THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 178196. August 6, 2008.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . RUDY BUDUHAN y

BULLAN and ROBERT BUDUHAN y BULLAN , defendants-appellants.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO , J : p

Before Us is a review of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 29

December 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01940, which a rmed with modi cations the
Decision 2 dated 24 July 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maddela, Quirino,
Branch 38, in Criminal Case No. 38-18, nding accused-appellants Robert Buduhan y
Bullan and Rudy Buduhan y Bullan guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide with respect to the deceased Larry Erese, and of the crime of homicide with
respect to the deceased Romualde Almeron. The Court of Appeals ordered the
payment of moral damages to the heirs of said victims, in addition to the award already
given by the trial court. IASEca

On 26 August 1998, an Information 3 was led against Robert Buduhan, Rudy

Buduhan, Boy Guinhicna, Boyet Ginyang and 3 John Does before the RTC of Maddela,
Quirino, for the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. Docketed as
Criminal Case No. 38-18, the accusatory portion of the information provides:
That on or about 10:40 o'clock in the evening of July 24, 1998 in
Poblacion Norte, Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, four
of them are armed and after rst conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another and with force and violence did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously rob ROMUALDE ALMERON of his wallet and wrist
watch and LARRY ERESE of his wrist watch to the damage and prejudice of the
said ROMUALDE ALMERON and LARRY ERESE;
That on the occasion of the Robbery, the said accused, armed with
rearms of different caliber and after rst conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, shoot and re upon ROMUALDE ALMERON, LARRY ERESE and
ORLANDO PASCUA resulting to their instanteneous(sic) death and the injuries to
the persons of FERNANDO PERA and GILBERT CORTEZ.
On 20 October 1998, the accused led a Motion to Quash 4 the above
information, alleging that the court did not legally acquire jurisdiction over their
persons. The accused contended they were neither caught in agrante delicto, nor did
the police have personal knowledge of the commission of the offense at the time when
their warrantless arrests were effected. 5
In an Order dated 25 August 1999, the RTC denied the above motion on the
ground that the assertion of lack of personal knowledge on the part of the arresting
o cers regarding the commission of the crime is a matter of defense, which should be
properly taken up during the trial. 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 When arraigned on 12 January 2000, the accused Rudy Buduhan, Robert Buduhan
and Boyet Ginyang, with the assistance of their counsel de o cio, entered their pleas of
"Not Guilty" to the crime charged. 7 With respect to accused Boy Guinhicna, counsel for
the accused informed the trial court of his death and thus moved for the dismissal of
the charges against him. 8
On the same date, the pre-trial conference was terminated and both parties
agreed on the following stipulation of facts, namely:
1. That the incident transpired at about 10:40 in the evening of July 24, 1998;

2. That the incident happened at Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino;

3. That no firearm has been confiscated from any of the accused. 9

Upon the submission of accused Boy Guinhicna's Certi cate of Death, 1 0 the RTC
dismissed the case against him on 14 February 2000. 1 1 Thereafter, trial of the case
ensued. cHECAS

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Cherry Rose Salazar, an
employee of the establishment where the crime was committed; 1 2 (2) Senior Police
O cer 1 (SPO1) Leo Saquing, a police o cer at the Maddela Police Station who
investigated the crime committed; 1 3 (3) Dr. Fernando T. Melegrito, the medical
examiner who conducted the autopsies on the bodies of the victims; 1 4 (4) Myrna
Almeron, the widow of the victim Romualde Almeron; 1 5 and (5) Laurentino Erese, Sr.,
the father of the victim Larry Erese. 1 6
The defense, on the other hand, presented: (1) appellant Robert Buduhan; 1 7 (2)
accused Boyet Ginyang; 1 8 (3) Police Inspector Ma. Leonora Chua-Camarao, a Forensic
Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame,
Quezon City; 1 9 (4) appellant Rudy Buduhan; 2 0 and (5) Reynaldo Gumiho, an eyewitness
who was allegedly present at the scene of the crime shortly before the incident in
question occurred. 2 1
The People's version of the incident as narrated by its principal witness, Cherry
Rose Salazar (Cherry Rose), is as follows:
On 24 July 1998, Cherry Rose was working as a guest relations officer at the RML
Canteen, a beerhouse and a videoke bar in Maddela, Quirino. 2 2 At about 9:00 to 10:00
p.m., there were only two groups of men inside the beerhouse. 2 3 The group that went
there rst was that of the appellants, 2 4 which was composed of Robert Buduhan, who
was wearing a white T-shirt marked Giordano, 2 5 Rudy Buduhan, who was wearing a red
T-shirt, 2 6 a man wearing a blue T-shirt, 2 7 and another man wearing a blue T-shirt with a
black jacket. 2 8 The second group was composed of Larry Erese and his companions
Gilbert Cortez (alias Abe) and Fernando Pera (alias Nanding).
At 10:40 p.m., while Cherry Rose was entertaining the group of Larry Erese,
Robert approached them and poked a gun at Larry. 2 9 Immediately, the man wearing a
blue T-shirt likewise approached Cherry Rose's Manager Romualde Almeron ( alias
Eddie), who was seated at the counter. 3 0 The man in blue poked a gun at Romualde
and announced a hold-up. 3 1 Larry then handed over his wristwatch to Robert.
Instantaneously, all four men from Robert's group red their guns at Larry and
Romualde, which caused them to fall down. 3 2 Abe and Nanding ran out of the RML
Canteen when the shooting occurred, and Cherry Rose hid below the table. 3 3 HTCESI

