G.R. No. 181493 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused, RICARDO NOTARION, guilty of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide falling under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 4111 and RA 7659 and accordingly sentences him to suffer the SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH. Accused is ordered to pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as civil indemnity; FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages and exemplary damages of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS to the heirs of the victim. [19] Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 24 August 2007, the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the RTC Decision. It held that the death penalty imposed by the RTC on appellant should be reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 2(a) of Republic Act No. 9346 with appellant not eligible for parole under the said law. It also ruled that although the heirs of AAA were not entitled to actual damages because they did not present proof thereof, such as receipts for funeral and burial expenses, they were, nonetheless, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, since it was reasonable to expect that the heirs of AAA incurred funeral and burial expenses. Further, it increased the amount of moral damages to P75,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00. [20] Thus: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed Decision dated January 23, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, Branch 49 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that (a) the death penalty imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua and (b) the judgment on the civil liability is modified by ordering the accused-appellant to pay the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of the victim. [21] Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 11 September 2007. [22] Before us, appellant assigned the following errors: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [23] Apropos the first issue, appellant maintains that his testimony pointing to Monsanto as the one who raped and killed AAA is more credible than the testimony of Cabague. [24] In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the