Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Umapas
People V Umapas
thermal bums.5
SECOND DIVISION
The police authorities were unable to talk to Gemma immediately
G.R. No. 215742 March 22, 2017 after the incident as they were prevented from doing so by the
attending physician at the hospital's emergency room. But the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee following day, December 1, 1998, around 1:30 p.m., SPOl
vs Anthony Garcia (SPOJ Garcia) was able to interview the victim at
JOSE BELMAR UMAPAS y CRISOSTOMO, Accused-Appellant her hospital bed.6 Though she spoke slowly with eyes closed,
Gemma was said to be coherent and agreed to give a statement
DECISION about the incident which included her identifying her husband,
Umapas, as her assailant.7 Gemma was asked if she felt that she
was dying, and she said "yes."8 SPOl Garcia reduced her
PERALTA, J.:
statement in writing and the same was attested thru the victim's
thumbmark. A nurse who was present when the statement of the
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated February victim was taken signed as witness.9
26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05424. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated
On January 5, 1999, an Information10 was filed against appellant
October 10, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo
Jose Belmar Umapas y Crisostomo for parricide. The Information
City in Criminal Case No. 611-98 which convicted appellant Jose
alleged -
Belmar Umapas y Crisostomo of parricide.
That on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of November, 1998, in the
The facts are as follows:
City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, Jose Belmar C. Umapas, with
In the evening of November 30, 1998, around 11 o'clock, intent to kill, taking advantage of his superior strength and with
appellant mauled his wife Gemma Gulang evident premeditation, arming himself with a bottle of alcohol
Umapas (Gemma) and, with the use of alcohol intended for a intended for a coleman, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
coleman or lantern, doused her with it and set her ablaze at their feloniously inflict multiple injuries upon the different parts of the
home located at Lower Kalakhan, Olongapo City. Gemma was body of his lawfully wedded wife Gemma G. Umapas by then and
brought to James L. Gordon Memorial Hospital for treatment by a there pouring the said alcohol on the different parts of the body of
certain Rodrigo Dacanay who informed the attending hospital said Gemma G. Umapas, setting her body ablaze, resulting in the
personnel, which included Dr. Arnildo C. Tamayo (Dr. immediate death of the latter.
Tamayo), that it was appellant who set her on fire.3 Gemma was
found to have suffered the following injuries: contusions on the
CONTRARY TO LAW.
left cheek and on the lower lip, lacerations on right parietal area
and on the left temporal area, and thermal burns over 57% of her
body.4 Due to the severity of the injuries, the victim died on Appellant, for his part, narrated that on November 30, 1998, he
was with a certain Rommel fishing in Kalakhan.11 They left at 5
o'clock in the afternoon and returned at 2 o'clock in the morning (57%) of her body. Dr. Tamayo testified that he was informed by
the following day to their residence at 195 Lower Kalakhan, one Rodrigo Dacanay that the victim was doused by her
Olongapo City.12 When appellant went home, there was a husband, appellant, with one hundred percent (100%) alcohol
commotion, but he claimed not to know what the commotion was and set on fire.17 Due to the severity of the bums, he thought that
all about. There were many people in the vicinity of their house. the victim had a slim chance of surviving. He also authenticated
He then learned from the neighbors who were outside their house the medical certificate he issued on the victim's injuries.18
that his wife was brought to the hospital but was not told why. His
four children were in their house and they told him that their SPO1 Garcia testified that on December 1, 1998, while the victim
mother is in the hospital. When he learned about this, appellant was being treated at the hospital, he was able to obtain the
allegedly dressed up to go to the hospital, but he was not able to statement of the victim who identified appellant as the perpetrator
go because he was stopped by the people from the barangay. He of the crime. SPO1 Garcia reduced the victim's statement in
was instead brought to the police precinct and was detained.13 writing which, due to the victim's inability to use her hands, was
marked merely by her thumb. The statement was witnessed by a
Appellant later on learned that he was a suspect in his wife's hospital nurse.19
death. He claimed that he was not able to talk to his wife before
she died or visit her at the hospital. He was not even able to visit PO1 Belisario, on the other hand, testified that he was prevented
the wake of his wife because he was already detained. He, by the hospital personnel from talking to the victim because of the
however, believed that his wife pointed him as the one who did severity of the latter's injuries. At the crime scene, he was told by
wrong to her because his wife suspected him of womanizing the victim's daughter, Ginalyn Umapas, that her mother was set
while he was working at EEL14 Appellant averred that they had ablaze by appellant. He, however, admitted that he failed to
petty quarrels and his wife was always hot tempered, and she reduce Gemma's daughter's statement in writing.20
even asked him to choose between work and family. Appellant
added that he just chose to ignore her and took a vacation. While Appellant, testifying on his behalf, denied setting his wife on fire
he was on vacation from work, he earned a living by fishing. He and claimed he was out fishing with a friend he identified as a
maintained that he was out fishing, and not in their house, on certain Rommel.21 He further claimed that his wife probably
November 30, 1998 when the incident occurred.15 pointed to him as her assailant to get back at him due to his
alleged womanizing.22 While appellant intended to present
On June 7, 1999, upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty another witness, the defense eventually rested its case on July
to the crime charged.16 Trial ensued. 25, 2011 when no other witness was available to corroborate the
appellant's testimony.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely, Dr.