SPO1 Leo T. Saquing 34 testi ed that on 24 July 1998, at 11:00 p.m., he and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SPO4 Alex M. Gumayagay were detailed as duty investigators at the Maddela Police
Station when Eddie Ancheta, a reman, reported to them a shooting incident at the RML
Canteen in Barangay Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino. SPO1 Saquing and SPO4
Gumayagay then proceeded to the said place. About 50 meters from the scene of the
crime, they encountered four male individuals who were running away therefrom. 3 5 The
policemen immediately halted the men and asked them where they came from. When
they could not respond properly and gave different answers, the policemen
apprehended them and brought them to the Maddela Police Station for questioning and
identi cation. 3 6 Afterwards, the policemen went back to the RML Canteen to conduct
an investigation therein. 3 7 Later that night, the witnesses 3 8 of the shooting incident
went to the police station and they positively pointed to the four persons, later
identi ed as Robert Buduhan, Rudy Buduhan, Boy Guinhicna and Boyet Ginyang, as the
assailants in the said incident. 3 9
Dr. Fernando Melegrito, 4 0 the Chief of Hospital at the Maddela Hospital, testi ed
that he conducted the autopsies on the bodies of the victims Romualde Almeron, Larry
Erese and Orlando Pascua. 4 1 With respect to Romualde, Dr. Melegrito found that the
former sustained a gunshot wound 1/2 x 1/2 centimeter in diameter, one inch above
the right nipple, perforating the fourth rib of the right chest, penetrating the superior
aspect of the right lung, the aorta of the heart, the midportion of the left lung and exited
through the back, two inches below the lower portion of the left scapular region. 4 2
These ndings were also contained in Romualde Almeron's Autopsy Report. 4 3 From
the nature of the wound, Dr. Melegrito concluded that the victim was near and was in
front of the assailant when he was fatally shot.
As regards Larry Erese, Dr. Melegrito testi ed that said victim sustained a
gunshot wound 1/2 x 1/2 centimeter in diameter in the sternal region of the chest,
between the third left and right rib, perforating the arch of the aorta of the heart and
penetrating the subcutaneous tissue of the left lower back at the level of the seventh
rib, where a slug (bullet) 4 4 was extracted. 4 5 These ndings were likewise contained in
Larry Erese's Autopsy Report. 4 6 IDSaTE

Concerning the victim Orlando Pascua, Dr. Melegrito testi ed that the gunshot
wound that the former sustained resulted into a massive disruption of the lung. 4 7 As
presented in Pascua's Autopsy Report, 4 8 the gunshot wound was 1 x 1 inch in
diameter, perforating the midportion of the fourth rib of the left chest, macerating the
three-fourth (3/4) portion of the left lung, and penetrating the subcutaneous tissues of
the left back at the level of the third and fourth ribs, then the fourth and fth ribs where
pellets were extracted therein.
Myrna Almeron 4 9 testi ed that as a result of the untimely death of her husband
Romualde Almeron, which fact was evidenced by a Death Certi cate, 5 0 she incurred
expenses for funeral services in the amount of P38,000.00 and expenses during her
husband's wake in the amount of P25,000.00. She also claimed that during the night of
the shooting incident, Romualde brought with him the amount of P50,000.00 in his
wallet, but the same was no longer recovered. Among these gures, however, Myrna
Almeron was only able to present a receipt for the expenses for funeral services 5 1 and
only in the amount of P26,000.00.
Laurentino Erese testified that during the wake of his deceased son, whose death
was evidenced by a Death Certi cate, 5 2 he incurred funeral expenses for Larry in the
amount of P18,000.00. 5 3 From the wake to the rst death anniversary, the total
expenses were claimed to be more or less P100,000.00. 5 4 However, only the receipt
for the above funeral services 5 5 was offered.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The prosecution did not present the other surviving victims in the shooting
incident, namely Gilbert Cortez and Fernando Pera. The latter were fearful of reprisals
from unknown individuals. No evidence was likewise adduced on their behalf. Also, the
other employees who worked as guest relations o cers in the RML Canteen and who
likewise witnessed the incident were said to have absconded already. 5 6
For the defense, appellant Robert Buduhan 5 7 testi ed that on the evening of 24
July 1998, he was at their boarding house in Poblacion, Maddela, Quirino, together with
Rudy Buduhan, Boyet Ginyang, and Boy Guinhicna. The group drank one bottle of San
Miguel Gin, and then went to sleep. Unknown to him and Guinhicna, Rudy and Ginyang
still went out to continue their drinking sessions. While he was sleeping, Ginyang arrived
and woke him up. Ginyang told him that they had to go to the beerhouse where he
(Ginyang) and Rudy had been to because something might have happened to Rudy, as
there was a ght there. Robert, Ginyang and Guinhicna then proceeded to look for Rudy.
On their way there, at the junction of the National Highway, they encountered some
policemen who asked them where they were headed. When Robert said that they were
looking for Rudy, the policemen told them to board the police vehicle and the group
was given a ride. As it turned out, Robert's group was taken to the Municipal Jail of
Maddela where they were detained. The policemen went out to look for Rudy and they
likewise put him in jail. The following day, the policemen con scated the shirts worn by
the group. They were also taken to Santiago City where para n tests were conducted.
On the evening of 26 July 1998, the policemen went to the jail with three ladies who
were asked to identify Robert's group. The ladies, however, did not recognize Robert
and his companions. cACHSE

