Crim Cases Exams Final
Crim Cases Exams Final
4077
THIRD DIVISION was already opened, its metal lock was found three That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at
G.R. No. 182793 July 5, 2010 (3) to five (5) meters from the door and seven (7) to Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee ten (10) meters from the body of Rosita. Inside the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within
- versus - DIONISIO CALONGE, Accused-Appellant. two (2) “bedrooms” of the house separated only by a the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-
DECISION curtain, they found the lifeless bodies of the two (2) named accused, with intent to kill, evident
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: young girls, Kimberly and Dony Rose. The other child, premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did
For review is the Decision dated November 29, Melody, was also bloodied but alive and conscious. then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.- They brought Melody to the Veterans Regional with the use of a bladed/pointed object, stab
H.C. No. 01516 which affirmed with modification the Hospital where she was treated and confined for ROSITA CALONGE y AMLAG, legal wife of the
Joint Decision dated August 10, 2005 of the Regional seventeen (17) days. accused, thus inflicting upon the latter mortal
Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27 Police investigators found no signs of struggle or wound which caused her instantaneous death, to
in Criminal Case Nos. 4077-4080 finding the above- forcible entry as the things inside the house were not the damage and prejudice of her heirs.
named accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable disarranged. Photographs of the three (3) dead CONTRARY TO LAW.
doubt of parricide and frustrated parricide. victims (Rosita, Dony Rose and Kimberly) were also Criminal Case No. 4078
The facts as culled from the records: taken at the crime scene. When interviewed by the That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at
Rosita A. Calonge was appellant’s legitimate wife, with policemen, Melody’s grandmother, Ana O. Amlag, Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde,
whom he had three (3) children, namely: Melody, Dony said that Melody told her it was their father (appellant) Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within
Rose and Kimberly whose respective ages at the time of who attacked her, her mother and her sisters. the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-
the incident were nine (9), seven (7) and six (6) years. Melody’s grandparents said they knew it was named accused, with intent to kill, evident
The family lived in a four (4) by five (5) meters house at appellant because they had heard Rosita shouting premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did
a farm land near the house of Rosita’s parents at that appellant will kill them. On the other hand, when then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
Barangay Cabuluan, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. appellant was asked what happened and who with the use of a bladed/pointed object, hack
On December 1, 2001 at around 6:00 o’clock in the attacked him, he answered he does not know. KIMBERLY CALONGE y AMLAG, 06 years old,
morning, the Villaverde Police Station received a Appellant asked to be treated also and they brought daughter of the accused, thus inflicting upon the
radio call from the barangay captain of Cabuluan that him to the hospital. latter mortal wounds which caused her
a massacre took place in their locality. By 7:30 a.m., While still in the hospital, Melody, assisted by her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice
the responding team led by PO3 Alfelmer Balut first cousin Ana Fe Huang, gave her statement to the of her heirs.
arrived at the area. Rosita’s bloodied body was police. She identified her father, who had a quarrel CONTRARY TO LAW.
found lying on the ground about fifteen (15) meters with her mother the previous night, as the one (1) who Criminal Case No. 4079
away from their house. Her right hand was loosely hacked her and also fatally stabbed her mother and That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at
clasping a knife. Lying on his back near the stairs two (2) sisters. Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde,
was appellant who was also wounded but still On January 17, 2002, appellant was charged with Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within
conscious. Beside him were a bolo and a flashlight, parricide and frustrated parricide under the following the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-
both stained with blood. While the windows of the Informations: named accused, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did appellant, he came home on the night of November WHEREFORE, finding the accused Dionisio
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, 30, 2001 at around 6:00 o’clock. After taking coffee, Calonge y Verana GUILTY beyond reasonable
with the use of a bladed/pointed object, stab DONY he took supper with his family. At about 8:30 p.m., he doubt of three counts of parricide and one count of
ROSE CALONGE y AMLAG, 07 years old, put Kimberly to sleep while his wife together with frustrated parricide, he is hereby sentenced as
daughter of the accused, thus inflicting upon the Dony Rose was in the kitchen preparing for their food follows: (1) for the killing of Kimberly Calonge and
latter mortal wounds which caused her the following morning because they will go to church. Dony Rose Calonge, the said accused is hereby
instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice He could not remember what time he fell asleep but sentenced to suffer death penalty by lethal injection
of her heirs. when he woke up in the morning, he was no longer in for each case; to pay the heirs of the said victims,
CONTRARY TO LAW. their house but in a hospital. Only then he realized the sums of P75,000.00 for each case as civil
Criminal Case No. 4080 that he was wounded on the chest and neck. He indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at tried to inquire from people in the hospital what to pay the heirs actual damages in the sum of
Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde, happened but no voice came out of his mouth. He P21,255.00 for the death of Kimberly, Dony Rose
Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within does not know who caused his injuries as he could and Rosita A. Calonge; (2) for the killing of Rosita
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above- not recall anything that transpired from the time he Calonge, the said accused is hereby sentenced to
named accused, with intent to kill, evident slept until the morning of December 1, 2001. suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay
premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did Appellant denied that he and his wife quarrelled the the heirs of Rosita the sum of P50,000.00 as civil
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, previous night. What he knows is that his wife had a indemnity and the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
with the use of a bladed object, hack Melody quarrel with spouses Manong Sante and Manang damages; (3) for the crime of frustrated parricide for
Calonge y Amlag, 09 years old, daughter of the Paula, as the latter who is the sister of his wife did not wounding Melody Calonge, he is hereby sentenced
accused, thus inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds want them to stay in the place. On cross- to suffer the penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision
and performing all the acts of execution which examination, appellant claimed that the doors of the mayor as the minimum term to 20 years of
should have produced the crime of Parricide as a house were still open at that time because somebody [reclusion temporal] as the maximum term; to pay
consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it else was still using the kitchen. He denied that he the victim moral damages in the sum of
by reason of causes independent of the will of the sharpened his bolo that same night, as in fact all his P25,000.00; exemplary damages in the sum of
accused, that is, the timely medical attendance carpentry tools were placed in their kitchen. As to his P20,000.00 and P11,015.00 as actual damages.
