Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 5" Judicial Region Branch 60, Iriga City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant, = versus ~ CRIM. CASE NO. IR-9351 For: MURDER ERIC VARGAS Y JAGUARIN, ETAL., Accused. Xeeeeee teeter sects cesses x The Amended Information filed on August 13, 2010 against the accused Eric Vargas to include one Gina Bagacina a.k.a. Ka Leizel of Barangay Antipolo, Iriga City reads “That on or about the 9" day of July, 2010 at around 8:30 in the evening, in Zone 3, Barangay San Jose Pangaraon, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation employing means to insure or afford impunity, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot Miguel Belen y Abala, with the use of unlicensed caliber 45, hitting him on the different parts of his body, thus inflicting mortal wounds, which was the proximate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim, in such amount that may be proven in court. CONTRARY TO LAW.” Earlier and on account of the original Information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused Eric Vargas. However, he was already under the custody of the Camarines Sur Criminal Investigation and Detection Group which received a copy of the warrant and brought the accused to the jurisdiction of this court on August 5, 2010. Since then, the accused is under detention at the Iriga City District Jail, La Purisima, Iriga City. Another warrant was issued later against the other accused, Gina Bagacina, but she remains at large until the present. During arraignment on August 16, 2010, the accused pleaded not guilty to the capital offense charged. He applied for bail thus, a summary hearing was held for the purpose of determining whether the evidence of the prosecution on the guilt of the prosecution is strong.For said purpose, the People presented SPO2 Romeo Benito Apolinar Hugo, SPO3 Henry Dino, and Dr. Godofredo Belmonte. The application was denied oti January 13, 2012. However, in accordance with the rules, the evidence in the application for ba‘l formed part of the prosecution’s evidence in chief. . The facts of the case as established by the prosecution during the bail hearing are summarized as follows: At about 8:30 in the evening on July 9, ae jin Zone 3, Barangay San Jose Pangaraon, Nabua, Camarines, Miguel Belen y a volunteer field reporter of Radio Station DWEB was shot several times by two (2) diss who were on board a black Honda XRM motorcycle. The victim was rushed to the Sta. Maria Josefa Hospital at Francia, Iriga City. A surgical operation was. conducted on him by Dr. Godofredo Belmonte. In the course of the medical intervention, it was found that the victim sustained the following: 1. Gunshot wound with entry point at the back and exit on the middle 3" of the right neck; 2. Gunshot wound with entry at the ventral part of the left hand of the victim; 3. Gunshot wound with on the left back below the ribs and the exit wound is in front of the victim’s torso just within the line of the navel; 4. Gunshot wound with entry just above the left buttocks and the exit wound is just below the exit wound of wound no. 3. 5. Gunshot wound with entry the back of the right shoulder that exited on the front right shoulder. 6. Gunshot wound with entry at the back lateral right arm and exit wound is on the medial portion distal third. 7. Gunshot wound on the left thigh; 8. Gunshot wound on the right thigh. Meantime, the PNP Regional Command created Task Force Belen to investigate the shooting incident. SPO2 Romeo Benito Apolinar Hugo of the Nabua Municipal Police Station was designated as senior investigator. He conducted the investigation on the victim himself who was then still being treated at the Intensive Care Unit of St. Maria Josefa Hospital, Iriga City. SPO2 Hugo's knowledge of the identity of the accused and the latter’s complicity is derived wholly from the result of the investigation/interview that he conducted on the victim at the Intensive Care Unit of the Sta. Maria Josefa Hospital, Iriga City. The morning after the incident, he went to the hospital but was not able to proceed with interview. At that time, the victim has a breathing apparatus connected to his mouth and therefore cannot talk. There he observed the wife and daughter using the ballpen and a notebook to communicate with the victim. There were times that the victim wrote to the wife and the daughter the things that he needed. SPO2 Hugo had just explained his purpose and the manner of his interview when the victim turned uneasy and the breathing became shorter. He had to leave after this initially interview of the victim on July 10, 2010.SPO2 Hugo had to go back to the hospital two (2) days after or on July 13, 2010. This time, he was with SPO3 Henry Dino of the Iriga City PNP. They brought with them two (2) volumes of rouge gallery from the Nabua PNP and the Iriga City PNP, respectively. They showed these to the victim who, as the pages were leafed, showed unusual interest on the pictures of a person appearing on page 50 (Exh. O). The victim pointed to the picture of the person as the driver of the motorcycle used in the shooting incident. SPO3 Dino corroborated the material points of the testimony of SPO2 Hugo. Dr. Godofredo Belmonte, the doctor who treated the victim testified on the injuries sustained by the victim and the surgical operation that he conducted. He testified on the improvement of the condition of the victim until July 21, 2010 when the physical condition of the victim deteriorated. The victim expired on July 29, 2010. After the application for bail was denied, the prosecution proceeded to present its evidence in chief. SPO2 Hugo and Dr. Belmonte were recalled. In addition, the prosecution presented Dr. James