Tamayo, SPO1 Garcia and PO1 Rommel Belisario (PO1 On October 10, 2011, the RTC found the appellant guilty of the
Belisario ). On the other hand, the defense presented the lone crime of parricide. The dispositive portion of the decision reads in
testimony of the appellant. this wise:
Dr. Tamayo testified that he gave medical treatment to the victim IN VIEW THEREOF, accused JOSE BELMAR UMAPAS y
Gemma G. Umapas who suffered contusions and lacerations in CRISOSTOMO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
her head and SECOND Degree bums over fifty-seven percent
crime of PARRICIDE, and sentenced to suffer the imprisonment ALLEGED DYING STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM GEMMA
of reclusion perpetua. UMAPAS, ADMITTING THE SAME AS A DYING DECLARATION
AND PART OF RES GESTAE
Accused is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, Php50,000.00 as II
moral damages and Php25,000.00 as temperate damages.
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
SO ORDERED.23 ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAIL
URE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The R TC was unconvinced by the defense of alibi and denial
interposed by appellant. We affirm appellant's conviction.
Unperturbed, appellant appealed the trial court's decision before Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
the Court of Appeals. deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
On February 26, 2014, in its disputed Decision,24 the Court of other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse
Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of of the accused.25
the trial court with modification, to wit:
In the instant case, the fact of Gemma's death is incontestable.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed The fact that Gemma died on December 5, 1998 was established
Decision dated October 10, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court by witnesses from both the prosecution and defense. As
(RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 74, in Criminal Case No. 611-98 additional proof of Gemma's demise, the prosecution presented
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that in addition to the her Certificate of Death which was admitted by the RTC.26 Also,
damages awarded by the court a quo to the heirs of the victim, the spousal relationship between Gemma and the appellant is
the accused-appellant is likewise ordered to pay the amount of undisputed. Appellant already admitted that Gemma was his
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall legitimate wife in the course of the trial of the case.27 In parricide
earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the
of this Decision until fully paid. offender and victim is their marriage certificate. However, oral
evidence may also be considered in proving the relationship
SO ORDERED. between the two as long as such proof is not contested, as in this
case. Thus, having established the fact of death and the spousal
relationship between Gemma and the appellant, the remaining
Hence, this appeal.
element to be proved is whether the deceased is killed by the
accused.
I
Conviction based on dying declaration:
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ON THE
While witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived from In the present case, all the abovementioned requisites of a dying
their own perception, a report in open court of a dying person's declaration were met. Gemma communicated her ante-mortem
declaration is recognized as an exception to the rule against statement to SPOl Garcia, identifying Umapas as the person who
hearsay if it is "made under the consciousness of an impending mauled her, poured gasoline on her, and set her
death that is the subject of inquiry in the case." It is considered as ablaze.30 Gemma's statements constitute a dying declaration,
"evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence given that they pertained to the cause and circumstances of her
since no person aware of his impending death would make a death and taking into consideration the severity of her wounds, it
careless and false accusation."28 may be reasonably presumed that she uttered the same under
the belief that her own death was already imminent.31 There is
Four requisites must concur in order that a dying declaration may ample authority for the view that the declarant's belief in the
be admissible, thus: First, the declaration must concern the cause imminence of her death can be shown by the declarant' s own
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. This statements or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of
refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to matters her wounds, statements made in her presence, or by the opinion
both before and after the assault having a direct causal of her physician.32 While more than 12 hours has lapsed from the
connection with it. Statements involving the nature of the time of the incident until her declaration, it must be noted that
declarant's injury or the cause of death; those imparting Gemma was in severe pain during the early hours of her
deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or admission. Dr. Tamayo even testified that when she saw Gemma
motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the accused; or in the hospital, she was restless, in pain and incoherent
indicating the absence of cause for the act are considering that not only was she mauled, but 57% of her body
admissible. Second, at the time the declaration was made, the was also bumed.33 She also underwent operation and treatment,
declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending and was under medication during the said period.34 Given the
death. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration circumstances Gemma was in, even if there was sufficient lapse
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must of time, we could only conclude that at the time of her declaration,
be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death she feared that her death was already imminent. While suffering
and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders in pain due to thermal bums, she could not have used said time to
the dying declaration admissible. It is not necessary that the contrive her identification of Umapas as her assailant. There was,
approaching death be presaged by the personal feelings of the thus, no opportunity for Gemma to deliberate and to fabricate a
deceased. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all false statement.
hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly
impending. Third, the declarant is competent as a witness. The Moreover, Gemma would have been competent to testify on the
rule is that where the declarant would not have been a competent subject of the declaration had she survived. There is nothing in
witness had he survived, the proffered declarations will not be the records that show that Gemma rendered involuntary
admissible. Thus, in the absence of evidence showing that the declaration. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered in this
declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had he criminal prosecution for parricide in which Gemma was the victim.
survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have It has been held that conviction or guilt may be based mainly on
been competent. Fourth, the declaration must be offered in a the ante-mortem statements of the deceased.35 In the face of the
criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the positive identification made by deceased Gemma of appellant
declarant is the victim.29 Umapas, it is clear that Umapas committed the crime.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence: a case, the statement of the witness is admissible as evidence
and the hearsay rule does not apply.