given which prevented the victim’s death, but flashlight, appellant insisted it was his wife who was SO ORDERED.
nevertheless resulted to her damage and prejudice. using it that night but he admitted that it was already On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s
CONTRARY TO LAW. placed very near the door where he had put Kimberly judgment but modified the death penalty imposed on
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty. to sleep. He actually placed his bolo, flashlight and appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 4078 and 4079
During the trial, the prosecution presented as those other items in a shelf just four (4) meters away (parricide committed against Kimberly and Dony
witnesses PO3 Alfelmer Balut, Dr. Telesforo A. Ragpa from where he slept. Rose) by reducing it to reclusion perpetua. Appellant
(Municipal Health Officer), Lourdes Amlag, Dr. Lirio On August 18, 2005, the trial court promulgated its filed a notice of appeal and accordingly the records of
Marie Ronduen-Adriatico and Melody A. Calonge. Joint Decision dated August 10, 2005 convicting the case were elevated to this Court.
The sole witness for the defense was appellant who appellant of the crimes charged, the fallo of which On August 11, 2008, the Court resolved to require
gave a different version of the incident. According to reads: the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs,
if they so desired. In a Manifestation dated October eyewitness engender doubt as to their reliability and Melody, and hacked her three (3) times before
29, 2008, the Public Attorney’s Office, representing veracity. stabbing Dony Rose and Kimberly who were both still
the appellant, informed the Court that it would no Appellant further argues that Melody’s identification sleeping. After finishing off his family, appellant
longer file a supplemental brief; it was adopting its of appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes remained inflicted his lone superficial wound before lying down
main brief on record. The Office of the Solicitor uncorroborated. The failure to present such other on the floor, apparently to avoid suspicion that he was
General, representing the People, likewise omitted to alleged witnesses (her grandparents) was not himself the culprit and create an impression that a
submit a supplemental brief. satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. He assails trespasser had attacked all of them in the night.
Appellant seeks the reversal of his conviction by the Melody’s testimony as highly incredible. While Melody vividly recounted to the court what she had
RTC and CA on the following grounds: Melody claimed that she saw appellant hacked and witnessed while pretending to be still asleep even
I. stabbed her sisters, the fact is that, during that time, after she was hacked by appellant.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING according to her, she was sleeping together with her Melody’s account was corroborated by the findings
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY mother in another room inside their house. Moreover, of prosecution witnesses Dr. Ragpa (who conducted
OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MELODY it was impossible for Melody to have seen that the the autopsy on the bodies of the three [3] victims) and
CALONGE DESPITE ITS EVIDENT person who killed her mother and two (2) sisters was Dr. Ronduen-Adriatico (who examined and treated
CONTRADICTIONS AND APPARENT appellant when in fact, according to her, there was no Melody). Dr. Ragpa testified that Rosita sustained
UNREALITY. light inside their room when the incident happened. only a single stab wound on the chest. He explained
II. Clearly, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden that the width of such wound, 2 ½ inches, was caused
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN of proving the identity of the offender. by a single upward thrust and pulling out of the bladed
FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED- We disagree. instrument. The six (6)-inch deep wound hit the lower
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS It is plain that the errors imputed to the trial court tip of the heart and resected the pulmonary vessels.
BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. are factual and chiefly assail its evaluation of the For Rosita, the cause of death was hypovolemic
Appellant contends that the trial court overlooked credibility of witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that shock due to resected pulmonary blood vessels. As
the following inconsistencies and contradictions in the findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the for Kimberly, she sustained a hacking wound on the
testimony of Melody: (1) the alleged opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to left axilla (armpit), probably inflicted in a lying position,
misunderstanding between her parents prior to determine the probative value of the other testimonies which cut the head of the left humerus and resecting
December 1, 2001, which she first denied but are entitled to great weight and respect because the the axillary blood vessels. Kimberly also died from
changed it during a subsequent hearing when she trial court is in a better position to assess the same, hypovolemic shock due to injured/resected left axillary
claimed her parents had a quarrel before the stabbing an opportunity not equally open to the appellate blood vessels. Dony Rose had one (1) incised wound
incident occurred, (2) the time of such quarrel for court. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the and one (1) stab wound on her chest, which
which she gave three (3) different answers (8:00 to findings and conclusions of the RTC and CA in this penetrated the left ventricle of the heart. She
9:00 p.m. of November 30, 2001; 2:00 early morning case. likewise died of hypovolemic shock due to penetrating
of December 1, 2001; and 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. of It was established from prosecution evidence that stab wound on the chest. On the other hand, Dr.
