G.R. No. 219581 . January 31, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO DELA PEÑA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Maximo Dela Peña, was charged with piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. The prosecution alleged that on September 24, 2005, along a riverbank in Villareal, Samar, Dela Peña and three other armed men blocked the pump boat of the Nacoboan family, which was loaded with copra. Through force and intimidation, the perpetrators tied up Jose Nacoboan, took cash and personal items from Julita Nacoboan, commandeered the boat, unloaded the cargo onto a small island, and later removed and stole the boat’s engine, propeller, and tools. Julita Nacoboan positively identified Dela Peña, whom she had known for 16 years, as one of the armed assailants.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Dela Peña claimed he was fishing in Daram, Samar, from September to December 2005 and was not present at the crime scene. He asserted he was arrested and beaten by soldiers on December 6, 2005, and did not know his named co-accused. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Peña of piracy, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without parole and ordering him to pay various damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of piracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the CA decision. The Court upheld the findings of both lower courts that the prosecution proved Dela Peña’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by the victim, Julita Nacoboan, who knew the appellant for 16 years and recognized him during the incident, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish his participation. Her testimony detailed the violent and forcible taking of property aboard a vessel, which squarely falls under the elements of piracy as defined by PD 532. The defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated and weak, could not prevail over this clear and positive identification.
Regarding damages, the Supreme Court sustained the CA’s modifications. The award of actual damages was properly deleted for lack of competent proof, such as receipts, and was correctly replaced with temperate damages, as some pecuniary loss was suffered though the exact amount could not be proven with certainty. The awards for moral and exemplary damages were also correctly deleted for lack of factual and legal basis, as the prosecution did not establish the factual premises for such awards. Nominal damages were properly removed as they are incompatible with temperate damages. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the award of temperate damages were affirmed.