Boyet Ginyang 5 8 testi ed that on 24 July 1998, at 10:00 p.m., he and Rudy went
to a beerhouse in Maddela, Quirino. After ordering some drinks and chatting, they
suddenly heard gunshots from the outside. Looking towards the direction of the sound,
he saw somebody fall to the ground and at that point, he and Rudy ran to get away from
the place. While running towards their boarding house, Rudy was stopped by an
unknown armed person in a white T-shirt. When Ginyang reached the boarding house,
he roused appellant Robert and Guinhicna from their sleep and asked them to go with
him and search for Rudy. Upon reaching the junction at the National Highway, they were
halted by a man who asked where they were heading. After hearing their story, the man
said they should wait for a vehicle that would help them look for Rudy. When the vehicle
arrived, he and the others were brought to the municipal jail. Thereafter, Rudy was
likewise picked up by the police and detained with the group. On the morning of 25 July
1998, three ladies were brought to the municipal jail to identify his group, but the
former did not recognize them. On the morning of 26 July 1998, Ginyang and his three
companions were brought to Santiago City where they were made to undergo para n
testing. Afterwards, the group was brought back to the municipal jail in Maddela,
Quirino. Ginyang also testi ed that the policemen took the shirts they wore on the night
of 24 July 1998, but he could not remember when they did.
Police Inspector Maria Leonora Chua-Camarao 5 9 testi ed that she was the one
who conducted the examination proper of the para n casts taken from Robert
Buduhan, Rudy Buduhan, Boyet Ginyang and Boy Guinhicna. She likewise brought before
the trial court the original Letter Request 6 0 of the Maddela Police Station for the
conduct of para n casting; the Letter of Request 6 1 addressed to the O cer-in-Charge
the PNP Crime Laboratory in Region 2 for the conduct of para n examination; and the
para n casts of subjects Rudy, Ginyang, Guinhicna and Robert. 6 2 Police Inspector
Chua-Camarao explained that the purpose of conducting a para n test was to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 determine the presence of gunpowder residue in the hands of a person through
extraction using para n wax. The process involves two stages: rst, the para n
casting, in which the hands of the subject are covered with para n wax to extract
gunpowder residue; and second, the para n examination per se, which refers to the
actual chemical examination to determine whether or not gunpowder residue has
indeed been extracted. For the second stage, the method used is the diphenyl amine
test, wherein the diphenyl amine agent is poured on the para n casts of the subject's
hands. In this test, a positive result occurs when blue specks are produced in the
para n casts, which then indicates the presence of gunpowder residue. When no such
reaction takes place, the result is negative. SAEHaC

The ndings and conclusion on the para n test that Police Inspector Chua-
Camarao conducted were contained in Physical Science Report No. C-25-98 6 3 which
yielded a negative result for all the four accused. Nonetheless, the forensic chemist
pointed out that the para n test is merely a corroborative evidence, neither proving nor
disproving that a person did indeed re a gun. The positive or negative results of the
test can be in uenced by certain factors, such as the wearing of gloves by the subject,
perspiration of the hands, wind direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the
length of the barrel of the firearm or the open or closed trigger guard of the firearm. 6 4
Appellant Rudy Buduhan testi ed that at past 10:00 p.m. of 24 July 1998, he and
Ginyang went to a beerhouse. Shortly after ordering their drinks, they heard gunshots,
and a person seated near the door fell. They then ran towards the road. 6 5 While
running, an armed man wearing a white T-shirt held him, while Ginyang was able to get
away. 6 6 After a while, the police arrived and they took him to the Maddela police
station where he was jailed along with Robert, Ginyang and Guinhicna. 6 7 The rest of his
testimony merely corroborated the testimonies of Robert and Ginyang.
Reynaldo Gumiho (Reynaldo) 6 8 testi ed that on the evening of 24 July 1998, he
was in Poblacion, Maddela, Quirino, for a business transaction involving the sale of a
6x6 truck with a certain alias Boy. At about 8:00 p.m., Reynaldo and Boy proceeded to a
beerhouse in Maddela. After settling with their drinks, Reynaldo heard a group of ve
men near their table who were conversing and he recognized from the accent of their
voices that they were from Lagawe (Ifugao). One of the men then told him that they
should leave after nishing their drinks because the former were looking for someone
who killed their relative. Reynaldo disclosed that he recognized one of the persons
whom he usually saw in Lagawe, and that the group was composed of relatively tall
people who were mostly wearing jackets. Not long after, Reynaldo and Boy left the
beerhouse so as not to get involved in any trouble. Two days after he left Maddela,
Reynaldo learned of the shooting incident in the beerhouse. cIECTH

In a Decision dated 24 July 2003, the trial court found appellants guilty of the
charges, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court renders judgment as
follows: SEcAIC

