G.R. No. 187074 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALLAN DEL PRADO Y CAHUSAY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE then, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ALLAN DEL PRADO Y CAHUSAY, "GUILTY" of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. As a consequence of this judgment, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which penalty shall be served at the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa. Any period of detention the accused shall have served shall be credited in his favor in the service of his sentence as provided for in Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. With respect to the civil liability arising from the commission of the crime, the accused is herein ordered to pay the sum of Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (Php 14,300.00) as actual damages and the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as moral damages. [3] Del Prado's appeal to the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02216, and was raffled to the Fifth Division of the said court. On 30 September 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision modifying the Decision of the RTC: WHEREFORE , the Decision dated March 30, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS to the effect that the accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the P14,300.00 actual damages awarded by the trial court. [4] Hence, this appeal, wherein Del Prado asserts that: I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE CONSIDERING THAT NEITHER THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY NOR PREMEDITATION WAS DULY ESTABLISHED. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt In arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Del Prado beyond reasonable doubt, the latter's main argument is that the testimony of Tubigan is incredible and contrary to human experience. According to Del Prado, it is unbelievable that Hudo's friends did not lend assistance to him despite being present at the time of the incident. This Court disagrees with Del Prado's observations. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when confronted with a frightful experience. [5] Not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectations of mankind, [6] because witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicit different reactions from witnesses, and for which no clear-cut, standard form of behavior can be drawn. [7] In the case at bar, it was not even unusual for Hudo's unarmed companions to refrain from risking their lives to defend him when the assailants were brandishing a foot-long knife, a