FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 231827, January 20, 2020
EDGARDO PATUNGAN, JR. Y LAGUNDI, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision1 dated January 17, 2017 and the Resolution2 dated April 4, 2017 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38444.
In an Information3 dated March 24, 2008 filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Carig, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, petitioner was charged with the crime of homicide, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about OCTOBER 13, 2007 in the Municipality of Solana, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused EDGARDO PATUNGAN, JR. Y LAGUNDI armed with a pointed knife, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab VENANCIO L. FURIGAY, thereby inflicting upon him stab wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death. 4Upon arraignment, petitioner, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty5 to the charge. Pre-trial conference and trial thereafter ensued.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDGARDO PATUNGAN, JR. y Lagundi GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, appreciating in his [favor] the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law hereby sentences him to suffer a prison term of Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor[,] as minimum[,] to Twelve (12) years of prision mayor[,] as maximum[,] and to pay the heirs of the deceased Venancio Furigay the following amounts: P75,000.00, mandatory dal11ages death; P50,000.00 moral damages, P70,000[.]00 as nominal damages; and P1,512,000.00 as unearned salaries.
The accused should also suffer the accessory penalty provided for in Art. 42 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.29
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated 28 January 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 5 in Criminal Case No. 12128, finding accused-appellant Edgardo Patungan, Jr. y Lagundi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and requiring him to pay the heirs of the victim Venancio Furigay the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of nominal damages in the amount of Php70,000.00 and unearned salaries in the amount of Phpl,512,000.00 are hereby DELETED; he should suffer the accessory penalties provided for in Articles 41 and 42 of the Revised Penal Code; and accused-appellant is hereby ORDERED, as follows:The CA found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established the elements of the crime of homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Venancio's daughters, who were with him on his way home, both categorically and positively identified petitioner, their neighbor, as the one who stabbed their father on the stomach; that although the incident happened at night, there were streetlights near the locus criminis; and that with the sisters' eyewitness account of their father's death, it would not matter whether or not the testimony of PO3 Bago as to the alleged ante-mortem statement is hearsay.
1. to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum;
2. to pay the heirs of the victim Venancio Furigay civil indemnity in the decreased amount of Php50,000.00, and temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00; and
3. to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid; and
SO ORDERED.30
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF DOCTOR CHUA.Anent the first issue, petitioner claims that he objected to the presentation of the testimony of Dr. Chua to interpret the death certificate, since she was not the one who prepared the same and treated the victim; that hence, there was no evidence to prove the cause of the victim's death because the doctor who treated him did not testify in court.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE STATE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE ASSAILANT.31
ART. 410. The books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.A death certificate is a public document.32 As a public document, it is admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness.33 Thus, even if Dr. Beran, the one who issued the death certificate, did not testify in court as he had already died, the death certificate is admissible to prove the cause of Venancio's death. Moreover, the death certificate also deserves to be given evidentiary weight because it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.34 Notably, petitioner had not presented any evidence to contradict the entries in the said death certificate which showed the cause of Venancio 's death, which is stab wound.
Q. After leaving the place, what happened next?
A. Edgardo Patungan stabbed my father, sir.
Q. Did you see him personally stab your father?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What part of the body of your father was stabbed by the accused?
MR. INTERPRETER.
The witness is pointing to the left side of her stomach.
PROS. DALIUAG:
Q. After your father was stabbed, what happened to him?
A. He fell to the ground.
Q. When he fell to the ground, what happened next?
A. My sister went to his rescue, bu[t] Erwin Patungan boxed my father and when I tried to pacify Erwin, he slapped me.
Q. How many times did Erwin slap you?
A. Once only, sir.
Q. After that, what happened next?
A. I screamed for help and my Uncle Lauro went to our rescue.37
Q. After that what happened next?
A. While we were with our father along the road going home suddenly Edgar Patungan was running, sir.
Q. After that what happened?
A. He suddenly stabbed our father, sir.
Q. What part of the body of your father was stabbed?
THE INTERPRETER:
The witness is pointing to her stomach.
PROS. DALIUAG:
Q. After stabbing your father what happened next?
A. He ran towards their house while our father was already lying and then his brother Erwin ran towards the person of our father and boxed the head of our father, sir.
Q. How did you know that it was the accused who stabbed your father?
A. Because I know him very much , sir.
THE COURT.