1) Finding accused Robert and Rudy, both surnamed Buduhan,

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide (Par. 1 Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code) with respect to the
deceased Larry Erese and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua;
2) As to the victim Romualde Almeron, the court also nds them
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide (Article 249 of the Revised Penal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Code) and sentences each of them to the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of
Prision Mayor as minimum to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum;
However, they shall be entitled to a deduction of their preventive
imprisonment from the term of their sentences in accordance with Article 29 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6127.
3) To pay jointly the heirs of Larry Erese the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P25,000 as exemplary damages, P18,000 as actual expenses
and P5,000 as temperate damages; and the heirs of Mr. Almeron: P50,000 as
civil indemnity, P25,000 as exemplary damages, P38,000.00 as actual expenses
and P5,000.00 as temperate damages.
With costs against them.
However, with respect to accused Boyet Ginyang, the court ACQUITS him
of the offense charged since the prosecution had failed to overcome, with the
required quantum of evidence, the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Consequently, the Chief of the BJMP, Cabarroguis, Quirino, is hereby ordered to
immediately release him from con nement unless being held for some other
lawful cause; and to make a report hereon within three (3) days from receipt
hereof. 6 9
On 1 August 2003, the appellants led a Notice of Appeal 7 0 raising questions of
law and facts.
On 7 June 2004, the Court initially resolved to accept the appeal, docketed as
G.R. No. 159843, 7 1 and required the appellants to file their Brief. 7 2 DaEcTC

However, on 5 October 2005, we resolved to transfer the case to the Court of

Appeals in view of our ruling in People v. Mateo . 7 3 The case was then docketed as CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 01940.
On 29 December 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the July 24, 2003 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Maddela, Quirino, Branch 38, in Civil Case No. 39-18, is
hereby MODIFIED only in that, in addition to the award already given by the
trial court, in consonance with current jurisprudence, the heirs of ERESE are also
entitled to moral damages of P50,000 and in addition to the award already
given by the trial court, the heirs of ALMERON are also entitled to moral
damages of P50,000.00. CaAIES

Pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal

Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004,
which became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of
Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal led with
the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals. 7 4
From the Court of Appeals, the case was then elevated to this Court for
automatic review. In a Resolution 7 5 dated 5 September 2007, we required the parties
to le their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from
notice.
In a Manifestation 7 6 led on 30 October 2007, the People informed the Court
that it will no longer le a supplemental brief, as the arguments raised by appellants
had already been discussed in the brief 7 7 filed before the Court of Appeals.
Appellants, on the other hand, led their supplemental brief on 28 November
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2007.
As a nal plea for their innocence, appellants ask this Court to consider the
following assignment of errors:
I.

IN GIVING COMPLETE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRINCIPAL

WITNESS OF THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF FACTS TAINTING
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS.
II.

IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF THE APPELLANTS, WHICH WAS

CORROBORATED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE FORENSIC CHEMIST. TSEAaD

III.

IN FAILING TO MAKE A DIRECT RULING ON THE MOTION OF THE ACCUSED TO

QUASH THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARREST OF THE
ACCUSED WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST IS ILLEGAL AS THERE WAS NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS REGARDING THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
To state differently, appellants argue that their guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt in view of the trial court's error in the appreciation of the evidence for
and against them. They fault the trial court's over-reliance on the testimony of the
prosecution's main witness and its failure to consider the glaring inconsistencies in
Cherry Rose's previous accounts of the shooting incident.
The appeal lacks merit.
Appellants insist that Cherry Rose is not a credible witness in view of the
con icting answers she gave in her sworn statement before the police, 7 8 in the
preliminary investigation of the case and in her testimony in open court. They contend
that the trial court failed to scrutinize the entirety of the statements made by Cherry
Rose vis-à-vis the shooting incident.
Appellants called attention to the fact that during the preliminary investigation of
the case, Cherry Rose stated that a man wearing a white Giordano T-shirt shot Larry
after Larry handed his wristwatch. 7 9 Thereafter, when Cherry Rose was asked whom
she saw wearing a white Giordano T-shirt, she pointed to Boy Guinhicna. 8 0 With
respect to appellant Robert Buduhan, Cherry Rose identi ed him as the one who shot
Orlando Pascua. 8 1
In the testimony of Cherry Rose in open court, however, she identi ed appellant
Robert as the man who was wearing a white Giordano T-shirt and who shot Larry Erese.
82

Also, in Cherry Rose's sworn statement before the police, she narrated that the
group of the appellants, consisting of ve persons, was already inside the RML Canteen
before the shooting incident occured. 8 3 However, in her direct examination, Cherry
Rose stated that appellant Robert had only three other companions. 8 4 DcICEa

