Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: Third Division

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 179476. February 9, 2011.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUEL TUY,

accused-appellant.
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN, J : p
Together with Ramon Salcedo, Jr. and Raul Salcedo, who have
remained at large, appellant Ruel Tuy was charged with murder in the
Regional Trial Court in Calabanga, Camarines Sur (RTC) for the killing of
Orlando Barrameda in the afternoon of October 11, 2001 in Brgy. Bani,
Tinambac, Camarines Sur, under the following information: DcCEHI
That on or about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of October 11,

2001 at Bani, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to kill
and while armed with firearms and a bolo and with conspiracy between
and among themselves, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and harm one Orlando Barrameda thereby
inflicting mortal wounds on the different part of his body which caused
his instantaneous death, to the damage of his heirs in such amount as
may be duly proven in court.
Attendant during the commission of the crime is treachery
because the accused took advantage of their superior strength, with
arms and employed means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Further, the offended party was at the time of the crime the
incumbent barangay captain of the place where the incident happened.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the

charge of murder. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
For the Prosecution, Severino Barrameda (Severino), the son of the
victim, declared that he had witnessed the Salcedos shooting and Tuy
hacking his father. The medico-legal evidence presented through Dr.
Salvador Betito, Jr. (Betito), who had conducted the autopsy, established
that the victim had sustained five hack wounds and two gunshot wounds.
Betito concluded that the cause of death was rapid external and internal
hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds and hack wounds.
In his defense, Tuy denied his participation in the crime and claimed
that he was processing copra at the time of the killing in Sitio Olango, Brgy.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Bani Tinambac, Camarines Sur. His brother Ramil Tuy corroborated him.
On February 22, 2006, the RTC rendered its decision convicting Tuy of
murder, and archiving the case as against the Salcedos. The RTC based its
judgment on the eyewitness testimony of Severino and on the testimony of
Dr. Betito. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having
proven the guilt of the accused Ruel Tuy beyond reasonable doubt, he
is hereby found guilty of the crime of Murder as charged. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay
the heirs of Orlando Barrameda the amount of P50,000 as civil
indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; P38,000 as actual damages
and to pay the costs. He is likewise meted the accessory penalty as
provided for under the Revised Penal Code.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 2
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, 3

rejecting Tuy's defenses of denial and alibi. It ruled that it was still physically
possible for him to come from Brgy. Olango and be at the seashore of Brgy.
Bani, Tinambac, Camarines Sur where the killing happened. The decretal
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur in Criminal Case No. 02-697
dated 22 February 2006 is AFFIRMED. aDICET
SO ORDERED. 4
Tuy now insists to us that the CA committed reversible error in

affirming his conviction.
We affirm the decision of the CA.
Firstly, the findings of the RTC are accorded the highest degree of
respect, especially if adopted and confirmed by the CA, because of the first-
hand opportunity of the trial judge to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
when they testified at trial; such findings are final and conclusive and may
not be reviewed on appeal unless there is clear misapprehension of facts. 5
Here, there was no showing that the RTC and the CA erred in appreciating
the worth of Severino's eyewitness testimony.
Secondly, the CA and the RTC rejected the alibi of Tuy. We agree with
their rejection. To begin with, his absence from the scene of the murder was
not firmly established considering that he admitted that he could navigate
the distance between Brgy. Olango (where he was supposed to be) and Brgy.
Bani (where the crime was committed) in an hour by paddle boat and in less
than that time by motorized banca. Also, eyewitness Severino positively
identified him as having hacked his father. 6 The failure of Tuy to prove the
physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene negated his alibi. 7
And, thirdly, the medico-legal evidence indicating that the victim
sustained several hack wounds entirely corroborated Severino's recollection
on the hacking.
On the civil liability, we increase the civil indemnity and the moral
damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and add exemplary damages of
P30,000.00 in order to accord with current jurisprudence to the effect that
damages in such amounts are granted whenever the accused is adjudged
guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659 like murder. 8
WHEREFORE, the Court affirms the decision promulgated on April 25,
2007 finding RUEL TUY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, subject to
the modification that the civil indemnity is P75,000.00; the moral damages is
P75,000.00; and the exemplary damages is P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales, Brion, Peralta * and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*In lieu of Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno who is on leave per Office Order No.
944 dated February 9, 2011.
1.Records, p. 1.
2.CA Rollo, pp. 65-66.
3.Rollo , pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a Member of the Court) and Associate
Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok (retired) concurring.
4.Id., pp. 11-12.
5.Garong v. People , G.R. No. 148971, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 446, 455;
Lubos v. Galupo, G.R. No. 139136, January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 618, 622;
Montecillo v. Reynes, G.R. No. 138018, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 244, 255.
6.People v. Malones , G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 338.
7.People v. Bracamonte , G.R. No. 95939, June 17, 1996, 257 SCRA 380, 384.
8.People v. Arbalate , G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 239, 255.

Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 179476. February 9, 2011.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiﬀ-appellee, vs. RUEL TUY,

That on or about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of October 11,

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) aﬃrmed the conviction, 3

Tuy now insists to us that the CA committed reversible error in

2.CA Rollo, pp. 65-66.

4.Id., pp. 11-12.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.