G.R. No. 201449 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WELVIN DIU Y KOTSESA, AND DENNIS DAYAON Y TUPIT,[1] ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused WELVIN DIU y KOTSESA and DENNIS DAYAON y TUPIT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide defined in Article 293 and penalized in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ; to jointly and severally pay the heirs of victim Nely P. Salvador the amount of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; to jointly and severally pay the heirs of victim Nely P. Salvador and complainant [Perlie] P. Salvador the amount of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages; to pay complainant [Perlie] P. Salvador the amount of One thousand eight hundred pesos (P1,800.00) for actual damages; and to pay the costs of suit in the amount of Three hundred pesos (P300.00). [35] In an Order [36] dated February 6, 2009, the RTC gave due course to accused-appellants Notice of Appeal and ordered the transmittal of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on March 11, 2011, affirming the judgment of conviction against accused-appellants. However, the appellate court did not appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime because it was not alleged in the Information. It also modified the amounts of damages awarded. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals judgment reads: WHEREFORE , the appealed Decision dated December 23, 2008 finding accused-appellants guilty of Robbery with Homicide is affirmed, subject to the modification that accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of Nely Salvador moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and temperate damages of P25,000.00. Accused-appellants are also ordered to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 to [Perlie] Salvador. The award of exemplary damages to [Perlie] Salvador and the heirs of Nely Salvador is increased to P30,000.00 each. The Decision is affirmed in all other respects. [37] Insisting on their innocence, accused-appellants appealed before this Court. Since both parties had manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs, [38] the Court considers the arguments the parties previously raised in their briefs before the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellants raised a lone assignment of error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE THE SAME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [39] Accused-appellants contend that the RTC heavily relied on Perlies testimony, the certainty and veracity of which on material points are highly questionable. Accused-appellants called attention to the following: (1) the crime happened late at night, so it was very dark, and Perlie could not have seen clearly the culprits faces; (2) Perlie had not seen accused-appellants before so she could not have recognized them instantly; (3) it would have been impossible for Perlie to identify the exact knife used in Nelys stabbing