Finally, in the preliminary investigation, appellants pointed out that Cherry Rose
unhesitatingly admitted that Larry Erese was her intimate boyfriend and that was why
she embraced him after the latter was shot. 8 5
In her cross-examination, however, Cherry Rose stated that Larry was only a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 customer and not her boyfriend. 8 6 When questioned about her prior statement about
this fact given during the preliminary investigation, Cherry Rose changed her answer
and said that Larry was indeed her boyfriend. 8 7
Taking all these circumstances into account, appellants argue that, judging from
the con icting statements of Cherry Rose, the identi cation of the accused is highly
doubtful.
We are not persuaded.
As between statements made during the preliminary investigation of the case
and the testimony of a witness in open court, the latter deserves more credence.
Preliminary investigations are commonly fairly summary or truncated in nature, being
designed simply for the determination, not of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but of
probable cause prior to the ling of an information in court. It is the statements of a
witness in open court which deserve careful consideration. 8 8
In any event, Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, on the matter
of inconsistent statements by a witness, is revealing:
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent
statements. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing
they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning
them.
The rule that requires a su cient foundation to be rst laid before introducing
evidence of inconsistent statements of a witness is founded upon common sense and
is essential to protect the character of a witness. His memory is refreshed by the
necessary inquiries, which enable him to explain the statements referred to and to show
that they were made by mistake, or that there was no discrepancy between them and
his testimony. 8 9 SHECcT

In the present case, the statements made by Cherry Rose during the preliminary
investigation with respect to the identities of the accused were not related to her during
the trial. Indeed, it is only during the appeal of this case that appellants pointed out the
supposed inconsistencies in Cherry Rose's identi cation of the appellants in order to
destroy her credibility as a witness. No opportunity was ever afforded her to provide an
explanation. Without such explanation, whether plausible or not, we are left with no
basis to evaluate and assess her credibility, on the rationale that it is only when no
reasonable explanation is given by a witness in reconciling her con icting declarations
that she should be deemed impeached. 9 0
In this regard, what the defense brought to Cherry Rose's attention during the
trial were her contradictory statements about her romantic relationship with Larry
Erese. As a result of this confrontation, Cherry Rose changed her answer. We rule,
however, that this inconsistency relates only to an insigni cant aspect of the case and
does not involve a material fact in dispute.
Inasmuch as the above-stated mandatory procedural requirements were not
complied with, the credibility of Cherry Rose as a witness stands unimpeached. As
found by the trial court, the testimony of Cherry Rose was straightforward throughout.
The appellants were not able to adduce any reason or motive for her to bear false
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 witness against them. As a matter of fact, Cherry Rose testi ed during cross-
examination that she did not personally know appellant Robert, and that she had rst
seen him only during the night when the shooting incident took place. 9 1
As the trial judge who penned the assailed decision did not hear the testimonies
of the witnesses for the prosecution, 9 2 the rule granting nality to the factual ndings
of trial courts does not find applicability to the instant case. 9 3
After a careful review of the entire records of this case, the Court nds no reason
to disagree with the factual ndings of the trial court that all the elements of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide were present and proved in this case. aCSHDI

Robbery with Homicide is penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the

Revised Penal Code, 9 4 which provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons-
Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion
of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when
the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation
or arson.

To warrant conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, one that is
primarily classi ed as a crime against property and not against persons, the
prosecution has to rmly establish the following elements: (1) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (2) the property
thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime
of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, is committed. 9 5
In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the
killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would
supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of
robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide. 9 6
The original design must have been robbery; and the homicide, even if it precedes
or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated
with a view to consummate, the robbery. The taking of the property should not be
merely an afterthought, which arose subsequently to the killing. 9 7
With respect to the elements of the crime, the following excerpts from the direct
testimony of Cherry Rose clearly illustrates the same, viz.:
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR FERDINAND D. ORIAS —

Q: At that night of July 24, 1998 at around 10:40 in the evening, what were
you doing at RML Canteen?

A: I was entertaining a costumer sir. (nakatable)

xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who was that person who requested you to entertain him?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A: Larry Erese sir.
Q: Do you recall if this Larry Erese have a companions (sic) that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Name them?

A: Abe at Nanding sir.

Q: That night while you were entertaining them, this three (3) what transpired
next?
A: An Ifugao approached us sir and he poke a gun at Larry Erese sir. DaCTcA

Q: And what did Larry Erese do when a gun was poke at him?
A: He gave his wrist watch sir.
Q: To whom did Larry Erese gave his wrist watch?

A: To the Ifugao who poke a gun at him sir.

xxx xxx xxx
Q: Will you please go around and see if he is inside the courtroom and point
at him?
A: The witness is pointing to a man [seated] at the back bench of the court
and when asked about his name he answered Robert Buduhan.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What was the attire of Robert Buduhan at that time?
A: White T-shirt sir.

Q: Can you name or can you recall any particular description of that T-shirt
worn by Robert Buduhan at that time?

xxx xxx xxx

A: It was marked with Giordano sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When Robert Buduhan approached Larry Erese and Larry Erese gave his
wrist watch, do you recall if Robert Buduhan have a companions (sic) at
that time?
A: There was sir.
Q: How many of them?
A: Four (4) sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: Where are these companions of Robert Buduhan at the time Robert

Buduhan poke a gun at Larry Erese? AIHTEa

A: The other one was there to my Manager [Romualde] Eddie Almeron sir.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: What was the attire of this person who approached Eddie Almeron, your
Manager?
A: He was in blue sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: He wore blue T-shirt?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: What about the other two (2) companions of Robert Buduhan where are
they?

A: They were inside sir.

