G.R. No. 124914 - JESUS UGADDAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE as charged in the Information, penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The prescribed penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal which is from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty years. Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty one (1) degree lower than the imposable penalty which is Prision Mayor in its full extent, the range of which is from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Appreciating no mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused, the accused is accordingly sentenced from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of PRISION CORRECTIONAL,, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL as maximum; to pay the Heirs of the victim the sum of P60,000.00 as full settlement of the civil damages as stipulated upon on March 10, 1992, and contained in an Order of the Court dated March 10, 1992; and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED [2] Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision with slight modification, the pertinent portion of its ruling states: The Court a quo imposed on the Appellant an intermediate penalty of from Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Correctional, as Minimum to Fourteen (14) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General, the minimum of the penalty imposed should be dominated as Prision Mayor not Prision Correctional. Except as hereinabove modified, the assailed Decision is in accord with the evidence on record and the law. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision if AFFIRMED except as hereinabove modified. With costs against the Appellant. [3] Failing to get an acquittal from his appeal, petitioner comes to this court via Rule 45 and imputes error to the appellate court in affirming the court a quo's findings of fact and in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses. In particular, petitioner contends (a) that he is innocent of the charge insisting for his defense that the victim grabbed the formers service pistol. Both of them were allegedly grappling for possession of the gun when suddenly two shots were heard. Petitioner admits that one of the shots was fired from his gun while it was pointed upwards due to the struggle [4] but alleges that the other shot was fired from outside the canteens window. It was the latter shot according to petitioner, that hit the victim on the neck. He likewise assails the (b) credibility of the prosecution witness in that the proffered dying declaration of the victim as testified to by said witness was only fabricated by the latter. [5] The antecedents as narrated by respondent court, essentially jibing with the trial courts finding and ably supported by the evidence on record, are as follows: [6] On January 27, 1991, at