November 30, 2001), and (3) whether it was Melody the lone survivor Melody saw appellant using his bolo Ronduen-Adriatico testified that Melody sustained five
or her mother who was first hacked by her father. and knife, struck at her mother who was able to evade (5) wounds and had three (3) amputations of the three
These inconsistent statements of the alleged it and run outside the house. Appellant then turned to (3) digits of her right hand. She found the wounds
located at the left side of the head, lower lip, left side details and collateral matters – not to the central fact PROS. TURINGAN:
of the neck, left shoulder, chest and the third, fourth of the crime – do not affect the veracity or detract Q. What did your father use in hacking you
and fifth fingers. Although the only fatal wound is that from the essential credibility of a witness as long as it Melody?
at the left side of the neck, the combination of all is coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. A. The knife and the bolo, sir.
wounds would have caused the death of Melody had It must be further stressed that during her xxxx
there been no timely medical assistance rendered on testimony, Melody had to be assisted by an PROS. TURINGAN:
the patient. The neck wound was a fatal injury (victim interpreter as she responded to the questions in the These bolo and knife, how are they related to
could have died in less than six [6] hours) because of Ifugao dialect. Besides, ample margin of error and the bolo and knife used by your father in hacking
its proximity to large blood vessels such as carotid understanding should be accorded to young you, your sister and your mother?
and tubular vessels. witnesses who, much more than adults, would be A. He stabbed and then he hacked, sir.
We hold that the trial court did not err in finding gripped with tension due to the novelty of the Q. By the way, these bolo and knife, do you know
Melody’s testimony clear and unequivocal, despite experience of testifying before a court. Despite the who own these bolo and knife?
her answers not being as complete as would be language barrier, Melody remained categorical and A. Yes, sir.
desired, considering her age and difficulty of steadfast in declaring that it was her very own father, Q. Who own these bolo and knife Melody?
translating the questions to her in the Ifugao dialect. appellant, who hacked her, her mother and her A. My father sir.
Her account of the incident was consistent with the younger sisters using his bolo and knife in the early Q. How are these knife and bolo related to the bolo
physical evidence, particularly the findings of Dr. morning of December 1, 2001 at their house. Thus, and knife used by your father in hacking your sister,
Ragpa and Dr. Ronduen-Adriatico on the injuries she testified during the direct examination: yourself and your mother?
sustained and cause of death of the victims as a PROS. TURINGAN: A. He used that bolo in hacking and stabbing my
result of the carnage wrought upon their family by Q. Do you recall of any incident at that evening that mother and my sister, sir.
appellant. is relevant to this case involving the killing of your Q. Who was hacked first by your father Melody?
The inconsistencies mentioned by appellant relate sister Dony Rose, Kimberly, your mother and the A. I, sir.
only to minor details and not to the fact of the fatal fact that you were wounded? Q. After hacking [you] Melody. . .By the way, what
stabbing of his wife and two (2) children in his own A. Yes, there was sir. part of your body was hacked by your father?
hands. We have consistently ruled that not all Q. What was that incident that you recall Melody? A. This one, sir. (Witness showing to the Court the
inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony affect their A. He hacked us, sir. three fingers that were cut from the middle finger up
credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and Q. Who hacked you? to the small finger of the left arm and also below the
collateral matters do not affect the substance of their A. My papa, sir. shoulder of the left arm).
declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their COURT: Q. Where else, Melody?
testimonies. Thus, although there may be Q. Do you know the full name of your papa or A. (Witness showing to the Court the scar located
inconsistencies on the testimonies of witnesses on nickname? at the left side of her lower lip and also at the back
minor details, they do not impair credibility where A. Yes, sir I know. of her left ear).
there is consistency in relating the principal Q. What is the full name of your papa? Q. After your father Melody hacked you, what
occurrence and positive identification of the A. Dionisio Calonge, sir. happened next?
assailants. Discrepancies referring only to minor xxxx A. My mother, sir.
COURT: A. December 1, 2001, sir. Q. Please tell the Court how you were able to see
Q. What was done to your mother? Q. In the early morning of December 1, 2001 your father hacked and stabbed you, your mother
A. He stabbed her, sir. were there other persons in your house aside from and sisters?
PROS. TURINGAN: you, your father, mother and your sisters? A. (No answer yet)
Q. And after he stabbed your mother, what did A. None, sir. COURT:
your father do next Melody? Q. The weapons used by your father in hacking Q. x x x Why don’t you start with where was she at
A. He returned back and used the bolo in hacking and stabbing you, your mother and your sisters, if the time the hacking and stabbing took place?
me three times, sir. you can see them could you be able to identify PROSECUTOR:
Q. After that, what happened next Melody? them? We withdraw that, your Honor. Aside from
A. Next, sir my father used the bolo in stabbing my A. Yes, sir. these bolo and knife Melody, was your father
sister’s armpit and used in hacking her abdomen. Q. There are here a bolo and a knife Melody, holding any other things?
Q. Which of these bolo and knife did he use in can you please examine these bolo and knife and A. Yes, sir.
hacking and stabbing your sister? tell the Court if these are the same weapons used Q. What was that Melody?
ATTY. TABAGO: by your father in hacking and stabbing you, your A. Flashlight, sir.
