G.R. No. 167454 September 24, 2014
EMERITU C. BARUT, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emeritu C. Barut, a guard of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), was convicted of homicide for the death of Vincent Ucag. On September 24, 1995, at around 6:00 PM, PNCC guards Conrado Ancheta and Barut stopped an owner-type jeep driven by Rico Villas on the South Luzon Expressway for a traffic violation (no headlights). Ancheta issued a traffic violation report ticket. A passenger jeepney carrying SPO4 Vicente Ucag (Vincent’s father) arrived. Ucag alighted, inquired about the stoppage, requested the return of Villas’s license, argued with the guards, then turned away, telling Villas to retrieve the license the next day. Ancheta dared Ucag to finish the issue, pulled out a .38 caliber revolver, and fired at Ucag’s thighs. Ucag returned fire, hitting Ancheta. During this exchange, Vincent Ucag rushed to aid his father. Before Vincent could reach his father, Barut shot Vincent in the chest. Vincent died after emergency surgery. The Regional Trial Court found Barut guilty of homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs with ₱250,000.00 inclusive of actual and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s factual findings and the credibility of witnesses.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not considering an alleged inconsistency in the testimony of witness Rico Villas based on an extra-judicial sworn statement.
3. The proper determination of the indeterminate penalty and the civil liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty and civil liability.
1. The factual findings of the trial court, especially on witness credibility, are accorded great respect and are generally not disturbed on appeal. The trial judge has the direct opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The positive and categorical identification of Barut as the shooter by witnesses Villas and Danilo Fabiano prevailed over Barut’s bare denial. The Court noted that neither Ucag (the father, who was already wounded) nor Ancheta (who was also wounded) could have shot Vincent, and the slug extracted came from a .38 caliber revolver, not Ucag’s .45 caliber firearm.
2. The extra-judicial sworn statement of Villas, in which he allegedly declared not having seen Barut fire a gun, was correctly not considered by the lower courts because it was not formally offered and admitted as evidence. Only evidence formally offered can be considered. Furthermore, any contradiction between an extra-judicial statement and court testimony is resolved in favor of the latter.
3. The Supreme Court corrected the indeterminate sentence. The maximum period should be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) as no aggravating circumstance was found. The minimum was correctly within the range of prision mayor. Thus, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
4. On civil liability, the award of ₱250,000.00 as an un-specified lump sum for actual damages, moral damages, and civil indemnity was erroneous. These are distinct awards requiring separate determination. Civil indemnity for death is mandatory. Moral damages are also mandatory in homicide cases, requiring no pleading or proof. Actual damages require proof of pecuniary loss. The Court modified the award: (a) ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, as the prosecution failed to prove the exact amount of actual loss with sufficient certainty. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.