G.R. NO. 168051 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HONORATO C. BELTRAN, JR., ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Aside from moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased, Norman Concepcion, the following amounts: (a) Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; and (b) Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Five (P18,525.00) as actual damages. [21] Dismayed, appellant appealed the afore-quoted Decision before this Court by adopting and invoking the same arguments stated in his Appellant's Brief dated 3 January 2003, to wit: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF EVER SALES DESPITE OF ITS BEING UNBELIEVABLE AND BIASED, INSTEAD OF THE SELF-DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE APPELLANT. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE SAME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. III. ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING IN HIS FAVOR THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY WHICH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT AND VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. IV. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING EXCESSIVE ACTUAL DAMAGES. [22] Anent the first issue, appellant argued that the testimony of prosecution witness, Ever, is biased, unbelievable and confusing; that the trial court should not have considered them; that his acquittal is proper on the ground of self-defense; and that the elements of self-defense are present in the instant case. The contention is without merit. Prosecution eyewitness, Ever, testified that on 25 October 1999, at about 10:00 in the evening, he left his workplace and proceeded home using his bicycle. While traversing Velasquez Road, he saw appellant holding a bolo and standing in front of his house situated at the side of Velasquez Road. On the opposite side of the same road, he saw Norman standing in front of an automobile repair shop. Exhausted by the travel, he decided to stop by and rest momentarily at a nipa hut near the same road. Minutes later, he saw appellant, from a distance of six meters, stalking Norman who was walking then near the automobile repair shop. Appellant approached Norman, and without a warning, repeatedly hacked him with a bolo. Although it occurred late in the evening, the light coming from the moon and the electric post therein provided him with good visibility to identify appellant and Norman, and to witness how the heinous act was executed. [23] This testimony was corroborated by another prosecution eyewitness, Rolando. Thus, the positive identification and categorical declarations of Ever on the witness stand under solemn oath deserves full faith and credence. Appellant, however, posited that there were inconsistencies between the testimony of Ever in open court and his sworn statements before the investigators. According to appellant, Ever testified during his direct exami