Who? Sister? mother and your sisters? Q. Can you identify that flashlight it (sic) [if] you
A. Both, sir. A. Yes, sir. can see it Melody?
COURT: Q. Who owns these bolo and knife Melody? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you saying that your father was holding two A. My father, sir. Q. There is here a flashlight marked as Exhibit “I”.
weapons at the same time? As to appellant’s assertion that Melody could not Can you please examine this flashlight and tell the
A. Yes, sir. have seen her father stab her two (2) sisters who Honorable Court if it is the same flashlight you
Alright, go ahead. slept on the other room since it was still dark inside mentioned?
PROS. TURINGAN: the house, Melody (during cross-examination) had A. Yes, sir.
Q. After that what did your father do? described their “rooms” as not actually separated by Q. Who owns this flashlight Melody?
A. He pretended to stab his body, his neck and his walls. She could thus see her two (2) sisters and A. My father, sir.
abdomen, sir. appellant from where she was sleeping. The xxxx
Q. What did your father use in stabbing and policemen who investigated the crime scene also Q. Could you please tell the Court how this
wounding himself? found that the partition was just a curtain. Melody flashlight was being held by your father?
A. The bolo, sir. slept beside her mother while her sisters were beside A. He put in his head the flashlight, sir.
Q. You are referring to this Exh. “G”? their father on the other “room.” And while indeed it Q. Can you demonstrate how he placed in his
A. Yes, sir. [Emphasis supplied.] was still dark when appellant started hacking his wife head Melody?
CONTINUATION OF DIRECT and daughters, Melody had sufficient illumination A. (Witness demonstrating how he placed the
BY PROS. TURINGAN: provided by the flashlight used by appellant. This was flashlight at the left side of her head with the use of
Q. When was that again when your mother and mentioned by Melody in the later part of her direct a rubber tied on the flashlight). [emphasis
your sisters were hacked and stabbed by your examination: supplied.]
father?
On cross-examination, Melody fixed the time of the attendant circumstances point to no one else but the inside the house were not disarranged; (5) the only
incident at 4:00 in the morning when she woke up to appellant as the perpetrator. Direct evidence of the persons inside the house were appellant, Rosita and
prepare food. However, she went back to bed actual killing is not indispensable for convicting an their three children who slept in adjacent rooms
because she knew that appellant was already awake. accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently separated only by a curtain; (6) the only house near
Her mother and sisters were still asleep. Appellant establish his guilt. The oft-repeated rule has been appellant’s house was that of his parents-in-law; (7)
then started hacking, first her mother, who evaded the that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction Rosita was heard by her relatives shouting for help
blow and was able to run outside to seek help from if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from before their bodies were discovered; (8) appellant
her grandmother and aunt. Returning to Melody, which the inferences are derived have been proven sustained only superficial wounds and was found
appellant hit her three (3) times before following her and the combination of all circumstances is such as to conscious by the policemen; (9) appellant could not
mother outside. At this point, Melody also recalled produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. explain or say anything about how and when he and
that her parents quarrelled on the night of November While no general rule can be laid down as to the the victims were injured; and (10) Melody saw her
30, 2001. Before they went to sleep, she saw her quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice father initially strike at her mother before the latter ran
father sharpening his bolo. When she asked in a given case, all the circumstances proved must be outside the house, and then stab her also five (5)
appellant what he was doing, he replied that he will consistent with each other, consistent with the times.
kill Uncle Santy and his family. Melody said that she hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same Appellant simply raises the defense of denial, which
pretended to be still asleep when she woke up the time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive
next morning because she had seen appellant placed innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis identification made by Melody that he was the one (1)
that bolo under his pillow. As to the exact time the except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should who hacked her, her mother and her sisters.
quarrel took place, it can be gleaned from the constitute an unbroken chain which leads to only one Moreover, an affirmative testimony is far stronger
transcript of stenographic notes that Melody initially fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to than a negative testimony especially when it comes
could not estimate with reference to the night before the exclusion of all others, is the guilty person. from the mouth of a credible witness, as in this case,
they slept, but she eventually declared that her As correctly found by the CA, the following the child of the assailant who survived his murderous
parents quarrelled from 6:00 o’clock until 7:00 o’clock circumstances taken together established without rampage.
