Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53066:gr-184958-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:35:57+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY C. DOMINGO and GERRY DOMINGO, Accused-Appellants.
This is an appeal by Anthony C. Domingo from the January 31, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00325. The CA affirmed the April 23, 2001 judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2 in Kalibo, Aklan, which found accused-appellant Anthony Domingo guilty of murder with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 5517. Accused-appellant Gerry Domingo has neither been arrested nor arraigned.
1. The body of the deceased is in a state of rigor mortis. The body is dressed in a hospital gown with the name "RAFAEL S. TUMBOKON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL" printed in front. The head has a bandage wrapped around the head. The right forearm has a small piece of plaster at the medial side at the level of the wrist.
2. Gunshot wound of entrance, 1 cm. in diameter and 17 cms. Deep, located at the posterior right parietal region of the head, directed anteriorly and to the left.
3. 1 pellet, measuring 1 cm. in diameter, flatted and with irregular rough edges, was found at the left frontal region of the brain.
as per Postmortem Examination Report issued by Dr. Gliceria A. Sucgang, Rural Health Physician, Altavas, Aklan, hereto attached as Annex "A" and forming an integral part of this Information, which gunshot wounds directly caused the death of said ROSEMELYN DE PEDRO, as per Certificate of Death issued by the same physician, likewise attached hereto as Annex "B".
4. Abdomen, hypogastric area left inferolateral portion with metallic foreign body abdominal wall.
as per Medico-Legal report on Physical Injuries issued by Dr. Victor A. Santamaria, Medical Officer IV of the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, hereto attached as Annex "G" and forming an integral part of this Information; the accused having thus performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony of Murder but did not produce the same for causes other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the victim which prevented her death.
That as a result of the criminal acts of the accused, the heirs of the victim Rosemelyn De Pedro and private offended party Vivian Domingo suffered actual and compensatory damages in the amount of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 75,000.00).
In the evening, Alfredo was engaged in a drinking session with his friends in a hut located in Barangay Cabugao, Altavas, Aklan. Gerry allegedly passed by the hut on his way to the house of his parent-in-law. Gerry refused the group's invitation to join the drinking session. Soon, Gerry's brother, Anthony, arrived at the hut. Alfredo accompanied Anthony to the former's house across the river of Dalipdip. Anthony wanted to talk to Alfredo's wife regarding the medical check-up of Anthony's wife in Manila who was due to arrive the following day. Since Anthony's children fell asleep while watching television, the Dalida spouses invited Anthony to pass the night in their house. Anthony and his children slept in the middle of the house which had no partition. Anthony alleged that he spent the entire night at the Dalida's.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused ANTHONY C. DOMINGO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of MURDER WITH FRUSTRATED MURDER, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of death.
c. P10,805.00 as actual damages supported with receipts only.
Further, the Court hereby orders that the cases against GERRY C. DOMINGO be ARCHIVED until his arrest.
With COSTS against Anthony C. Domingo.
In the appellant's brief, 14 Anthony reiterated his alibi. He also pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. For one, Nida claimed that the window was open at the time of the shooting which contradicts Vivian's testimony that the window was closed. Also, according to Anthony, the inaction of Gina de Pedro, Nida's niece, during the incident was contrary to human nature. Gina's allegation that there was only one shot also contradicts the prosecution's evidence showing four gunshot wounds on Vivian, two deformed pellets, and one plastic cap recovered from the crime scene. He also contended that since Leopoldo was not among the first to respond to Nida's cries for help, he could not have been at the crime scene and witnessed the attack. Lastly, Anthony attributed ill motive to the prosecution witnesses since they charged him of killing Tenorio, Nida's brother.
The CA found no merit in Anthony's contentions. In reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses, the appellate court found no inconsistencies that would question their credibility. For one, the window was initially closed as testified to by Nida, but she later opened it when Rosemelyn did not follow her order. The CA also held that Gina's inaction when the shot was fired was also understandable since she was in shock. Gina's testimony that there was only one fire does not contradict the physical evidence, since a single bullet of a shotgun can fire several pellets that can cause multiple injuries. As to whether Leopoldo de Pedro was at the crime scene, the CA found that Leopoldo stayed behind a pile of soil for three more minutes after the attack for fear that accused-appellants might see him. The fact that he was not among the first to arrive at Nida's side does not mean that he was not at the crime scene or that he did not witness the attack. The CA also dismissed Anthony's alibi and imputation of ill motive on the prosecution witnesses.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S ALLEGED EYEWITNESSES.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. It is an established rule that findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case.16 In this case, we do not see any reason to depart from this rule.
