficult- revie(in' documents not previousl- scrutinied b- the court belo(. *he pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of 4ourt on the inclusion on appeal of documentar- evidence or ehibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadin's or documents not offered at the hearin' of the case. *he rule that onl- evidence formall- offered before the trial court can be considered is relaed (here t(o re;uisites concur, namel-: one, the evidence (as dul- identified b- testimon- dul- recordedA and, t(o, the evidence (as incorporated inthe records of the case.!2 urthermore, the rule has no application (here the court takes udicial notice of adudicative facts pursuant to Section 2, !< Rule !2" of the Rules of 4ourtA or (here the court relies on udicial admissions or dra(s inferences from such udicial admissions (ithin the contet of Section , ! Rule !2" of the Rules of 4ourtA or (here the trial court, in ud'in' the demeanor of (itnesses, determines their credibilit- even (ithout the offer of the demeanor as evidence. !#
*he 4ourt also sees fit to correct the indeterminate sentence of !0 -ears and one da- of prision ma-or, as the minimum, to !G -ears and ei'ht months of reclusion temporal, as the maimum, fied b- the R*4 and affirmed bthe 45. *he maimum of!G -ears and ei'ht months comes from the maimum period of reclusion temporal, but the maimum of the indeterminate sentence should insteadcome from the medium period of reclusion temporal, (hose duration is from ! -ears, ei'ht months and one da- to !G -ears and four months, because neither the R*4 nor the 45 had found the attendance of an- a''ravatin' circumstance. *he minimum of the indeterminate sentence is fied at !0 -ears of prision ma-or, and the maimum of !G -ears and ei'ht months of reclusion temporalis modified to !G -ears and four months of the medium period of reclusion temporal. 5nent the civil liabilit-, the R*4 'ranted P2#0,000.00 (ithout specif-in' the amounts correspondin' toactual and moral dama'es, as (ell as to the civil indemnit- for the death of %incent. *he 45 affirmed the 'rant. oth lo(er courts thereb- erred on a matter of la(. 5ctual and moral dama'es are different in nature and purpose. *o start (ith, different la(s 'overn their 'rant, (ith the amounts allo(ed as actual dama'es bein' dependent on proof of the loss to a de'ree of certaint-, (hile the amounts allo(ed as moral dama'es bein' discretionar- on the part of the court. Secondl-, actual dama'es address the actual losses caused b- the crime to the heirs of the victimA moral dama'es assua'e the spiritual and emotional sufferin's of the heirs of the victim of the crime. $n the civil indemnit- for death, la( and urisprudence have fied the value to compensate for the loss of human life. *hirdl-, actual dama'es ma- not be 'ranted (ithout evidence of actual lossA moral dama'es and death indemnit- are al(a-s 'ranted in homicide, it bein' assumed b- the la( that the loss of human life absolutel- brin's moral and spiritual losses as (ell as a definite loss. +oral dama'es and death indemnit- re;uire neither pleadin' nor evidence simpl- because death throu'h crime al(a-s occasions moral sufferin's on the part of the victim’s heirs. !6 5s the 4ourt aptl- said in one case,!G a violent death invariabl- and necessaril- brin's about emotional pain and an'uish on the partof the victim’s famil-.1âwphi1 It is inherentl- human to suffer sorro(, torment, pain and an'er (hen a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killin'. Such violent death or brutal killin' not onl- steals from the famil- of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever ofhis love, affection and support, but often leaves them (ith the 'na(in' feelin' that an inustice has been done to them. *he death indemnit- and moral dama'es are fied at PG#,000.00 each in vie( of homicide bein' a 'ross offense. 4onsiderin' that the decisions of the lo(er courts contained no treatment of the actual dama'es, the 4ourt is no( not in an- position to d(ell on this. 3onetheless, the 4ourt holds that despite the lack of such treatment, temperate dama'es of P2#,000.00 should be allo(ed. 5rticle 222 of the 4ivil 4odedeclares that temperate dama'es ma- be recovered (hen some pecuniar- loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved (ith certaint-. *here is no lon'er an- doubt that (hen actual dama'es for burial and related epenses are not substantiated (ith receipts, temperate dama'es of atleast P2#,000.00 are (arranted, for it is certainl- unfair to den- to the survivin' heirs of the victim the compensation for such epenses as actual dama'es. != *his is based on the sound reasonin' that it (ould be anomalous that the heirs of the victim (ho tried and succeeded in provin' actual dama'es of less than P2#,000.00 (ould onl- be put in a (orse situation than others (ho mi'ht have presented no receipts at all but (ould still beentitled to P2#,000.00 as temperate dama'es.!" 5lso, in line (ith recent urisprudence, 20 the interest fied b- the R*4 is reduced to si percent 76J8 per annumon all the items of civil liabilit- computed from the date of the finalit- of this ud'ment until full- paid. ?/R/$R/, the 4ourt 5IR+S the conviction for homicide of petitioner /+/RI*& 5R&*, subect to the +$9II45*I$3S that: 7a8 his indeterminate sentence is from !0 -ears of prision ma-or, as the minimum, to !G -ears and four months of reclusion temporal, as the maimumA 7b8 he shall pa- to the heirs of the late %incent &ca' civil indemnit- of PG#,000.00 for his deathAmoral dama'es of PG#,000.00A and emperate dama'es of K2#,000.00, plus interest of si percent 76J8 per annum on each of the items of dama'es hereb- a(arded from the date of finalit- of this ud'ment until full- paidA and 7c8 he shall pa- the costs of suit.
