ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 172896 April 19, 2010
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In a
criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great
weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by
substantial evidence on record.[1] It is
only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked
material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate
the factual findings of the court below.
In this case, we hold that the trial court did not overlook such factual
matters; consequently, we find no necessity to review, much less, overturn its
factual findings.
This
petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision[2] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated February 24, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 25069 which affirmed
with modification the Judgment[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri,
Cagayan, Branch 06 in Criminal Case No. VI-892 finding petitioner Roño
Seguritan y Jara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Likewise impugned is the Resolution[4] dated
May 23, 2006 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
Factual Antecedents
On October 1, 1996, petitioner was charged
with Homicide in an Information, [6] the accusatory portion of which
reads as follows:
That on or about November 25,1995, in the municipality of Gonzaga, province of
Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
ROÑO SEGURITAN y JARA
alias Ranio, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and box one Lucrecio Seguritan, inflicting upon the
latter head injuries which caused his death.
Contrary to law.
During the
arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Version of the Prosecution
In the
afternoon of November 25,
1995, petitioner was having a drinking session with his uncles Lucrecio
Seguritan (Lucrecio), Melchor Panis (Melchor) and Baltazar Panis (Baltazar), in
the house of Manuel dela Cruz in Barangay Paradise, Gonzaga,
Cagayan. Petitioner, who was seated beside Lucrecio, claimed that
Lucrecio’s carabao entered his farm and destroyed his crops. A heated discussion thereafter ensued,
during which petitioner punched Lucrecio twice as the latter was about to stand
up. Petitioner’s punches landed on Lucrecio’s
right and left temple, causing him to fall face-up to the ground and hit a
hollow block which was being used as an improvised stove.
Lucrecio lost consciousness but
was revived with the assistance of Baltazar. Thereafter, Lucrecio rode a tricycle and proceeded to his house in
the neighboring barangay of Calayan, Cagayan.
Upon his arrival, his wife noticed blood on his forehead. Lucrecio
explained that he was stoned, then went directly to his room and slept.
At around 9 o’clock in the
evening, Lucrecio’s wife and daughter noticed that his complexion has darkened
and foamy substance was coming out of his mouth. Attempts were made to revive Lucrecio but to
no avail. He died that same night.
After
the burial of Lucrecio on December 4, 1995, his wife learned of petitioner’s
involvement in her husband’s death.
Thus, she sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI). NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Antonio Vertido (Dr.
Vertido) exhumed Lucrecio’s body and performed the autopsy. Dr. Vertido found hematomas in the scalp
located in the right parietal and left occipital areas, a linear fracture in
the right middle fossa, and a subdural hemorrhage in the right and left
cerebral hemisphere. Dr. Vertido concluded that
Lucrecio’s cause of death was traumatic head injury.[7]
On May 21, 1996, Melchor executed a sworn
statement before the Gonzaga Police Station recounting the events on that
fateful day, including the punching of Lucrecio by petitioner.
At the
time of Lucrecio’s death, he was 51 years old and earned an annual income of
P14,000.00 as a farmer.
The Version of the Defense
Petitioner
denied hitting Lucrecio and alleged that the latter died of cardiac
arrest. Petitioner claimed that he
suddenly stood up during their heated argument with the intent to punch
Lucrecio. However, since the latter was
seated at the opposite end of the bench, Lucrecio lost his balance and fell
before he could be hit. Lucrecio’s head hit the improvised stove as a result of
which he lost consciousness.
Petitioner presented Joel Cabebe, the Assistant
Registration Officer of Gonzaga, Cagayan, and Dr. Corazon Flor, the Municipal
Health Officer of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, to prove that Lucrecio died of a
heart attack. These witnesses
identified the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio and the entry therein which
reads: “Antecedent cause: T/C cardiovascular disease.”[8]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On February 5, 2001, the trial
court rendered a Decision convicting petitioner of homicide. The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the
Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide
and sentences the accused to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as
maximum. The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the late Lucrecio Seguritan
the amount of P30,000.00 as actual damages and the amount of P135,331.00 as
loss of earning capacity and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
On appeal,
the CA affirmed with
modification the Judgment of the RTC.
Thus:
WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from is partly AFFIRMED, WITH MODIFICATION, to read as
follows: The Court finds the accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentences the
accused to an indeterminate
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to
TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The
accused Roño Seguritan is ordered to pay the heirs of the late Lucrecio
Seguritan the amount of P 30,000.00 as actual damages, the amount of
P135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity, P 50,000.00 as moral damages and to
pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was
denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 23, 2006.
Issues
Thus, this
petition for review raising the following issues:
I
The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s
judgment of conviction.
II
The Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused of the
crime of homicide.[11]
Our Ruling
The
petition is denied.
Petitioner
disputes the conclusion that the fracture on the right middle fossa of the
skull, beneath the area where a hematoma developed was due to the blow he
delivered because according to the testimony of Dr. Vertido, the fracture may
also be caused by one falling from a height.
