G.R. No. 135521 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FRANCISCO M. JUDAVAR.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this court finds the accused FRANCISCO JUDAVAR, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and hereby sentences him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH. He is likewise directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for the victims death, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as moral damages, Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Eight Pesos 30/100 (P60,358.30) as actual damages, and to pay the costs of the suit. Let the record of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. [11] On December 2, 1998, appellant filed before this court a motion for new trial. [12] The Solicitor General filed his Comment [13] to which appellant replied. [14] In a Resolution dated July 6, 1999, we denied the motion for new trial for lack of merit. [15] In this appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DEATH. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF ARNEL DATO WAS ATTENDED WITH TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PAY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED P50,000.00 AS INDEMNITY, P20,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES, P60,358.30 AS ACTUAL DAMAGES AND THE COST OF THIS SUIT. [16] Accused-appellant claims that the killing of Arnel Dato was not murder but death in a tumultuous affray. He alleges that before the victims death, several people were creating trouble at the dance hall and, in the course of the commotion, the victim was stabbed to death by an unidentified person. Reviewing the evidence, the killing of Arnel Dato was not made in the course of a tumultuous affray. Three witnesses, namely, Roberto Robosa, Nardito Dato and Francisco Cabalquinto testified that they saw accused-appellant approach Arnel Dato from behind and, with his right hand, swing a ten-inch knife into Arnel, hitting the latters right chest. When this occurred, Roberto Robosa was five meters away from the victim; [17] Nardito Dato was ten meters away [18] while Francisco Cabalquinto was more than a meter from Arnel. [19] The dance hall was lit by fluorescent lamps and the area where appellant stood was lit by light from the electric post. [20] The three witnesses directly saw and positively identified accused-appellant as the victims assailant. Their testimonies are credible, candid, straightforward and free from any material or significant inconsistency. The fact that Nardito Dato and Francisco Cabalquinto were uncles of the deceased [21] does not ipso facto render their testimonies biased. [22] There is no evidence of ill-motive on their part to testify falsely against appellant. [23] Moreover, their testimonies are corroborated by Roberto Robosa who is not a relative of the victim. The evidence is clear that the victims death was not caused in the heat of a tumultuous and ram