G.R. No. 149538 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. VINCENT HENRY CHUA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Vincent Henry Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of 17 YEARS, 4 MONTHS and 1 DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL , as minimum, to RECLUSION PERPETUA , as maximum, with full credit of his preventive imprisonment. As to the civil liability, the accused will indemnify the family of the victim as follows: Actual damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ( P 50,000.00); Moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ( P 50,000.00); Exemplary damages under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code of an appropriate amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS ( P 20,000.00); and Attorneys fees in the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS ( P 15,000.00). [11] On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming the judgment of the trial court, but applied Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua . The appellate court considered the minority of the appellant merely as a generic mitigating circumstance, and concluded that such minority could not be considered a generic and a privileged mitigating circumstance at the same time. The appellate court certified the case to this Court for review, conformably to Rule 124, Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Present Appeal The appellant did not file any supplemental brief with this Court; neither did the appellee. In his brief with the Court of Appeals, the appellant averred as follows: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A COVER-UP DONE BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES OF MAGALANG, PAMPANGA, AS TO THE REAL IDENTITIES OF THE CULPRITS. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION AS TO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT IS REPLETE WITH IMPROBABILITIES AND CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION EYEWITNESSES ARE ACTUATED WITH BAD MOTIVE IN IMPLICATING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME AND IN NOT DISCREDITING THE EYEWITNESSES OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS RODOLFO LA MADRID. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. VI THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. VII THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PAY P 50,000.00 AS ACTUAL DAMAGES, P 50,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES, P 20,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND P 15,000.00 AS ATTORNEYS FEES. [12] The appellant asserts that the testimonies of Manabat and Sia are incredible. He contends that he was only seventeen years old when the crime was committed and, as such, he could not have committed the crime alone. He insists that there must have been others who assisted him in electrocuting the victim and in digging a knee-deep hole in which the victim was buried. He laments that the trial court even ignore