in the evening of November 30, 2001. doubt that it was appellant who inflicted fatal wounds Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; on Rosita, Melody, Dony Rose and Kimberly inside amended by Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the their house early morning of December 1, 2001: (1) 7659, the penalty for parricide is composed of two (2)
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether after having a quarrel with Rosita the previous night, indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other appellant was seen by Melody sharpening his bolo In the killing of Dony Rose and Kimberly, the trial
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate which he later hid under his pillow; (2) the bolo, knife court was correct in appreciating the aggravating
spouse of accused. The key element in parricide is and flashlight used in the hacking of the victims circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when
the relationship of the offender with the victim. All the belong to appellant, and which were found in his the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the
elements of the crime were clearly and sufficiently possession when policemen arrived at the scene; (3) victim had no opportunity either to avert the attack or
proved by the prosecution. the medical findings showed that the victims’ injuries to defend himself. Indeed, nothing can be more
Even granting arguendo that Melody did not see the were caused by sharp and bladed instruments; (4) sudden and unexpected than when a father stabs to
actual stabbing of her mother and two (2) sisters, the there were no sign of forcible entry as the things death his two (2) young daughters while they were
sound asleep and totally defenseless. Thus, for the when the intent to commit the crime is engendered in The trial court awarded Melody moral damages in
parricide committed against both Dony Rose and the mind of the accused, the motive which gives rise the amount of P25,000.00, and another P20,000.00
Kimberly, appellant was properly meted the death to it, and the means which are beforehand selected to as exemplary damages which are justified under
penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 4079 and 4078. Since carry out that intent. All such facts and antecedents Articles 2219 (1) and 2229 of the Civil Code. Further,
the killings were committed in 2001, the trial court was which make notorious the pre-existing design to under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary
correct in imposing upon appellant the supreme accomplish the criminal purpose must be proven to damages are awarded to serve as a deterrent to
penalty of death. In view, however, of the passage the satisfaction of the court. There is paucity of serious wrongdoings, as vindication of undue
and effectivity of R.A. No. 9346 on June 24, 2006, evidence as to the time, motive and the means suffering and wanton invasion of the rights of an
proscribing the imposition of the capital punishment, chosen by appellant to carry out the intent to kill his injured person, and as punishment for those guilty of
the CA correctly modified the imposable penalty on entire family. There being no aggravating or outrageous conduct.
appellant to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for mitigating circumstance, the trial court was correct in Melody is likewise entitled to the sum of
parole, in line with Sections 2 and 3 of the said law. sentencing appellant to the lower penalty of reclusion P11,025.00 as cost of her treatment and hospital
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following perpetua in Criminal Case No. 4077. ization. Anent actual or compensatory
shall be imposed: On the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court in damages, it bears stressing that only substantiated
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law the amount of P75,000.00 each and another and proven expenses or those which appear to have
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the P50,000.00 each as moral damages, for the deaths of been genuinely incurred in connection with the death,
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or Dony Rose and Kimberly, the Court sustains the wake or burial of the victim will be recognized by the
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law same. Likewise, the heirs of Rosita are entitled to courts. Prosecution witness Lourdes Amlag testified
violated does not make use of the nomenclature of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and another P50,000.00 that the family incurred expenses in connection with
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. as moral damages. the funeral, wake and burial, totalling P21,255.00, as
SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished With regard to the frustrated felony, Article 250 of shown in the itemized list submitted to the trial court.
with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that – WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this ART. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, Decision dated November 29, 2007 of the Court of
Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. or homicide. – The courts, in view of the facts of the Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01516 is hereby
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate case, may impose upon the person guilty of the AFFIRMED.
Sentence Law, as amended. (Underscoring frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, With costs against accused-appellant.
supplied.) defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a SO ORDERED.
As to the killing of Rosita, neither treachery nor penalty lower by one degree than that which should
evident premeditation was present considering that be imposed under the provisions of Article 50.
she was able to parry the first thrust of appellant and The courts, considering the facts of the case, may
ran away outside the house, and there is no evidence likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which
proving that appellant determined to commit the crime under Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
even as Melody recounted that she saw his father to commit any of such crimes.
sharpening his bolo before they slept the previous We therefore find the penalty imposed by the trial
night. Evident premeditation needs proof of the time court proper and correct for this offense.
Republic of the Philippines thereby inflicting upon said LORETO CRUZ Y Cruz realizing what happened, Tanod de Guzman tried to
Supreme Court mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and wrest the gun from the accused. In their struggle,
Manila immediate cause of his death thereafter. another shot was fired hitting a table nearby.
SECOND DIVISION Contrary to law.” Kagawad Villena then grabbed the accused who
G.R. NO. 188704 July 7, 2010 Criminal Case No. 03-219216 called out for his nephew, Jojo Ortiz. Responding to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee (People v. Pedro Ortiz) his call, Jojo, with a samurai, uttered, “Bitiwan mo
- versus – PEDRO ORTIZ, JR, Accused-Appellant. “That on or about June 22, 2003, in the City of yan, para wala tayong problema.” Kagawad Villena let
DECISION Manila, Philippines the said accused conspiring and go of the accused. Wasting no time, the accused and
MENDOZA, J.: confederating with one JOJO ORTIZ Y GUTABA, his nephew fled from the scene. Thereafter, Loreto
This is an appeal from the April 29, 2009 Decision who was already charged with the same offense Cruz was rushed to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR No. before the Regional Trial Court of Manila docketed where he expired. The accused and his nephew,
31164, affirming the June 7, 2007 Decision of the as Criminal Case No. 03-215663, and mutually Jojo, were later apprehended and criminally charged
Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila (RTC) which helping each other, did then and there willfully, with murder.
found accused Pedro Ortiz, Jr., guilty beyond unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, Although the accused pleaded not guilty during the
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder for the killing qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, arraignment, he admitted killing Loreto Cruz in the
of one Loreto Cruz. attack, assault and use personal violence upon the course of the trial because he was not satisfied with
Accused Pedro Ortiz, Jr., along with his nephew, person of one LORETO CRUZ Y CRUZ, by then the way the victim dealt with his sons’ case.
