GR 182458; (March, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182458; March 21, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. REX NIMUAN y CACHO, Appellant.
FACTS
On August 23, 2004, appellant Rex Nimuan y Cacho was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, for the killing of Jun Ruiz on July 22, 2004. The prosecution presented an eyewitness, Alfredo Ruiz (brother of the victim and first cousin of the appellant). Alfredo testified that in the afternoon of July 22, 2004, he saw the victim, the appellant, and another person drinking at a store. Later, while walking home along a trail in a mango plantation, Alfredo saw the appellant, walking about a meter behind the unarmed victim, suddenly hack the victim from behind with a bolo. Alfredo ran to seek help. The postmortem report confirmed the victim died from massive blood loss due to multiple hack wounds on his right forearm, face, and head. The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his uncle’s house in San Benito Sur (approximately 2 kilometers away) watching television when barangay officials informed him he was a suspect and accompanied him to the police station.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the appellant’s conviction for Murder and the penalties and damages imposed.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appellant’s conviction for Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with MODIFICATION regarding the award of exemplary damages.
1. On Guilt and Credibility of Witness: The Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the RTC and the CA. The positive identification by eyewitness Alfredo Ruiz was credible and was corroborated by the postmortem report on the location and severity of the victim’s wounds. The appellant’s defense of alibi was correctly rejected as the distance of 2 kilometers to the crime scene did not preclude his presence there.
2. On the Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery (Alevosia): The Court upheld the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The attack was deliberate, sudden, and unexpected, executed from behind against an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who was given no opportunity to defend himself.
3. On the Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender: The Court agreed with the CA that voluntary surrender could not be appreciated in the appellant’s favor. The records showed the appellant went with the barangay officials to the police station not to admit the crime or surrender voluntarily, but merely for verification purposes after being informed he was a suspect.
4. On Penalty: With treachery qualifying the killing to Murder and no mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed this penalty.
5. On Damages: The Court affirmed the awards of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages, and ₱25,000 as temperate damages (in lieu of actual damages). However, the Court INCREASED the award of exemplary damages from ₱25,000 to ₱30,000 to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, due to the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim ₱50,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages, ₱25,000 as temperate damages, and ₱30,000 as exemplary damages.