G.R. Nos. 141154-56 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FERNANDO "ANDO" COSTALES AND FERNANDO RAMIREZ (AT-LARGE), ACCUSED. FERNANDO "ANDO" COSTALES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, conspiracy was properly appreciated by the trial court. Neither can we sympathize with accused-appellant's misplaced sentiment that he had been denied the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. As found by the trial court, his alleged surrender was made too late, and in a place too distant from the crime site as well as his place of residence. [10] We observe that the trial court awarded P250,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased on the justification that the same had been stipulated upon by the parties. This is patently wrong. Award of damages is dictated, not by the agreement of the parties; worse, "in a manner that suits them best," [11] but by the mandate of law and jurisprudence. Accordingly in conformity with established law and jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indmenity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages should be awarded to the heirs of the victim. Pursuant to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no modifying circumstances found in Crim. Case No. T-2057, and applying par. 2 of Art. 63 of the Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. In Crim. Case No. T-2056, accused-appellant was charged by the trial court with frustrated murder but was convicted only for attempted murder. In its Decision , the trial court explained that the failure of the prosecution to present a medical certificate or competent testimonial evidence showing that Crispina would have died from her wound without medical intervention, justified the accused's conviction for attempted murder only. We call to mind People v. De La Cruz [11] where this Court ruled that the crime committed for the shooting of the victim was attempted murder and not frustrated murder for the reason that "his injuries, though no doubt serious, were not proved fatal such that without timely medical intervention, they would have caused his death." In fact, as early as People v. Zaragosa , [12] we enunciated the doctrine that where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; hence, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused and the crime committed by him may be declared as attempted, not frustrated murder. WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision finding accused-appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales guilty of murder and attempted murder is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION: In Crim. Case No. T-2057, the crime of murder not being considered to have been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, accused-appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is sentenced to suffer only the penalty of reclusion perpetua . In Crim. Case No. T-2056, the crime of attempted murder not likewise considered to have been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, accused-appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is accordingly sentenced in additio