Q: The first of the two (2) what is the attire?
A: Color red sir.
Q: What about the last one?
A: He was in blue T-shirt and with black jacket sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: The person in red T-shirt whom you claim the companion of Robert
Buduhan, can you identify him?

A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: Stand and point at him?

A: Witness pointed one of the accused sitting infront and when asked about
his name he answered Rudy Buduhan.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: You mention about a person wearing blue T-shirt who approached your
Manager Eddie Almeron. What did he do rst before he approached your
Manager if [any]?

A: He poke a gun at our Manager sir.

Q: What did he tell to you (sic) Manager if any while poking a gun?
A: Holdup sir.

Q: Are they simultaneous in approaching Larry Erese and Eddie Almeron, this
person in blue T-shirt and the accused Robert Buduhan?
A: No, sir. Robert Buduhan approached first.

Q: And then the person in blue T-shirt likewise approached Eddie Almeron?

A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: What transpired rst before Larry Erese gave his wrist watch. The
announcement of holdup or the giving of his wrist watch? TCAScE

A: The announcement of the holdup comes first sir.

Q: When Larry Erese gave his watch to Robert Buduhan with Robert Buduhan
poking a gun at Larry Erese, what transpired next?

A: They fired sir.

Q: Who fired?

A: All of them sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You mentioned a while ago that Robert Buduhan poke a gun at Larry
Erese?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know the caliber of the gun?

A: It looks like a 38 but it is long sir.

Q: You likewise mention that the person in blue T-shirt poke a gun at Eddie
Almeron?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What about the person in red?

A: It looks like an armalite sir.

Q: What about the person in blue T-shirt with black jacket?

A: Armalite sir.

Q: When Rudy Buduhan fired his gun was there any person who was hit?

A: There was sir.

Q: Name that person? SHIETa

A: Larry Erese sir.

Q: When the person in blue T-shirt who was poking a gun at Eddie Almeron
fired his gun was there any person who was hit?

A: There was sir.

Q: Who was that person who was hit?

A: Eddie Almeron sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: How far is Robert Buduhan from Larry Erese when Robert Buduhan red
his gun?

A: He was arms like sir.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Q: You mention also about a person in blue T-shirt red a gun at Eddie
Almeron. How far was he from Eddie Almeron when he fired his gun?

A: The witness pointed to a place in the courtroom.

xxx xxx xxx

COURT —

About 2 to 3 meters?
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR FERDINAND D. ORIAS —

Yes, 2 to 3 meters.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Do you know what happened to Larry Erese?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where is he now?
A: He was dead already sir. EIDTAa

Q: What about Eddie Almeron. Do you know what happened to him?

A: He was also dead sir. 9 8

Quite obvious from the foregoing testimony is that the act of appellant Robert
and his companion in blue T-shirt of poking their guns towards Larry and Romualde,
respectively, and the announcement of a hold-up were what caused Larry to give his
watch to Robert. At this point, there already occurred the taking of personal property
that belonged to another person, which was committed with violence or intimidation
against persons.
Likewise, the intent to gain may already be presumed in this case. Animus
lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act, which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. 9 9 The unlawful act of the taking of Larry's watch at gunpoint after
the declaration of a hold-up already speaks well enough for itself. No other intent may
be gleaned from the acts of the appellant's group at that moment other than to divest
Larry of his personal property.
The appellants acted in conspiracy in perpetrating the crimes charged. As found
by the trial court, conspiracy was proved by the concurrence of the following facts: that
the four men were together when they entered the RML canteen; that they occupied the
same table; that they were all armed during that time; that while the robbery was in
progress, neither Rudy nor the one in blue T-shirt with black jacket prevented the
robbery or the killing of the victims; that all four red their rearms when the robbery
was going on and that they ed all together and were seen running by the police before
they were intercepted just a few meters from the scene of the crime.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The same degree of
proof necessary to prove the crime is required to support a nding of criminal
conspiracy. Direct proof, however, is not essential to show conspiracy. 1 0 0 Proof of
concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of
design and objective is sufficient. 1 0 1
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 As the fatal shooting of both Larry Erese and Romualde Almeron happened on
the occasion of the robbery and was subsequent thereto, both of the appellants must
be held liable for the crime of Robbery with Homicide on two counts. DHaEAS