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified Anthony as the culprit. Nida, Leopoldo, and Gina knew Anthony before the incident and ably recognized him at the time of the shooting. Anthony claims, however, that Nida and Gina could not have seen the attacker since the window was closed as testified by Vivian. Leopoldo could not have also seen the attacker since he was not the first to arrive at Nida's house.
A: I was watching T.V.
A: My children and some of my nephews and nieces.
A: I asked Rosemelyn to switch on the light outside.
A: She did not listen because she continued watching T.V.
A: I was the one [who] stood up to switch on the light and to open the window.
A: Immediately after I opened the window, I saw them and thereafter I heard a gunfire.
A: Three (3) minutes, more or less.
Anthony claims that Nida Domingo's initial suspect was Ronnie Domingo. He says that Nida went to the house of Gloria Marcelino after the incident to look for Ronnie. The Solicitor General points out, however, that at the time, Nida herself needed medical treatment for her injuries. Nida's daughter, Vivian, was also wounded and had to be rushed to the hospital. In rebuttal, Nida denied that she ever told Gloria that Ronnie shot Vivian and Rosemelyn. Considering these, we find that Anthony's claim is not worthy of belief.
The Court cannot find any well-grounded basis that will indicate that these eyewitnesses were merely actuated by any improper motive.
It is utterly preposterous for these relatives of the victims who are crying for justice to merely pretend to have seen the subject heinous event and then concoct a story that will allow the real culprits to remain free just to be able to callously implicate the innocent persons that they hate.
The Solicitor General also notes that at the time of the incident, there was already a criminal case against Anthony for the death of Tenorio de Pedro; hence, there was no need for the relatives to prosecute him anew if only to get even with him.27 More significantly, settled is the rule that motive is not essential to conviction when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Motive is not essential when there are reliable eyewitnesses who fully identified the accused as the perpetrator of the offense,28 as in the case at bar.
With regard to damages, we raise the award of civil indemnity from PhP 50,000 to PhP 75,000; and moral damages from PhP 50,000 to PhP 75,000 for the death of Rosemelyn de Pedro, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. We affirm the trial court's award of PhP 10,805 as actual damages based on the supporting receipts. The trial court held that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling were present, but failed to award any exemplary damages. While the appellate court was correct in adding exemplary damages, we deem it proper to raise the award from PhP 25,000 to PhP 30,000. Since the death penalty was proscribed by law, the sentence of reclusion perpetua was also correct.
WHEREFORE, the CA Decision dated January 31, 2007 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00325 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Anthony C. Domingo is ordered to indemnify the victim's heirs with PhP 75,000 civil indemnity, PhP 75,000 moral damages, and PhP 30,000 exemplary damages. No costs.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-24. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Romeo F. Barza.
2 CA rollo, pp. 19-39. Penned by Judge Tomas R. Romaquin.
7 CA rollo, p. 27.
9 CA rollo, p. 57.
13 People v. Mateo, G.R. NOS. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640; Resolution dated September 14, 2004.
14 CA rollo, pp. 50-71.
16 People v. ViÃ±as, Sr., G.R. NOS. 112070-71, June 29, 1995, 245 SCRA 448, 453; People v. Pija, G.R. No. 97285, June 16, 1995, 245 SCRA 80, 84.
17 Rollo, p. 14; TSN, June 20, 2000, pp. 3-4.
18 G.R. NOS. 137274-75, October 18, 2002, 391 SCRA 225, 243-244 (citations omitted).
19 Rollo, p. 13; TSN, June 20, 2000, p. 8.
20 Id. at 15; TSN, May 24, 2000, p. 11.
21 People v. Roncal, G.R. No. 94795, May 6, 1997, 272 SCRA 242.
22 See People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 116748, June 2, 1997, 273 SCRA 22.
23 People v. Abundo, G.R. No. 138233, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 577.
24 People v. Botona, G.R. No. 115693, March 17, 1999, 304 SCRA 712, 736.
25 People v. Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, March 20, 2007, 518 SCRA 602, 610-611.
26 CA rollo, p. 88.
28 People v. Devaras, No. L - 48009, February 3, 1992, 205 SCRA 676.

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