Q. How far were you from the accused when the accused stabbed your father?
A. He was beside holding his back , sir.
Q. After Erwin Patungan boxed your father, what happened next?
A. He went near my sister and slapped my sister, sir.
Q. How many times the accused stabbed your father?
A . Once, sir. 38
Thus, there were two streetlights near the area where the stabbing incident happened which provided sufficient visibility for Kristine and Gladys to identify petitioner even when the incident happened at night and coupled with the fact that petitioner is known to them for being their neighbor. In several cases, we have found that illumination from a lamp post is sufficient for purposes of identification.43
Q. Now, how far was the street light from the so[-]called incident?
A. It is located in front of the house, sir.
Q. How many meters from where you were seated? Will you please point.
A. Around 2 or 1 meter, sir.
THE INTERPRETER
The witness is pointing to a distance from the place where she was seated which is approximately 2 meters, your Honor.
Q. What kind of light is that to illuminate the place of the incident?
A. A street light, sir.
Q. How far is the street light from the Viring's Store? Let us assume you are at the Viring's Store, How far is the street light from the place where you were seated?
PROS. DALIUAG:
It is immaterial, your Honor.
ATTY. LASAM:
Very material, your Honor.
THE COURT
Q. How far were you from the Viring's Store when your father was stabbed?
A. Approximately 2 meters, sir.
THE COURT.
So[,] I will allow the question.
ATTY. LASAM:
Q. How far is the street light from Viring's Store from where you were seated?
A. Maybe 3 meters away, sir.
Q. From Viring's store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. 3 meters away from Viring's Store. So[,] if that is true then you stated that when your father was allegedly stabbed you were two meters only from Viring's store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So[,] in short when you stated that it is two meters away and the street light was also three meters away from Viring's store there is no possibility for you [to] identify the accused and his companion because that street light according to you is in front of Viring's store and not the residence of the accused?
A. There were two street lights, sir one is located at the other house.
Q. Why did you not tell us a while ago that there were two and you mentioned only one?
A. That is the reason why I was thinking which of the two street lights you
are referring to, sir.
Q. So[,] in short there are two street lights.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the first street light is 3 meters away from Viring's store or fronting
Viring's store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how far is the next street light?
A. It is located adjacent to Viring's store, sir.
Q. So[,] in front of Viring's store there are two adjacent street lights?
A. One is located beside the Viring's store and the other one is located fronting the house of auntie Rina, sir. 42
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, per Raffle dated November 25, 2019.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring; rollo, pp. 46-67.
2Id. at 40-41.
3 Records, pp. 1-2; Docketed as Criminal Case No. 12128.
4Id. at 1.
5Id. at 124.
6 TSN, March 21,2012, p. 5; TSN, July 30, 2012, p. 5
7 Id.; Id.
8 Id. at 19; Id. at 5.
9 Id. at 7; Id. at 6.
10 Id. at 7.
11 Id. at 8-9.
12 Id. at 21.
13 Id. at 9; Id. at 6.
14 Id.; Id. at 7.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 9-10.
17 TSN, October 7, 2010, pp. 8-11.
18 Id. at 12.
19 TSN, March 28, 2011, pp. 9-11.
20 TSN, November 26, 2012, p. 6.
21 TSN, October 9, 2014, p. 5.
22 Id. at 6.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 8.
25 Id. at 9.
26 TSN, March 11, 2014, p. 9.
27 TSN, February 17,2015, p. 7.
28 Per Judge Jezarene C. Aquino; rollo, pp. 68-76.
29 Id. at 76.
30 Id. at 63-64.
31 Id. at 19.
32 See People v. Silvestre, 314 Phil. 397,410 (1995).
33Iwasawa v. Gangan, et al., 717 Phil. 825, 830 (2013).
34 Id.
35Madali, et al. v. People, 612 Phil. 582, 595 (2009), citing People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24
(2004).
36 Id., citing People v. Castillo, 474 Phil. 44, 57-58 (2004).
37 TSN, March 21, 2012, p. 9.
38 TSN, July 30, 2012
39 Id. at 7.
40Marturillas v. People, 521 Phil. 404, 433 (2006), citing People v. Dela Cruz, 446 Phil. 549,570 (2003); People v. Gallego, 392 Phil. 552, 570 (2000).
41 Gerasta v. People, 595 Phil. 1087, 1101 (2008).