G.R. No. 192179 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LITO HATSERO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, accused Lito Hatsero is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.000) for funeral and hospital expenses. [10] The trial court held that the accused-appellant was positively identified as the assailant, that the eyewitness account was categorical and consistent, and that there was no showing of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, failed to conclusively establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. [11] Accused-appellant Hatsero elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which rendered its Decision affirming the conviction, to wit: WHEREFORE , the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17 of Roxas City dated August 22, 2006, finding accused-appellant Lito Hatsero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages only. Accused-appellant should indemnify the heirs of the victim the following amount[s]: (i) Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as actual damages; (ii) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for the death of the victim; and (iii) Twenty[-]Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages. [12] The Court of Appeals agreed with the assessment of the trial court that Alex Barroa described the stabbing incident in a clear and convincing manner. The disparities between the testimonies of Barroa and Dr. Nolasco do not make Barroas testimony less credible since Barroa fled the scene after the first stabbing, and may have merely failed to witness a second one. The Court of Appeals likewise reiterated that the defense failed to prove that Barroa was moved by any improper motive, giving rise to the presumption that his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. [13] The Court of Appeals, however, modified the civil damages as follows: (1) the award of P60,000.00 for funeral and hospital expenses was reduced to P15,000.00, the amount duly substantiated by a receipt; (2) accused-appellant was ordered additionally liable for the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Mamerto Gravo; and (3) accused-appellant was also made additionally liable for the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Accused-appellant appealed to this Court through a Notice of Appeal. [14] On February 22, 2010, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation [15] stating that he will no longer file a supplemental brief as all relevant matters have already been taken up in his Appellants Brief with the Court of Appeals, thus bringing before us the same assignme