GR 199892; (December, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199892 ; December 10, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO PUNZALAN, JR., Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Arturo Punzalan, Jr. was convicted for the complex crime of double murder with multiple attempted murder. The incident stemmed from a heated argument in a videoke bar between appellant and a group of navy personnel on the evening of August 10, 2002. After the navy men left the bar to avoid further trouble and were walking back to their camp, appellant, driving a van and visibly intoxicated, was stopped at a sentry gate. He angrily stated he would kill the group before speeding away. Appellant then deliberately swerved his van, hitting the group from behind. The impact killed SN1 Arnulfo Andal and SN1 Antonio Duclayna and injured SN1 Danilo Cuya, SN1 Evelio Bacosa, and SN1 Erlinger Bundang. Appellant was later found at his home, drunk, with his damaged van parked nearby.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellant’s conviction for the complex crime of double murder with multiple attempted murder.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and civil liabilities. The Court upheld the finding of dolo or criminal intent. Appellant’s act of deliberately swerving his speeding van into the group, coupled with his prior threats made at the sentry gate, clearly demonstrated a deliberate intent to kill. This established the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves. The crimes constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as the double murder and multiple attempted murders resulted from a single criminal act. However, the Court corrected the penalty. For the complex crime, the penalty for the most serious offense (murder) should be imposed in its maximum period. With the abolition of the death penalty, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages were awarded to the heirs of each deceased victim. For the injured victims, the crimes were properly classified as attempted murder, not frustrated murder, as their wounds were not proven to be fatal. They were awarded civil indemnities and moral damages accordingly.