The defense of appellants of alibi is at best weak when faced with the positive
identi cation of the appellants by the prosecution's principal witness. It is elemental
that for alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. This
means that the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time
of the commission of the offense but he must also demonstrate that it would be
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at that time. 1 0 2 In the
present case, there was absolutely no claim of any fact that would show that it was well
nigh impossible for appellants to be present at the locus criminis. In fact, they all
testi ed that they were going towards the vicinity of the area of the shooting incident
when the police apprehended them.
The testimonies of Robert Buduhan and Boyet Ginyang were also markedly
inconsistent on the material date as to when the witnesses in the shooting incident
identi ed them. Robert Buduhan testi ed that the three lady witnesses came to identify
them at the municipal jail on the evening of 26 July 1998. 1 0 3 However, in the direct
examination of Boyet Ginyang, he testi ed that said witnesses arrived on the morning
of 25 July 1998. 1 0 4 This fact only tends to lend suspicion to their already weak alibi.
Appellants likewise cannot rely on the negative findings of Police Inspector Chua-
Camarao on the para n tests conducted in order to exculpate themselves. The said
witness herself promptly stated that para n test results are merely corroborative of
the major evidence offered by any party, and they are not conclusive with respect to the
issue of whether or not the subjects did indeed re a gun. As previously mentioned, the
positive and negative results of the para n test can also be in uenced by certain
factors affecting the conditions surrounding the use of the rearm, namely: the wearing
of gloves by the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind direction, wind velocity,
humidity, climate conditions, the length of the barrel of the rearm or the open or
closed trigger guard of the firearm.
Lastly, the persistent claim of appellants of the illegality of their warrantless
arrest, due to the lack of personal knowledge on the part of the arresting o cers,
deserves scant consideration. As aptly stated in People v. Salazar, 1 0 5 granting
arguendo that appellants were illegally arrested, such arrest did not invest these
eyewitness accounts with constitutional in rmity as "fruits of the poisonous tree".
Considering that their conviction could be secured on the strength of the testimonial
evidence given in open court, which are not inadmissible in evidence, the court nds no
reason to further belabor the matter. ETIDaH

A determination of the appropriate imposable penalties is now in order.

The prescribed penalty for Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion perpetua to death. In accordance with
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a penalty composed of
two indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals thus correctly imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
As regards the charge for the death of Orlando Pascua and the injuries sustained
by Fernando Pera and Gilbert Cortez, the trial court aptly held that the prosecution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 failed to substantiate the same. No witnesses were presented to testify as to the
circumstances leading to the said incidents, and neither were they proved to be caused
by the criminal actions of the appellants.
The two courts below committed a mistake, however, in convicting the
appellants separately of the crime of Homicide for the death of Romualde Almeron. It
bears stressing that in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, so long as
the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the
robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the
victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are
killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. 1 0 6
As to the award of damages, we hold that the heirs of Larry Erese and Romualde
Almeron are each entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.
This award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim
without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. 1 0 7 SEIaHT

We agree with the Court of Appeals' grant of moral damages in this case even in
the absence of proof for the entitlement to the same. As borne out by human nature
and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain
and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow,
torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal
killing. 1 0 8 The heirs of Erese and Almeron are thus entitled to moral damages in the
amount of P50,000.00 each.
On the award of actual damages, we hold that the heirs of Larry Erese are entitled
to the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00, in lieu of the lower amount of
P18,000 that was substantiated by a receipt. In People v. Villanueva, 1 0 9 we have laid
down the rule that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to
less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justi ed in
lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages
proven exceeds P25,000.00, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded.
Actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be
granted. IcHDCS

However, with respect to the award of the amount of P38,000.00 to the heirs of
Romualde Almeron, the same is incorrect since the receipt presented therefor covers
only the amount of P26,000.00. The award of actual damages should be reduced
accordingly. The grant of temperate damages to the heirs of Almeron is thus deleted.
The award of exemplary damages is likewise deleted, as the presence of any
aggravating circumstance was neither alleged nor proved in this case. 1 1 0
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated 29 December 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01940 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
1. For the death of Larry Erese, appellants Robert Buduhan y Bullan and
Rudy Buduhan y Bullan are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
2. For the death of Romualde Almeron, appellants Robert Buduhan y
Bullan and Rudy Buduhan y Bullan are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Appellants shall be entitled to a deduction of their preventive
imprisonment from the term of their sentences in accordance with
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
6127.
4. Appellants are ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of
Larry Erese as follows: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b)
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P25,000.00 as temperate
damages.
5. Appellants are ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of
Romualde Almeron as follows: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b)
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P26,000.00 as actual
damages.
6. For reasons herein stated, appellants are ACQUITTED of the separate
crime of Homicide for the death of Romualde Almeron. EDSAac

No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Justices Josefina

Guevara-Salonga and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring; rollo, pp. 3-13. cCHITA

2. Penned by Judge Menrado V. Corpuz; CA rollo, pp. 27-41.

3. CA rollo, pp. 13-14.
4. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 73-74.
5. RULES OF COURT, Rule 113, Section 5 provides the instances when a warrantless
arrest may be lawfully made, to wit:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
6. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 94-95. IaAHCE

7. Id. at 116.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Id. at 114.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 89.
11. Id. at 125.
12. TSN, 14 February 2000. TICDSc

13. TSN, 12 April 2000.

14. TSN, 15 February 2000.
15. TSN, 16 February 2000.
16. Id.
17. TSN, 23 May 2002.
18. TSN, 19 June 2002.
19. TSN, 9 July 2002.
20. TSN, 23 August 2002.
21. TSN, 10 January 2003.
22. TSN, 14 February 2000, p. 7.
23. Id. at 24.
24. Id. at 35.
25. Exhibit "A" for the prosecution.
26. TSN, 14 February 2000, p. 13.
27. Id. at 11.
28. Id. at 12.
29. Id. at 9. SICDAa