Belgira, Mrs. Maryjane A. Belen, widow of the victim, and finally, Congressman Salvio Fortuno of the 5" District of Camarines Sur. The testimony of SPO3 Hugo is essentially the same as in the bail hearing. He added that based on his interviews with victim, he prepared the Affidavit (Exh. A) on July 13, 2010 and have the same sworn to and thumbmarked at the hospital before the administering officer, Pros. Antonio V. Ramos of the Provincial Prosecution Office. Dr. James M. Belgira is the medico-legal officer of the PNP who conducted the autopsy on the victim. He testified on his findings as contained in his Medico Legal Report (Exh. K). Mrs. Maryjane Abagat Belen, the widow of the accused, testified that she rushed to the Sta. Maria Josefa Hospital upon learning about the shooting incident. She testified as to the visits made by SPO2 Hugo, SPO4 Dino and Congressman Salvio Fortuno while the victim was still being treated at the hospital. Congressman Salvio Fortuno testified that he visited the victim who is one of his political leaders at the Rinconada area. During his visit, he wrote his questions to the victim who replied also in writing. The defense presented only the accused. He denied the charge and interposed alibi as a defense. According to him, it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime for he has never been to Nabua, Camarines Sur in all the 33 years of his life before th incident. At the time of the incident, he claims to have had a drinking session with his uncle Arnulfo Abinal in San Nicolas, Iriga City not far from the game fowl farm where he works. They were later joined by Jeffrey Manaog and Shiela Castanares. From 6:00 p.m. to about 11:00 p.m. of July 9, 2010, he never went to San Jose Pangaraon, Nabua He only woke up at about 5:00 a.m. of the next day then reported for work at the same chicken farm. The accused is indicted for murder.The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The prosecution was able to clearly establish that Miguel Belen was shot several times and despite the medical attention he received, he nonetheless died. The prosecution alleged that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. PSInsp. James Belgira testified that, as contained in his medico legal report MLB- 3-10, one finding is the gunshot wound with entry on the neck and exited on the armpit. This damaged the upper lobe of the lung and this is fatal because the lung is a highly vascular or blood vessel rich organ that if it is torn, it would rapture and would bleed profusely. If accompanied by other injuries, this injury would be more fatal. If the victim is standing, the assailant would be in a level very high up in relation to the victim. But it is possible that the victim is already lying down or in prone position. The second finding is another gunshot wound at the trunk which exited just above the navel is also fatal. The assailant, according to this witness, was possibly slightly lower than the victim. It is also possible that the assailant fired a gun on the victim who is already lying down. The third gunshot wound is at the trunk of the victim but only tangential (daplis) which is not fatal It is possible that the victim is lying down already. The fourth gunshot wound is also tangential and not fatal. The fifth finding is a gunshot wound on the left hand. He conconcluded that there were six gunshot wounds caused by a projectile of a gun. The combination of these injuries is fatal and life-threatening. Had not the victim been subjected to surgical intervention, he would have died immediately. But a timely and appropriate medical intervention may not arrest the demise of the victim who have sustained the multiple wounds. This means that even if treated, there is no guarantee that the victim will fully recover. Based on the wounds, the gun was fired not in succession but intermittent. There was some interval of time. There was possible sufficient time for the assailant to have observed the condition of the victim after each and every fire. Although it cannot be established which injury was sustained by the victim first, the quantity of bullets indicate the intent of the assailant to kill the victim. There were several gunshot wounds and two came from the back. Clearly, there was treachery. Even Dr. Belmonte testified that the victim was shot at the back. His material testimony is quoted, thus: “PROS. RAMOS: Q: . So the bullets all hit the victim by his back and by his shoulders at the back? A: Yes, sir.” (TSN, September 7, 2011, p.18)Like treachery, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty as the criminal act itself, in order for it to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Thus, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be “evident premeditation." (People vs. Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002) Clear also from the evidence, specifically as indicated by the wounds sustained by the victim, that the shots were not successive but intermittent. As testified to by the medico legal who conducted the autopsy on the victim, the trajectory and the distances of the gunshot wounds indicate that there were intervals of time between the bursts of gunfire. This is the direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. The victim duly executed a sworn statement to the effect that the person who shot him is a female, beautiful and with long hair. This assailant was on board a motorcycle black Honda XRM when the victim was shot. When the rouge gallery of the Iriga City PNP (Exh. O-1) was shown to the victim, the latter positively identified the accused as the driver of said motorcycle. The manner of identification made by the victim as regards his assailant may be unusual, but the identification itself is unambiguous. It