G.R. No. 182750 - RODEL URBANO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused of the crime of HOMICIDE as defined and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, this Court in the absence of any modifying circumstances, hereby sentences said accused to suffer the indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and to indemnify the legal heirs of the victim in the amount of PHP50,000.00, plus cost of the suit. The period of preventive imprisonment suffered by the accused shall be credited in full in the service of his sentence in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. [4] Therefrom, petitioner appealed to the CA, his recourse docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 25371. The Ruling of the CA On January 25, 2008, the CA rendered a decision, affirming the conviction of petitioner, but awarding moral damages to the heirs of Tomelden, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal of the accused-appellant is DISMISSED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that an award of P50,000.00 moral damages is GRANTED. Remand of the records should immediately follow finality for the consequent execution of the decision. [5] The appellate court held that the commission by petitioner of the crime of homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 [6] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), had been proved beyond moral certainty of doubt, pointing to the lucky punch as the proximate cause of Tomelden's hospitalization and ultimately his death. And like the RTC, the CA found no qualifying circumstance to increase or lower the penalty. Following the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, per the CA Resolution [7] of April 24, 2008, he interposed this petition. The Issues On essentially the same issues raised before the CA, petitioner now urges the Court to set aside the appealed decision, or at least modify it, maintaining that the appellate court: I. x x x erred in affirming the decision of the [RTC] finding [him] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. II. x x x erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong in favor of the petitioner. [8] The Court's Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. Homicide Duly Proved It is petitioner's threshold posture that the fistic injury Tomelden sustained was not "the main underlying cause of his death." [9] In this regard, petitioner draws attention to the fact that the fist fight in question happened on September 28, 1993. Tomelden, however, died only on October 10, 1993 or 12 days thereafter and that, during the intervening days, particularly September 29, 1993, the deceased regularly reported for work. Moreover, petitioner avers that days prior to the fateful incident of September 28, 1993, Tomelden failed to c