Jojo Ortiz, was charged with murder for the killing of and there suddenly shooting the latter with a .38 According to the accused, his sons were merely
Loreto Cruz in two (2) consolidated cases before the caliber revolver bearing Serial No. 47970 with playing “kara y kruz” but were detained for illegal drug
Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 18. The trademarks Armscor on the right cheek, thereby use. As the Executive Officer, the victim promised
accusatory portions of the two (2) Informations read: inflicting upon said LORETO CRUZ Y CRUZ, a that his sons would be released from detention after
Criminal Case No. 03-215663 mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and three to four months. Five months passed and his
(People v. Jojo Ortiz y Quitada) immediate cause of his death thereafter. sons remained in jail. On his part, Jojo Ortiz denied
“That on or about June 22, 2003, in the City of Contrary to law.” any participation in the commission of the crime and
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring As culled from the evidentiary records, it appears only admitted the fact that he helped his uncle when
and confederating with one another whose true that on June 22, 2003, between 9:00 and 10:00 he saw him being grabbed by the barangay officials.
name, identity and present whereabouts are still o’clock in the evening, Loreto Cruz, an Executive On June 7, 2007, the RTC found the accused guilty
unknown and mutually helping each other, did then Officer of Barangay 597, Zone 59, Guadalcanal St., of the crime charged but acquitted co-accused Jojo
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with Sta. Mesa, Manila, together with Barangay Tanod Ortiz. The RTC did not consider evident
intent to kill, qualified by treachery and evident Angelito de Guzman and Kagawad Gil Bactol, was premeditation but appreciated treachery as a
premeditation, attack, assault and use personal watching television inside the barangay hall. Without qualifying circumstance because of the manner by
violence upon the person of one LORETO CRUZ Y anyone noticing him, accused Pedro Ortiz, Jr. entered which the killing was executed. It wrote: “the victim
CRUZ, by then and there suddenly shooting the the hall and called out, “Ex-O!” When Loreto Cruz was killed frontally and in a sudden and unexpected
latter with a .38 revolver bearing Serial No. 47970 turned, the accused shot him with a .38 caliber manner. Although, accused Pedro Ortiz narrated that
with trademarks Armscor on the right cheek, revolver. The bullet hit the left side of his face. Upon he shot the victim after the latter sneered at him, the
nature and location of the wound and the manner of barangay hall did not render Loreto Cruz totally methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
the shooting deprived the victim opportunity to put up defenseless from any possible attack against his life. directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
a defense.” In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) himself arising from the defense which the offended party
In acquitting Jojo Ortiz, the RTC ruled that “Pedro countered that there was treachery because of the might make.” The essence of treachery is the sudden
Ortiz shot the victim alone. The killing was carried suddenness of the attack while the victim was and unexpected attack by the aggressors on
out without the participation of Jojo Ortiz who did not watching television. It wrote: “Even if Cruz was aware unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real
personally hit or harm the victim. Nothing in the of the accused’s threat against him, the suddenness chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its
testimonies conveyed a coordinated action, concerted of the attack deprived him of any real chance to commission without risk to the aggressors, and
purpose or community of design to commit the defend himself or to retaliate. The weapon used and without the slightest provocation on the part of the
criminal act.” Thus, the decretal portion of the RTC the nature of the injury inflicted, which pertained to the victims.
Decision reads: lone gunshot fatally wounding the victim, clearly In this case, the accused purposely sought the
“WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Pedro shows that accused deliberately and consciously unsuspecting victim with intent to inflict a mortal
Ortiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. He adopted the particular mode of attack to ensure the wound on him. He shouted “Ex-O” just in time for the
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion commission of the offense with impunity.” The OSG victim to turn towards his line of fire. When the victim
perpetua and to pay the heirs of Loreto Cruz the likewise prayed that exemplary and temperate faced him, the accused instantly pulled the trigger
amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and damages be added to the award of damages. hitting him on the left side of his face. The way it was
P50,000.00 as moral damages. Accused Jojo Ortiz On April 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals agreed that executed made it impossible for the victim to respond
is acquitted of the crime charged. there was treachery and affirmed the ruling. It pointed or defend himself. He just had no opportunity to repel
SO ORDERED.” out that the accused, with a firearm in hand, barged the sudden attack, rendering him completely helpless.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals and into the Barangay hall, called out “Ex-O,” and The accused argues that there could not have been
assigned the following errors: suddenly shot the victim at close range, evident of his any treachery because the victim knew the threat to
“I intent to ensure the success of his attack with no risk his life. The Court has consistently held that
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN to himself. The CA also added that while it is true that treachery can still be appreciated even though the
APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING the accused called Loreto Cruz “Ex-O” as he shot the victim was forewarned of the danger because what is
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY latter, “he did so only to make sure that the person he decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner
II would shoot was his intended target and not to afford that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN his victim a chance to defend himself.” to retaliate. In this case, although it is true that the
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF Hence, this appeal. victim knew that the accused had a grudge against
MURDER.” The only issue before this Court is whether or not him, he never had any inkling that he would actually
The accused argued that the RTC erred in the accused employed treachery or alevosia so as to be attacked that night. In fact, records reveal that the