30. Id. at 11, 39.

31. Id. at 14.
32. Id. at 17.
33. Id. at 17-18.
34. TSN, 12 April 2000, pp. 3-16.
35. Joint Affidavit of SPO3 Alex M. Gumayagay and SPO1 Leo T. Saquing, Exhibit "M"
for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 1, p. 15.
36. Id. at 4-5.
37. Id. at 16.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 38. Cherry Rose Salazar, Maureen Pasion and Marveloza Lopez. (TSN, 12 April 2000,
p. 15.)
39. TSN, 12 April 2000, p. 5.
40. TSN, 15 February 2000, pp. 4-5.
41. The circumstances of Orlando Pascua's death were not testified to by any of the
witnesses for the prosecution during the trial. It was during the preliminary
investigation of the case before the sala of the Municipal Circuit Trial Judge
Moises M. Pardo when Maureen Pasion, an employee of the RML Canteen,
narrated how the assailants shot Orlando Pascua. (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 46-49). The
prosecution no longer presented said witness. DACTSa

42. TSN, 15 February 2000, p. 4.

43. Exhibit "D" for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 1, p. 59.
44. Exhibit "F" for the Prosecution.
45. TSN, 15 February 2000, p. 5.
46. Exhibit "E" for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 1, p. 60.
47. TSN, 15 February 2000, p. 6.
48. Exhibit "G" for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 1, p. 122.
49. TSN, 16 February 2000, pp. 6-9.
50. Exhibit "I" for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 2, p. 339.
51. Exhibit "J" for the Prosecution, Records, Vol. 2, p. 340.
52. Exhibit "K", id. at 341.
53. TSN, 16 February 2000, p. 18.
54. Id. at 17.
55. Exhibit "L" for the Prosecution. cHATSI

56. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 205-206.

57. TSN, 23 May 2002, pp. 7-26.
58. TSN, 19 June 2002, pp. 8-20.
59. TSN, 9 July 2002, pp. 6-12.
60. Exhibit "2" for the Defense, CA rollo, p. 92.
61. Exhibit "2-A" for the Defense, Records, Vol. 2, p. 312.
62. Exhibits "2-B", "2-C", "2-D", and "2-E", respectively, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 313-327.
63. Exhibit "1" for the Defense, Records, Vol. 1, p. 310.
64. TSN, 9 July 2002, pp. 13-16.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 65. TSN, 23 August 2002, p. 7.
66. TSN, 9 July 2002, pp. 8-9.
67. Id. at 10-11.
68. TSN, 10 January 2003, pp. 3-10.
69. CA rollo, pp. 40-41. ISCDEA

70. Id. at 42.

71. Id. at 44.
72. Id. at 46.
73. In the said case, we ruled thus:
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of
cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to
ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to
provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated
to the Supreme Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to
determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the
evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of
Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an
error of judgment. If the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render
judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so
warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of
the case to the Supreme Court for its final disposition . (G.R. Nos. 147678-
87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 656). (Emphasis ours). aSECAD

74. Rollo, pp. 12-13.

75. Id. at 18.
76. Id. at 19-21.
77. CA rollo, pp. 103-119.
78. Exhibit "C-C2" for the Prosecution, records, Vol. 1, pp. 10-12.
79. Minutes of the Preliminary Investigation, records, Vol. 1, p. 43.
80. Id. at 44.
81. Id. at 45.
82. TSN, 14 February 2000, p. 9, 15.
83. Sworn Statement of Cherry Rose Salazar, Exhibit "C-C2" for the Prosecution,
records, Vol. 1, p. 11.
84. TSN, 14 February 2000, p. 10.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 85. Minutes of the Preliminary Investigation, records, Vol. 1, pp. 43-44.
86. TSN, 14 February 2000, p. 29.
87. Id. at 30-33.
88. People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 96469, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 22, 28-29.
89. People v. de Guzman, 351 Phil. 587, 596 (1998).
90. Id. at 596-597. SHTaID

91. TSN, 14 February 2000, pp. 35-36.

92. The Honorable Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao heard the prosecution witnesses'
testimonies before the Honorable Menrado V. Corpuz took over and eventually
penned the decision.
93. See People v. Navarro, 357 Phil. 1010, 1024 (1998).
94. As amended by paragraph 1 of Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659 (An Act to
Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose
the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other
Purposes).
95. People v. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, 23 October 2006, 505 SCRA 137, 154, citing
People v. Del Rosario, 411 Phil. 676, 685 (2001).
96. People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, 12 July 2007, 527 SCRA 589, 604, citing
People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 384, 403.
97. People v. Lara, supra note 95, citing People v. Consejero, 404 Phil. 914, 932-933
(2001).
98. TSN, 14 February 2000, pp. 8-18.
99. People v. Gavina, 332 Phil. 488, 495 (1996).
100. People v. Ponce, 395 Phil. 563, 571-572 (2000).
101. Id.
102. People v. Fuertes, 357 Phil. 603, 612-613 (1998).
103. TSN, 23 May 2002, p. 20.
104. TSN, 19 June 2002, p. 15.
105. 342 Phil. 745 (1997). caIDSH

106. People v. Jabiniao, G.R. No. 179499, 30 April 2008.

107. People v. Opuran, 469 Phil. 698, 720 (2004).
108. People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 839 (2002), cited in People v. Rubiso, 447 Phil.
374, 383 (2003).
109. 456 Phil. 14, 29 (2003).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 110. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may
be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to
the offended party. DIAcTE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com