Petitioner also maintains that the punches he threw at Lucrecio had
nothing to do with the fatal head injuries the latter suffered. According to him, Lucrecio sustained the head
injuries when he accidentally hit the hollow block that was used as an
improvised stove, after falling from the opposite end of the bench. Petitioner insists that Lucrecio died due to
a fatal heart attack.
In fine,
petitioner contends that the appellate court, in affirming the judgment of the
trial court, overlooked material and relevant factual matters which, if
considered, would change the outcome of the case.
We are not
persuaded.
It is on record that Lucrecio suffered two external injuries
and one internal injury in his head. The
autopsy report showed that Lucrecio died of internal hemorrhage caused by
injuries located at the upper right portion of the head, left side of the
center of his head, and a “fracture, linear, right middle fossa, hemorrhage,
subdural, right and left cerebral hemisphere.”
We find no
reason to doubt the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate
court, that petitioner punched Lucrecio twice causing him to fall to the
ground. Melchor categorically testified
that petitioner punched Lucrecio twice and as a result, Lucrecio fell to the
ground and lost consciousness. Melchor
would not have testified falsely against petitioner, who was his nephew. He even hesitated to testify as shown by his
execution of a sworn statement just after the autopsy of Lucrecio which
revealed that the cause of death was traumatic head injury attributed to
petitioner.
Melchor’s
eyewitness account of the fist blows delivered by petitioner to Lucrecio and
the manner by which the latter fell from the bench and hit his head on the
improvised stove is consistent with the autopsy findings prepared and testified
to by Dr. Vertido. Thus:
x x x x
Court:
Q: What is the right
parietal area?
A: This is the right parietal area,
sir.
(Witness
pointing to the upper right portion of the head).
: And then the left
occipital area, this is left occipital area with a hematoma again measuring 5.0
x 4.0 centimeters, sir.
(Witness
pointing to the back left part, middle back portion)[12]
x x x
x
Fiscal Feril:
Q: What about this
which reads “Fracture, linear, right middle fossa”, where is this injury
located?
x x x x
Court:
Q: Will you point that from
your head?
A: x x x [A]t the base of
the brain of the skull, sir.
If you look at the head at the cut portion, the fracture is located on
the base of the brain, particularly on the right mid-cranial fossa, sir.[13]
x x x x
Fiscal Feril:
Q: Could it be possible
that the victim suffered the injuries specifically the fracture while he was
falling to the ground, hitting solid objects in the process?
A: Well, with regard to
the hematomas there is a possibility [that it could be caused by] falling from
a height x x x although it produces
hematoma, sir.
Court:
Q: Falling from a
height?
A: Yes, sir.
Fiscal Feril:
Q: If an external force
is administered to such victim, such as x x x fist blow[s] would it accelerate
this force and cause these injuries?
A: Definitely it could
accelerate, sir.[14]
We find no merit in petitioner’s argument that he could not
be held liable for the head fracture suffered by Lucrecio. The height from
which he stood to deliver the fist blows to Lucrecio’s head is sufficient to
cause the fracture.
The testimony of Dr. Vertido also ruled out petitioner’s
contention that Lucrecio died of a heart attack. The fact that Lucrecio’s cause of death is
internal hemorrhage resulting from the head injuries suffered during his
encounter with the petitioner and the certainty that he had no heart problem
are evident in the following portion of Dr. Vertido’s testimony:
Atty. Antonio:
Q: Did you notice anything unusual in
the heart of Lucrecio Seguritan?
A: Well, with regard to
our examination of the heart Your Honor I limit only the examination on the
atomic portion, gross findings, when we say gross findings that can be seen by
the eyes and so if for example other that the findings on the brain, if I have
not seen my injury from the brain then my next examination to contemplate would
be to bring a portion of each particular organ to Manila and have it subjected
to a hispathologic examination over the microscope. But then we found out that there is an injury
to the brain so why should I now perform a hispathologic examination on the
heart, when in fact there is already a gross finding on the brain, meaning that
the cause of death now is of course, this traumatic injury, sir.
Court:
Q: Supposed the victim
had a heart attack first and then fell down later, can you determine then x x x
the cause of death?
A:
Well, your Honor as I said a while ago I opened up the heart, I examined
the heart grossly and there was no findings that would find to a heart attach
on its function, the heart was okay and coronaries were not thickened so I said
well – grossly there was no heart attack.[15]
x x x x
Court:
Q: Since you were
conducting just a cursory examination of the heart, my question again is that,
could you have determined by further examination whether the victim suffered a
heart attack before the injuries on the head were inflicted?