appreciating the element of treachery as an qualify the killing of one Loreto Cruz to murder. victim was preoccupied with watching television with
aggravating circumstance. He insisted that the victim The Court rules in the affirmative. his back turned against the accused when the latter
knew all along that there was a threat to his life but Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code suddenly barged into the barangay hall. Accused,
chose to ignore it. He likewise stressed that the provides that “there is treachery when the offender commits moreover, used a firearm to easily neutralize the
presence of three Barangay tanods outside the any of the crimes against the person, employing means, victim, which was undeniably a swift and effective way
to achieve his purpose. Lastly, but significantly, the Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for Doe, whose true name and present whereabouts is
accused aimed for the face of the victim ensuring that the public good.” still unknown, and all of them mutually helping and
the bullet would penetrate it and damage his brain. The Court likewise grants P25,000.00 as temperate aiding one another, with intent to kill, treachery and
It is likewise true that the victim was with two other damages in keeping with current jurisprudence allowing it evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully,
barangay officials at the time of the shooting. It where the funeral and burial expenses spent for the victim unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
should be emphasized though that these two cannot be fully substantiated or there is no proof of actual one Nino Noel Ramos, thereby inflicting upon him
barangay officials were also watching television and damages. serious and mortal stab wound, which caused his
were also caught by surprise. The accused had WHEREFORE, the April 29, 2009 Decision of the Court death.3
already shot the victim before they could even react. of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31164 is hereby The facts, as narrated by prosecution witnesses,
These acts are distinctly indicative of the AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the accused is follow –
treacherous means employed by the accused to further ordered to pay P30,000.00 as exemplary damages On 8 December 2002, at around 10:00 o’clock in
guarantee the consummation of his criminal plan. and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. the evening, Niño Noel Ramos (Niño) had just
Thus, as treachery attended the killing of Loreto Cruz, SO ORDERED. brought his girlfriend, Dianne Charisse Gavino
such circumstance qualified the killing as murder, Republic of the Philippines (Dianne), home in Sto. Niño, Parañaque City. On his
punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the SUPREME COURT way back to La Huerta, he passed by a bridge
Revised Penal Code. Manila connecting the barangays of Sto. Niño and La Huerta.
When death results due to a crime, recovery of FIRST DIVISION Thereat, Niño was stabbed and mauled.4
these awards are allowed: (1) civil indemnity ex G.R. No. 188124 June 29, 2010 Cesar Ramos (Cesar), Niño’s brother, was in the
delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vicinity of N. Domingo Street in La Huerta when he
compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) vs. JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS AND JOEL heard a commotion on the bridge. As he was about to
exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and LORICA LABAD, Accused-Appellants. proceed to the bridge, he met Niño and noticed that
expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper DECISION his brother was soaked in his own blood. Niño relayed
cases. PEREZ, J.: to Cesar that he was stabbed by Joe-An. Cesar
The RTC only awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity 1
Before us on appeal is the Decision of the Court of immediately brought Niño to the hospital where the
and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court 2
Appeals affirming the Judgment of the Regional Trial latter expired thirty (30) minutes later.5 At the police
deems it proper to award exemplary damages in the Court (RTC) of Parañaque in Criminal Case No. 02- station, Cesar claimed that appellants told him that
amount of P30,000.00 following precedents. “Under Article 01426 convicting appellants Jonel Falabrica Serenas they merely "took fancy" on Niño.6
2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be alias "Joe-An" (Joe-An) and Joel Lorica Labad (Joel) Dianne initially related in her affidavit executed at
awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed of the crime of murder. the police station that her cousin informed her of a
with one or more aggravating circumstances, in this case, Appellants were charged under the following commotion on the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge,
treachery. This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious Information: she met a friend who told her that her boyfriend, Niño,
wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and That on or about the 8th day of December 2002 in was stabbed and brought to the hospital. She added
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the that one day before the incident, she and Niño were
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named walking along the bridge when they passed by the
imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under accused, conspiring and confederating with one John group of appellants and heard Joe-An utter the words,
"Iyang mama na iyan, may araw din siya sa akin."7 In girlfriend, Dianne, but admitted that Joel is an 4. P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees;
12
her testimony during the trial however, she narrated acquaintance. and
that she actually saw Joe-An stabbing Niño.8 Joel likewise denied his participation in killing Niño. 5. To pay the cost of suit.14
PO3 Ramoncito Lipana (PO3 Lipana) was at the He stated that he was sleeping at around 11 p.m. on Lending full credence to the testimonies of the
police station in La Huerta on 8 December 2002 when 8 December 2002 when he was awakened by an prosecution witnesses, the trial court concluded that
a woman named Dianne came to report a stabbing argument involving his mother and four (4) men the appellants conspired in assaulting and stabbing
incident involving her boyfriend. PO3 Lipana, together outside his room. He then got out of the room and Niño. It gave full weight to the dying declaration
with PO2 Jesus Brigola (PO2 Brigola) and PO3 saw PO3 Lipana, PO2 Brigola, and two other police uttered by Niño to his brother, as well as the
Marlon Golfo, immediately proceeded to the crime "assets." The group invited him for questioning. When statement of Dianne, who allegedly witnessed
scene. Upon arriving thereat, the police saw two men the two assets suddenly grabbed him, Joel resisted appellants threaten Niño the night before the incident.
