G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016.
Pedro Ladines, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Edwin de Ramon, Respondents.
FACTS
On August 12, 1993, an information was filed charging petitioner Pedro Ladines and Herman Licup with homicide for the stabbing death of Erwin de Ramon during a school alumni homecoming dance on June 12, 1993. Prosecution witnesses Philip de Ramon and Mario Lasala testified that while they and the victim were watching the dance, Ladines suddenly approached and stabbed Erwin below the navel with a machete. After Ladines left, Licup also attacked Erwin, who evaded the blow, pulled the machete from his body, and hit Licup in the chest. Erwin later died from his wounds. Dr. Myrna Listanco, who performed the post-mortem, attested the victim sustained two stab wounds possibly inflicted by one or two assailants using two distinct weapons. Ladines defended himself with alibi and denial, claiming he was at the dance with his family and learned of the incident later, and that prosecution witnesses harbored ill will due to a prior barangay complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ladines guilty of homicide and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Ladines appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting the CA erred in affirming his conviction despite an alleged res gestae statement by Licup admitting he stabbed the victim, which Ladines claimed was newly-discovered evidence creating reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
1. Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming Ladines’ conviction despite his claim of newly-discovered evidence (Licup’s alleged res gestae statement).
2. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts was correct.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty and civil liabilities.
1. On the issue of newly-discovered evidence, the Court ruled that Licup’s alleged res gestae statement did not constitute newly-discovered evidence. The concept applies when seeking a new trial in the trial court, not on appeal. For evidence to be considered newly-discovered, it must: (a) be discovered after trial; (b) be such that it could not have been discovered and produced at trial with reasonable diligence; (c) be material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) be of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. Ladines failed the first two requisites, as he could have discovered and produced the evidence (e.g., police blotter containing the statement) during trial with reasonable diligence. The Court also noted that the appeal raised factual questions inappropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law. The factual findings of the RTC and CA are binding absent any recognized exceptions.
2. On the penalty, the Court modified the indeterminate sentence. Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. The RTC and CA erred in imposing the maximum of the medium period (17 years and 4 months) as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence without justification. Under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, when no aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Therefore, the correct maximum term is the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The minimum remains within the range of prision mayor. Thus, the indeterminate sentence is modified to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
3. Regarding civil liability, the Court modified the awards in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Ladines was ordered to pay the heirs of Erwin de Ramon: (a) civil indemnity of P75,000.00; (b) moral damages of P75,000.00; (c) temperate damages of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages; and (d) interest of 6% per annum on all items from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.