Direct evidence of the actual killing is not indispensable for
convicting an accused when circumstantial evidence can also Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or
sufficiently establish his guilt. The consistent rule has been that in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other
circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction if: (a) there is than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. However, while
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of
combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, conviction based on otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is
circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a
to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement
to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All these has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the
requisites, not to mention the dying declaration of the deceased statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the
victim herself, are present in the instant case.36 making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially
In the instant case, the testimonies of: (1) SPO1 Belisario that relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is the doctrine of
during his investigation immediately after the crime was reported, independently relevant statements. Thus, all these requisites to
he went to the crime scene and was able to talk to Ginalyn support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, not to
Umapas, the daughter of the victim, wherein the latter told him mention the dying declaration of the deceased victim herself, are
that Umapas was the one who set her mother ablaze inside their existing in the instant case.37
house, (2) Dr. Tamayo that a certain Rodrigo Dacanay told him
that Umapas was the one who mauled and set Gemma ablaze, We, likewise, do not find credence in appellant's defense of alibi.
and (3) SPOl Garcia that he took the statement of Gemma which It is axiomatic that alibi is an inherently weak defense, and may
he reduced into writing after the same was thumbmarked by only be considered if the following circumstances are shown: (a)
Gemma and witnessed by the hospital nurse, can be all admitted he was somewhere else when the crime occurred; and (b) it
as circumstantial evidence. While Ginalyn Umapas and Rodrigo would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus
Dacanay or the hospital nurse were not presented to prove the criminis at the time of the alleged crime.38 The requirements of
truth of such statements, they may be admitted not necessarily to time and place must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove that
prove the truth thereof, but at least for the purpose of placing on appellant was somewhere else when the crime happened. They
record to establish the fact that those statements or the tenor of must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it
such statements, were made. Thus, the testimonies of SPO1 was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
Belisario, Dr. Tamayo, and SPOI Garcia are in the nature of an the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Unless
independently relevant statement where what is relevant is the substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is
fact that Ginalyn Umapas and Rodrigo Dacanay made such negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.39 A
statement, and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. In such mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and
constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be
accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of at the conclusion that indeed appellant Umapas was guilty for the
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.40 Under the killing of his wife Gemma.
circumstances, there is the possibility that appellant could have
been present at the locus criminis at the time of the incident PENALTY
considering that where he claimed to have gone fishing and his
residence are both in Kalakhan.41 Accordingly, appellant's defense Parricide, under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, is
of alibi must fall. punishable by two indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to
death. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346
The court a quo also correctly accorded credence to the (RA 9346), the imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers. Likewise, significant is the provision found in Article 6345 of the
Appellant failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill Revised Penal Code stating that in the absence of mitigating and
motive on the part of the police officers who testified against him. aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the
In fact, appellant did not even question the credibility of the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Applying these to the instant
prosecution witnesses. When police officers have no motive to case, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in
testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the commission of the offense, the penalty of reclusion
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their perpetua was correctly imposed by the court a quo.
duties.42 Thus, the testimonies of said police officers deserve full
faith and credit. In conformity with People v. Ireneo Jugueta,46 the Court deems it
proper to modify the amounts of damages awarded to the heirs of
This Court has consistently conformed to the rule that findings of Gemma Umapas, as follows: Civil indemnity - from ₱50,000.00 to
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great ₱75,000.00; Moral damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00; and
weight. Factual findings of the trial court and its observation as to
1âwphi1
temperate damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00.47 We, likewise,
the testimonies of the witnesses are accorded great respect, if not award exemplary damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00 on
conclusive effect, most especially when affirmed by the Court of account of relationship, a qualifying circumstance,48 which was
Appeals, as in this case. The reason for this is that trial courts are alleged and proved, in the crime of parricide. All with interest at
in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand judgment until the same are fully paid.
their demeanor and manner of testifying under grueling
examination. In the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated
discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation February 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.43 05424 finding appellant Jose Belmar
Umapas y Crisostomo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
All told, based on the foregoing, this Court finds the established crime of Parricide, as defined and punished under Article 246 of
circumstances, as found by the trial court and the appellate court, the Revised Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
to have satisfied the requirement of Section 4, Rule 133 of the MODIFICATION, in that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty
Rules of Court.44 Indeed, the incriminating circumstances, of reclusion perpetua. The appellant is also hereby ORDERED to
including the ante-mortem statement of Gemma, when taken INDEMNIFY the heirs of the deceased the following amounts of:
together, constitute an unbroken chain of events enough to arrive
a. PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Judgment until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.