is understandable that the Asses fatally injured with a perforated lung such that from the time that he was brought to the hospital and even after the surgical operation, he had to be connected with a breathing apparatus in his mouth. He could not talk. To communicate, he and his wife as well as his daughter had to devise a way. They used a ballpen and a notebook and this was observed by SPO2 Hugo on his first attempt to interview the victim. To pursue his investigation, SPO2 Hugo has no other recourse but to use the same manner of eliciting information from the victim. It is equally understandable for the victim to be wary after the attempt on his life. He was at first hesitant to relate matters regarding the incident until the third day after he was shot (13" of July, 2010) when Congressman Salvio Fortuno, a person he trusted, visited him and started inquiring about his assailant/s. It was timely because SPO2 Hugo was also at the hospital. The latter had the opportunity to ask more questions on the details of the perpetrators. The.manner in which the questions were propounded on the victim, i.e. in writing, as well as the answers given, also in writing, were duly identified and testified to by the witnesses for the prosecution. The court notes the spontaneity in the declarant’s statements regarding his assailant. The process of getting information from the victim at the hospital was witnessed by his wife, by the Congressman, as well as the two police officers namely SPO2 Hugo and SPO3 Dino, in the presence of one another. The questions and answers torn from the pages of the notebook utilized in the process are quoted hereunder in the following order:Exh, B-4 “AGKO SIMILARITY? NABAYAD MO LALAWGON NIRA?” Exh. B-5 “PERA RAW EDAD KU CAFGU? 38 SU BABAYI 28 a 28” Exh, B-7 “CERTAIN CAFGU SKA NG BADIL KANAKO BABAYI” Exh, B-8 “GALIN ANA FILE SA IRIGA PNP KAYA KAIBA KO SI PO3 DINO” Exh, B-8 “MARAY NA RAMRAG AGKO KAMI PA IBANG RITRATO NA IPABABAYAD TIBAAD AGKO KA MABISTO” Exh. B-6 “AGKO NICKNAME A CAFGU? ANSWER: “ (With X) Exh, B-10 “ONO DESCRIPTION KU MOTOR? COLOR BLACK BRAND HONDA MODEL XRM” Exh, B-11 “PAONO MO NAISIYAN NA CAFGU SIYA? NAGSABI YA CAFGU INI” Exh. B-12 “ONO DIALECT NIRA” Exh, BB-12-A “IRIGA” trIn short, there was positive identification as to the accused being the driver of the motorcycle during the shooting incident. The manner with which the victim related the identity of his assailant to the investigating police officer and the Congressman does not militate against the credibility of the statement of the victim as testified to by SPO2 Hugo. The presentation of the rouges gallery to the victim is not unlike a police line-up. Relevantly, the Supreme Court held: “Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant Edwin "Butch" Gener was not identified by eyewitnesses during the CIDG investigation, it was only because the CIDG had no picture of Gener on file. At any rate, there is no law requiring a police investigation or a police line-up as a condition sine qua non for the proper identification of an accused. What is crucial is that witness Edma positively and categorically identified accused-appellant Gener during the trial. The suggestions of defense counsel to the effect that accused-appellant Gener’s identification in court was merely an “afterthought,” "a big lie" and "dictated upon by the police," are, to say the least, unfair. Primarily, the CIDG would certainly gain nothing by falsely implicating Gener to the ghastly crime. Also, in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcement agencies of the government enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions.” (People vs. De la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 148730, June 26, 2003) In his investigation prior to his going to the ICU, SPO2 Hugo learned that a motorcycle was involved in the shooting incident. This fact was recorded in the police blotter. In the course of his investigation, he executed an affidavit detailing the substance of the things he did in his investigation. He identified his Affidavit (Exh. B). He also reduced the substance of the course of his investigation in the sworn statement of the victim (Exh. A) dated July 13, 2010. SPO2 Hugo signed and acknowledged or attested that the execution of his sworn statement was voluntary before Pros. Esperidion Solano. He identified his signature and that of Prosecutor Solano on it. He also identified the thumbprints of Mike Belen. He further identified the signature of Mary Jean Belen on the left margin of the first, second, and third pages across the impression of the thumb mark of Miguel Belen. SPO2 Hugo finally identified the signature of administering officer Pros. Antonion Ramos. The thumb marks were affixed by the victim while still living, SPO2 Hugo was in front of the victim and the administering officer when the victim who was then lying in bed subscribed before the administering officer at the ICU at the Sta. Maria Josefa Hospital. This sworn statement of the victim is dated July 13, 2010 but acknowledged on July 16, 2010. As SPO2 Hugo observed from July 10, to July 13, to July 16, 2010, the cognitive faculties of the victim improved. The victim even recognized him as well as Prosecutor Ramos on July 16, 2010. The questions were propounded to the victim in the Rinconada dialect. It was reduced into writing (sworn statement) in the English language. Before letting the victim affix his thumbmark on the sworn statement, it was shown and explained to him in the moming of July 16, 2010 and in the afternoon of that day, it was duly subscribed and sworn to before the administering officer. When the affidavit was read to the victim, SPO2 Hugo asked the victim in the Rinconada dialect if the affidavit already