G.R. No. 140618 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BERNARDO SARA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby sentences the accused BERNARDO SARA to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to Twenty Five (25) years, Nine (9) months and Eleven (11) days to Reclusion Perpetua as maximum; Directing said accused to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Paterno Morcillo the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos; To pay attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00; Coffin and burial and actual expenses in the amount of P11,000.00; And costs. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, appellant assailed the verdict of the trial court on four (4) grounds: [29] (a) the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the patently incredible, fabricated, unreliable, inconsistent if not contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (b) the trial court erred in not disregarding the results of the paraffin test conducted on the person of the accused-appellant as the same was not conclusive; (c) the trial court erred in not giving evidentiary and exculpatory weight to the evidence adduced by the defenses; and (d) the trial court manifestly erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that the guilt of accused- appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no reversible error in the factual findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of September 8, 1995, [30] affirmed the conviction of appellant but modified the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua . The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads, quoted verbatim : [31] WHEREFORE , the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with modifications as to penalty and civil indemnity . Accused-appellant Bernardo Sara is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . The civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of deceased Paterno Morcillo is hereby increased to P50,000.00. (Emphasis, underscoring and italics in the original) In an August 30, 1999 Resolution, [32] the appellate court certified the case to this Court for review in accordance with Section 13, Rule 124, par. 2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. This Court afforded appellant the opportunity to file an additional brief [33] in which he assigns the following errors: [34] I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISCARDING THE PATENTLY INCONSISTENT, NAY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ANENT THE SUBJECT INCIDENT WHICH WERE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE TRIAL COURT. II. GRANTING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, NONETHELESS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER SINCE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY IS WANTING, HENCE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON HIM MUST BE ACCORDINGLY REDUCED. The resolution of the case hinges on (1) whether the evidence for the prosecution established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) if in the affirmative, whether the proper penalty was correctly modifie