G.R. No. 177223 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CASTOR BATIN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused CASTOR BATIN and NEIL BATIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended, and they are hereby each sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua; and ordered to pay the heirs of EUGENIO REFUGIO, through his wife, JOSEPHINE REFUGIO, as follows: 1] P50,000.00, as death indemnity; 2] P61,500.00, as actual damages; 3] P500,000.00, as moral damages; 4] P307,920.00, as indemnity for lost of earning capacity; and 5] The costs of suit. [14] Neil and Castor Batin filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. However, on 13 November 2000, accused Neil Batin filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The People interposed no objection to the Motion, which was granted. On 6 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming, with modification, the Decision of the trial court, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. Q-95-61003 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to civil liabilities. With the exception of the award of moral damages which is reduced to P100,000.00 and the indemnity for loss of earning capacity which is increased to P723,840.00, the awards for death indemnity and actual damages are retained. [15] Castor Batin now comes before this Court, assigning the following errors: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS PRINCIPAL FOR INDUCEMENT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TRACHERY. [16] Castor Batin prays that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside and a new one entered acquitting him of the crime charged. In the alternative, he prays that he be held liable for the crime of homicide only, arguing that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently stated in the Information. Whether there was conspiracy in the killing of Eugenio Refugio It is evident from Castors Supplemental Brief and all his other issuances after the withdrawal of Neils appeal that he had already discarded Neils theory of accidental shooting. Instead, his arguments are geared toward his distancing himself from the act of Neil in shooting Eugenio Refugio. We cannot, however, dispose of the discussion of Neils theory of accidental shooting. As Neils testimony had been the only evidence presented by the defense to rebut the prosecutions evidence concerning the acts of Castor during the incident, we should carefully scrutinize Neils testimony to determine his credibility. Neil claims that while his back was still turned against the Refugios, he suddenly felt the impulse to draw the gun from his waistline. He drew the gun, turned around with the gun in hand, and accidentally fired it twice withou