contained those covered by the interview and if the contents were understood by the victim. The victim understands the English language because of his college education and being a former Punong Barangay of Francia, Iriga City. He also ran as a City Councilor of Iriga City but lost. SPO2 Hugo is positively convinced that the victim understood the contents of the affidavit. Moreover, at the ICU of the hospital, the prosecutor who administeredthe victim’s oath asked in the Rinconada dialect about the existence of the affidavit and the contents. At that time, the victim was not capable of signing the administering officer asked him if he will just place his thumb mark. Belen understood each and every question and answer indicated on the 3-page affidavit. At the same ICU, the wife also affixed her signature on the left side ‘of the affidavit. The signature was affixed inside the ICU of the same hospital. The oath was administered by the officer also inside the ICU of the same hospital. When the document was shown to the victim in the morning of July 16, 2010 before it was subscribed and sworn in the afternoon, the victim read the last portion of question and answer of the affidavit. The photograph referred to in the ultimate or final question on page 2 thereof and the answer to the question as well as the first question on page 3 of the same sworn statement and the answer, is the very same picture which the victim referred to in the rouge gallery. In the course of his testimony, SPO2 Hugo identified the page wherein the victim showed interest in. The picture in the photograph is the person whom the victim pointed to as the one driving the motorcycle and now accused in the instant case. The court however does not take the statements of the victim as contained in his sworn statement and as testified to by SPO2 Hugo and Congressman Fortuno as dying declaration. A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death. In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a dying declaration are present. From the records, no questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to Miguel Belen. It does not appear that the declarant, through written answers and hand or head motions, was under the consciousness of his impending death when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending. Thus, the written answers and sworn statement of Miguel Belen could not be considered as a dying declaration. Besides, clear from the testimony of Dr. Godofredo Belmonte that on the first week afier the surgery, the victim showed very good signs of recovery. It was only on the third day from the date of the incident, or well within this first week, that the written answers of the victim were obtained. There is no indication whatsoever that at the time, the victim was under a consciousness of impending death. In fact, evidence shows that after the first operation the patient was improving. In 7 days after the operation the patient was on the road to recovery. The victim was already feed. However, at the early morning of the 7” day, the patient suffered a severe abdominal pain and there was blood coming out from one of the drain sides so he had to schedule again the patient to an exploratory laparotomy. Nevertheless, even if the victim’s written answers could not be appreciated as a dying declaration, his statements may still be appreciated as part of the res gestae. Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the 38main fact as to exclude thevidea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation, is so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. (People vs. Gatarin and Quisayas, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014) The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae concur herein. When Miguel Belen gave the identity of the perpetrators to SPO2 Hugo and Congressman Fortuno, he was referring to a startling occurrence which is the shooting by the companion of the accused. At that time, and the victim was barely 3 days at the hospital, with numerous fatal gunshot wounds and when shown the rouge gallery, had no time to contrive his identification of the assailant. His written responses about his assailant and the accused as driver-companion, was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, the statement is relevant because it identified the accused as the authors of the crime. Verily, the killing or death of Miguel Belen, perpetrated by companion of the accused, is adequately proven by the prosecution (People vs. Gatarin and Quisayas, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014) The period between the date of incident, ie., evening of July 9, 2010 to the date the victim was actually and more substantially interviewed on July 13, 2010, some three (3) days interval, does make the bodily or hand gestures of the declarant inadmissible. It should be remembered that attempts to interview and investigate on the victim was made as early as the day following the incident. However, the victim is not physically disposed It should be remembered that “the interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances; but such statement was under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence, hence it is generally required to have been made immediately prior or subsequent to the event. However, if the declarant was rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence, his statements relative thereto upon regaining consciousness are still part of res gestae regardless of the time that intervened in between.” (People ys. Berame, L-27606, July 30, 1976) Even if he was identified only nine days later, this delay does not cast doubt on the veracity of Malanum’s testimony. ‘The failure of the witness to reveal at once the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime does not impair his credibility. His fear for his life, the fact that he was nearly killed himself, must be taken into consideration. The situation of the witness must be taken in the context of reality and his diffidence on the matter is therefore understandable. (People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173477 Feb. 4, 2009) In addition, while notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not a party (to the conversation) and who has not been requested to take down such notes are not part of the res gestae (Borromeo vs. CA, et al., L-31342, April 7, 1976), the facts obtaining in the instant case are that SPO2 Hugo was the one who largely interviewed the victim and there was a previous agreement that the subsequent questions and answers were to be proceeded with in writing. