People v. Barut
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 24, 1995, SPO4 Vicente Ucag was returning home when his companions' vehicle was stopped by PNCC guards Conrado Ancheta and Emeritu C. Barut for allegedly having no headlights. Ucag and a co-passenger alighted to inquire. An argument ensued when Ucag requested the return of the driver's license, which Ancheta had confiscated and used to issue a traffic violation ticket. Ucag decided to leave, but Ancheta dared him to settle the issue. Ancheta then drew a firearm and shot Ucag on the thighs. Ucag fired back, hitting Ancheta. Vincent Ucag, SPO4 Ucag's son, rushed to his father's aid and was shot by Barut in the chest. Vincent died during surgery, while SPO4 Ucag was treated for his injuries. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 276, Muntinlupa City, found petitioner Emeritu C. Barut guilty of homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the heirs of Vincent Ucag. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. The Petition: Barut sought review of his conviction, arguing that the CA misapprehended facts favorable to him and that the finding on the consistency of state witnesses' testimonies was a sweeping conclusion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals misapprehended, overlooked, or neglected facts favorable to the petitioner, and whether the finding on the supposed consistency of the testimonies of the State's witnesses constituted a sweeping conclusion. Whether the indeterminate sentence was correctly imposed. Whether the award of damages was correctly imposed.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction for homicide but modified the indeterminate sentence and the award of civil liability. The indeterminate sentence was corrected to 10 years of prision mayor, as the minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as the maximum. The civil indemnity for death was fixed at ₱75,000.00, moral damages at ₱75,000.00, and temperate damages at ₱25,000.00, with a six percent (6%) interest per annum on each item from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged misapprehension of facts and sweeping conclusion on witness testimonies: The Court reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a factual issue that appellate courts generally do not disturb. The RTC's factual findings, affirmed by the CA, were accorded great respect due to the trial judge's direct observation of the witnesses. The Court noted that the testimonies of Villas and Fabiano clearly and consistently identified Barut as the shooter, and Barut's bare denial did not prevail over their positive identification. The Court also pointed out that the extra-judicial statement of Villas, which Barut relied upon, was not formally offered as evidence and thus could not be considered by the RTC. Even if it were considered, the CA found that contradictions between an extra-judicial statement and court testimony should be resolved in favor of the latter. The RTC's reasoning that neither SPO4 Ucag nor Ancheta could have shot Vincent was also found to be sound, considering their respective physical conditions and the caliber of the slug recovered. On the indeterminate sentence: The Court corrected the indeterminate sentence imposed by the lower courts. It clarified that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence should come from the medium period of reclusion temporal (14 years, eight months, and one day to 17 years and four months) when no aggravating circumstances are present, not the maximum period. Therefore, the maximum was modified to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal. On the award of civil liability: The Court found that the lower courts erred in awarding a lump sum of ₱250,000.00 without specifying the breakdown for actual damages, moral damages, and civil indemnity for death. The Court explained that actual damages require proof of pecuniary loss, moral damages compensate for spiritual and emotional suffering, and death indemnity compensates for the loss of life. It clarified that death indemnity and moral damages are granted in homicide cases even without specific pleading or proof, as the law presumes these losses. The Court fixed the death indemnity and moral damages at ₱75,000.00 each, considering homicide as a gross offense. Since actual damages were not substantiated, the Court awarded temperate damages of ₱25,000.00, as provided by Article 2224 of the Civil Code, when pecuniary loss cannot be proved with certainty. Finally, the Court applied a six percent (6%) interest per annum on all awarded damages from the finality of the judgment until fully paid, in line with recent jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for homicide, modifying the indeterminate sentence and the award of damages, emphasizing that only evidence formally offered can be considered and that credibility of witnesses is a factual issue not ordinarily disturbed on appeal.