A: That is why sir, I
said, I examined the heart and I found out that there was noting wrong with the
heart, and why should I insist on further examining the heart.[16]
The notation in the Certificate of Death of Lucrecio that he
died of a heart attack has no weight in evidence. Dr. Corazon Flor, who signed said document
testified that she did not examine the cadaver of Lucrecio. She stated that a circular governing her
profession did not require her to conduct an examination of Lucrecio’s corpse,
as long as the informant tells her that it is not a medico-legal case. Renato Sidantes (Renato), the brother-in-law
of Lucrecio who applied for the latter’s death certificate, had no knowledge of
the real cause of his death. Thus, Dr.
Flor was mistakenly informed by Renato that the cause of Lucrecio’s death was
heart attack.
The petitioner belatedly contends that the delay in the
autopsy of Lucrecio’s body and its embalming compromised the results
thereof. To substantiate his claim, he
quotes the book entitled Legal Medicine authored by Dr. Pedro Solis, viz:
“a dead body must not be embalmed before the autopsy. The embalming fluid may render the tissue and
blood unfit for toxilogical analyses.
The embalming may alter the gross appearance of the tissues or may
result to a wide variety of artifacts that tend to destroy or obscure
evidence.”
“the body must be autopsied in the same condition when found
at the crime scene. A delay in the
performance may fail or modify the possible findings thereby not serving the
interest of justice.”[17]
Petitioner’s reliance on this citation is misplaced. Petitioner failed to adduce evidence that the
one month delay in the autopsy indeed modified the possible findings. He also failed to substantiate his claim
that the embalming fluid rendered the tissue and blood of Lucrecio unfit for
toxilogical analysis.
Further, it is settled that courts will only consider as
evidence that which has been formally offered.[18] The allegation that the results of the
autopsy are unworthy of credence was based on a book that was neither marked
for identification nor formally offered in evidence during the hearing of the
case. Thus, the trial court as well as
the appellate court correctly disregarded them.
The prosecution was not even given the opportunity to object as the book
or a portion thereof was never offered in evidence.[19]
A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to
base their findings of fact and judgment only – and strictly – upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
To rule otherwise would deprive the opposing party of his chance to
examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty
reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below.[20] Any evidence which a party desires to submit
to the courts must be offered formally because a judge must base his findings strictly
on the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.[21]
We are
not impressed with petitioner’s argument that he should be held liable only for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill
Lucrecio. When death resulted, even if
there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries,
since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.[22] Accordingly, Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
Art.
4. Criminal liability – Criminal
liability shall be incurred:
1. By
any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
x x x x
Petitioner committed an unlawful
act by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much older than him, and
even if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must be held
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted
provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused.[23]
Considering the foregoing discussion, we find that both the trial court
and the appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence presented before
them. Both courts did not overlook facts
and circumstances that would warrant a reevaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, there is no reason to digress
from the settled legal principle that the appellate court will generally not
disturb the assessment of the trial court on factual matters considering that
the latter as a trier of facts, is in a better position to appreciate the same.
Further,
it is settled that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded greatest
respect by the appellate court absent any abuse of discretion.[24] There being no abuse of discretion in this
case, we affirm the factual findings of the trial court.
Penalty and Damages
The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of
the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal the range of which is from 12
years and one day to 20 years. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision
mayor the range of which is from six years and one day to 12 years. In this case, we find that the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed,
attended the commission of the crime.
Thus, the appellate court correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of
six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and one day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As regards
the amount of damages, civil indemnity must also be awarded to the heirs of
Lucrecio without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was committed
resulting in the death of the victim and that petitioner was responsible
therefor.[25] Accordingly, we award
the sum of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[26]
The award
of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order.[27] The prosecution satisfactorily proved that
the victim was earning an annual income of P14,000.00 from the harvest of
pineapples. Besides, the defense no
longer impugned this award of the trial court.
However,
the other awards of damages must be modified.
It is error for the trial court and the appellate court to award actual
damages of P30,000.00 for the expenses incurred for the death of the
victim. We perused the records and did
not find evidence to support the plea for actual damages. The expenses incurred in connection with the
death, wake and burial of Lucrecio cannot be sustained without any tangible
document to support such claim. While
expenses were incurred in connection with the death of Lucrecio, actual damages
cannot be awarded as they are not supported by receipts.[28]
In lieu of
actual damages, the heirs of the victim can still be awarded temperate
damages. When pecuniary loss has been
suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
certainty, temperate damages may be recovered.
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the
case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is
convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[29] In this regard, the amount of P25,000.00 is
in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[30]
Moral
damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the
victim and that the accused was responsible therefor.[31] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages
conforms to existing jurisprudence.[32]
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 25069 finding petitioner Roño Seguritan y Jara guilty of
homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of six years and one day of
prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as
maximum, and to pay the heirs of Lucrecio Seguritan the amounts of P50,000.00
as moral damages and P135,331.00 as loss
of earning capacity is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION that petitioner is further ordered to pay P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO
ORDERED.
