G.R. No. 173282 - JOSE INGAL y SANTOS, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Jose Ingal y Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum. Since accused Jose Ingal is detained, in the service of his sentence, he shall be credited the full period of his temporary detention. It is likewise ordered that the accused be transmitted to the National Bureau of Prison thru the Philippine National Police (PNP) pursuant to the Supreme Court Resolution En Banc laid down in the case of People vs. Ricardo C. Carlos (GR-92860, October 15, 1991) cited in the case of People vs. Crescencia C. Reyes, En Banc, GR-101127-31, August 7, 1992. [29] The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Aida Bona and Rosalinda Tan vis-à-vis petitioners defenses of denial and alibi. Mrs. Bona, the owner of the carinderia where the stabbing happened, informed the authorities that petitioner was the one who stabbed Rolando Domingo and said that she would not give a written statement until and unless the suspect had been apprehended. Seven years later, after the arrest of the petitioner, Mmes. Bona and Tan finally gave their sworn statements pointing to petitioner as the assailant. The court a quo said that the weapon used ( tres cantos ) and the manner in which the victim was stabbed (four times with two penetrating stab wounds on the chest) clearly indicated the intention of petitioner to kill the victim. The victim was unarmed and was suddenly stabbed several times by the petitioner. On 11 February 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking that the penalty imposed on petitioner be modified to reclusion perpetua as prescribed by law. [30] On 12 February 1999, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. [31] In an Order [32] dated 9 March 1999, the trial court, finding the motion to be meritorious, modified its decision and sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . Consequently, it forwarded the records of the case to this Court. Pursuant, however, to our ruling in People v. Mateo , [33] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. On 31 August 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court, the decretal portion reading: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed December 9, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED in toto. This case is hereby transmitted to the Honorable Supreme Court for final disposition. [34] In our Resolution [35] dated 19 June 2006, the parties were required to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. The Office of th