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence. X x x. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Proof that the perpetrators met beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose. (People vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 196434, October 24, 2012) Conspiracy is evident in the instant case. The female assailant was riding-in- tandem with the accused who was the driver. The accused was positively identified by the victim as the driver of the motorcycle where the female assailant rode. The positive act of driving for the assailant, without any justifiable explanation other than the bare and 9self-serving defense of denial and alibi of the accused, is clearly indicative that he is a co- conspirator of the female assailant. Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. (People vs. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by accused must fail in light of the positive identification made of him by Miguel Belen. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. Accused and his victim are both from Iriga City. There is no compelling evidence that Miguel Belen could have been mistaken on the identity of the accused. For alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that accused was somewhere else. Accused alibi that he was at his uncle’s house at the time of the shooting, and that he only learned about his complicity later, does not inspire belief. Not only is the place of his uncle no more than 10 kilometers away from the place of incident, he admitted that he drove motorcycle even without drivers license. He in fact admitted that he had driven motorcycle much further in distance from his residence than the place at San Jose Pangaraon, Nabua, Camarines Sur. “In the face of the positive identification by prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants’ defense of denial and alibi must fall. Denials, as negative and self-serving evidence, do not deserve as much weight in law as positive and affirmative testimonies. Oft-repeated is the rule that for alibi to offset the evidence of the prosecution demonstrating accused- appellants’ guilt, they must establish not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was perpetrated. The defense utterly failed to meet the requisite time and place.” (People vs. De la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 148730, June 26, 2003) Moreover, not one of his drinking companions during the night of the fateful night was presented to corroborate the version of the accused. As the Supreme Court held: “Where the defense of denial remains unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it becomes negative and self-serving, and must not be given more evidentiary value vis-d-vis the affirmative testimony of a credible witness.” (People vs. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009) That the accused turned out not to be a member of the CAFGU is of no consequence. The statement of the victim as elicited by SPO2 during the investigation regarding the membership of one of his assailants as CAFGU member was what the victim heard as uttered by the accused. The utterance may or may not be true. Nonetheless, it was what the victim heard from one of his assailants. Finally, the defense failed to show any ill motive on the part of the prosecution’s witnesses to discredit their testimonies. Absent any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists, and their testimony, specifically of SPO2 Hugo, is thus worthy of full faith and credit. With respect to the appropriate penalty, the prosecution successfully established the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation in the killing of Miguel Belen. The presence of even only one of these circumstances qualified 10the killing to Murder in accordance with Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Although alleged in the information, the aggravating circumstances of use of an unlicensed firearm was not proven during trial. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. . As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. WHEREFORE, finding the accused Eric J. Vargas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Death of the victim having occurred due to the crime, Maryjane A. Belen, the widow of the victim is entitled to moral damages of PhP 50,000 and PhP 100,000.00 in exemplary damages. There being no receipts presented as to the actual expenses incurred by the family of the victim, no actual or compensatory damages can be awarded. However, jurisprudence allows the award of temperate damages considering that, as records show, the victim underwent medical treatment before his demise. For this, the court awards the widow of the victim the amount of PhP 75,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. Costs against the accused. SO ORDERED. 5 Febraury 2015, Iriga City, Philippines. TIMOTEO A. PANGA JR. Judge