Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81114:gr-188603-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:17:09+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.RAMIL RARUGAL alias "AMAY BISAYA," Accused-Appellant.
Before this Court is the appeal of the June 30, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02413,2 which affirmed with modification the May 29, 2006 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Quezon City in Crim. Case No. -Q-99-82409, entitled People of the Philippines v. Ramil Rarugal that found appellant Ramil Rarugal alias "Amay Bisaya" guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
Appellant was only arrested sometime in August 2001. During his arraignment on August 27, 2001, appellant pleaded not guilty.5 Trial on the merits ensued.
Based on the testimonies of witnesses presented by the prosecution, the RTC found that on the night of October 19, 1998 at around 9:45 p.m., while victim Arnel Florendo (Florendo) was cycling along Sampaguita Street, Barangay Capari, Novaliches, Quezon City, appellant, with the use of a long double-bladed weapon, stabbed Florendo; thus, forcibly depriving him of his bicycle. Immediately thereafter, appellant hurriedly fled the scene. This incident was witnessed by Roberto Sit-Jar, who positively identified appellant in court.
Florendo arrived home bleeding. He was quickly attended to by his siblings, including his brother Renato. When Renato recounted the events of that night to the court, he testified that Florendo told him and his other relatives that it was appellant who had stabbed him. They then took Florendo to Tordesillas Hospital but had to transfer him to Quezon City General Hospital, due to the unavailability of blood. It was there that Florendo died6 on October 26, 1998 with the family spending about P2,896.007 for his hospitalization and P25,000.008 for his funeral.
sutured, healing, 3.0 cms, located on left chest, 15.0 cms. from the anterior median line directed backwards and medially involving the skin and underlying tissues passing between the 6th and 7th left ribs, entering the thoracic cavity and severed the lower lobe of the left lung with a depth of 7-8 cms.
After evaluation, the Court finds that the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Witness Sit-Jar positively identified appellant as the assailant of Florendo. In view of the positive identification made by Sit-Jar, the denial and alibi made by [appellant] has no leg to stand on. Under prevailing jurisprudence alibis and denials are worthless in light of positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify.
Moreover, Florendo did not immediately die after he was stabbed by the appellant. Florendo, apparently conscious that he could die of his wound, identified his assailant as the appellant Ramil Rarugal. Under the rules, statements made by a person under the consciousness of an impending death is admissible as evidence of the circumstances of his death. The positive identification made by the victim before he died, under the consciousness of an impending death is a strong evidence indicating the liability of herein appellant.
As shown by the evidence, the killing of Arnel Florendo was sudden indicating treachery and the appellant being then armed with a knife, the killing was done with abuse of superior strength. These circumstances qualify the crime to murder, all of the elements of the offense being present.
Both the appellee17 and the appellant18 waived the filing of supplemental briefs and adopted the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals.
We affirm the June 30, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification respecting the award of damages.
The records are devoid of any indication that it was physically impossible for appellant to have been in the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Appellants bare alibi that he was working as a farm administrator in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan and was allegedly staying there at the time of the commission of the crime does not suffice to prove the alleged physical impossibility that he committed the crime charged, moreso in the face of positive identification by the witness, who was not motivated by any improper motive to falsely testify against him.
Second, the victim was still alive after the stabbing incident. He had time to reach his house and confide in his brother, witness Renato, that it was appellant who had stabbed him.
SEC. 37. Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from the stabbing incident and after receiving adequate care and treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his death, the punctures in his lungs, was a consequence of appellants stabbing him in the chest.
Anent the finding of treachery by the RTC, we agree that appellants act of suddenly stabbing Florendo while he was innocently cycling along Sampaguita Street, Barangay Capari, Novaliches, Quezon City constituted the qualifying circumstance of treachery. As we previously ruled, treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.28 Here, appellant surprised Florendo when he suddenly and swiftly attacked and stabbed him in the chest. The swift turn of events left Florendo defenseless to protect himself, allowing appellant to commit the crime without risk to his own person. Thus, we sustain the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime.
However, to conform to existing jurisprudence, the Court must modify the amount of indemnity for death and exemplary damages awarded by the courts a quo.
We, however, increase the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.0033 and the award for mandatory civil indemnity to P75,000.0034 to conform to recent jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The June 30, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02413 is AFFIRMED. Appellant RAMIL RARUGAL alias "Amay Bisaya" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of Arnel M. Florendo the amounts of P27,896.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
1 Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam with Associate Justices Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring.
2 Entitled People of the Philippines v. Ramil Rarugal alias "Amay Bisaya."
3 CA rollo, pp. 14-22; penned by Judge Teodoro A.Bay.
4 Records, p. 1; signed by Edgardo T. Paragua, Assistant City Prosecutor.
10 TSN, December 6, 2004.
11 CA rollo, pp. 19-22.
19 Ilisan v. People, G.R. No. 179487, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 658, 663.
20 263 Phil. 585, 591 (1990).
21 People v. Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 149, 156.
23 G.R. No. 173612, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 451, 465-466.
24 G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 770, 778.
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
26 People v. Santos, 337 Phil. 334, 349 (1997).
27 CA rollo, pp. 19-20.
28 People v. Laurio, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012.
29 People v. Escleto, supra note 21 at 159-160.
30 People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 726, 758.
32 People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501, 517.
33 People v. Escleto, supra note 21 at 160.
34 People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 489, 520.
35 People v. Concillado, G.R. No. 181204, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 363, 391; People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 150, 162.
36 People v. Escleto, supra note 21 at 160.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.