scampering away upon seeing them. They chased the but he was forcibly brought to the police station. He It also appreciated the aggravating circumstances of
two men, later identified as Joe-An and Joel. The saw Dianne at the station but the latter did not identify treachery and evident premeditation in the
police managed to catch the appellants while they him as the culprit. Instead, Dianne even sought his commission of the crime. Furthermore, the trial court
were hiding near a bangka under the bridge. help to identify the person who killed her boyfriend. regarded the uncorroborated testimonies of
Appellants were brought to the police station where This fact notwithstanding, the police refused to let him appellants to be "full of inconsistencies and unworthy
9
Dianne identified them as the assailants of Niño. go. He testified that he did not know the victim or of weight and credence."15
Dr. Valentin T. Bernales (Dr. Bernales), the medico- Dianne personally.13 On 13 September 2006, appellants filed a notice of
legal officer who issued the autopsy report, testified After trial, the RTC rendered judgment convicting appeal informing the RTC that they are appealing the
that the victim was stabbed twice at the back and the appellants, the dispositive portion of which reads: decision to the Court of Appeals.16
assailant was situated within arm’s length. The victim WHEREFORE, considering that the prosecution was The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
succumbed from the stab wounds, both of which, are able to prove the guilt of both accused beyond decision of the RTC by awarding exemplary damages
fatal. Dr. Bernales also noted that there were contuse reasonable doubt, accused JONEL FALABRICA in the amount of P25,000.00. Thus:
10
abrasions on different parts of the victim’s body. SERENAS alias JOE-AN and JOEL LORICA LABAD WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
Appellants invoked denial and alibi as their are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of appealed from, being in accordance with law and the
defense. Joe-An, a resident of Wawa, Sto. Niño, RECLUSION PERPETUA pursuant to R.A. 9346 evidence, is hereby AFFIRMED with the
alleged that he was at his house on 8 December which repealed the death penalty law. However, MODIFICATION that exemplary damages in the
2002. While he was taking his dinner, he saw people pursuant to Sec. 3 thereof, they are not eligible for amount of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of the
running towards the bridge. He went out of the house parole. victim. The Decision in all other respects STANDS.17
to check on what had happened. He approached a Accused JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS alias On 13 August 2008, a notice of appeal was filed
group of people talking about the commotion. JOE-AN and JOEL LORICA LABAD are jointly and assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals before
Thereafter, he saw the police and barangay tanods severally liable to pay the heirs of NIÑO NOEL this Court.18
arrive. He was immediately handcuffed and asked to RAMOS, the following amounts, to wit: On 26 October 2009, the parties were required to
go with the police. Joe-An alleged that he was 1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto; simultaneously file their respective supplemental
physically forced by the police to admit the killing of 2. P50,000.00 as moral damages; briefs.19 In two (2) separate manifestations, both
11
Niño. Joe-An denied knowing the victim or his 3. P23,000.00 as actual damages;
parties opted to adopt their briefs submitted before Q And where is Niño Noel Ramos now? testimony in open court is superior to statements
20
the Court of Appeals. A He’s dead already, sir. made in her affidavit, which statements may have
Summarizing the arguments of both parties, the Q Why do you know that he is dead? been made when she was not in her right mind.23
issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the testimonies A Because I saw that day when he was stabbed, The Court of Appeals dismissed the alleged
of the witnesses are sufficient to prove appellants’ sir. inconsistencies by giving greater weight to the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the killing Q You said that you know when he was stabbed. statement made in court by Dianne than that made in
was qualified by treachery and evident premeditation; When was that? the affidavit she executed before the police.
(3) whether conspiracy has been adequately proven. A On December 8, 2002, sir. We do not agree.
In convicting appellants, the lower courts relied Q What time was that? Dianne’s testimony is doubtful to say the least. This
heavily on the testimonies of witnesses Cesar and A At around 10:00 in the evening, sir. Court is mindful of the rule that if there is an
Dianne, which they deemed to be credible. Q Where did it happen? inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony
Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial A It happened on a bridge between La Huerta and of a witness, the latter should be given more weight
court, its calibration of the testimonies of the Sto. Niño, Parañaque City, sir. since affidavits being taken ex-parte are usually
witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its Q Do you know the person who killed your incomplete and inaccurate. Corollary to this is the
findings are accorded great respect, if not conclusive boyfriend? doctrine that, where the discrepancies are
effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of A Yes, sir. irreconcilable and unexplained and they dwell on
Appeals. The exception is when it is established that Q If they are inside the courtroom, can you point to material points, such inconsistencies necessarily
the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or them? discredit the veracity of the witness' claim.24 The
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that, if COURT: second rule is apt to the case at bar.
21
considered, would change the outcome of the case. Witness pointing to the second and the third Nowhere in her affidavit did Dianne point to
We respect the findings that Jonel Falabrica Serenas detention prisoners from among five (5) who when appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. From the
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder not by asked by the Court, "Ano’ng pangalan mo, ‘yong tenor of her affidavit, Dianne’s suspicion that
virtue of identification by Dianne but as established by pangalawa?" answered by the name of Joel Labad. appellants committed the crime merely arose from the
the dying declaration of the victim. Upon the other "IKaw? "Jonel Serenas po."22 [emphasis supplied] alleged threats made by appellants on the victim the
hand, we reverse the conviction of Joel Lorica Labad. Appellants argue that Dianne gave conflicting day before the incident. The pertinent portion of her
The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, statements regarding the identity of the assailants. In affidavit is hereby reproduced:
accorded full weight to the testimony of the her affidavit, she narrated that a friend informed her T: Mayroon ka bang natatandaan pagbabanta kay
prosecution witness, Dianne, who declared on the that Niño was stabbed and taken to the hospital. Niño Noel bago ito nangyari sa kanya?
witness stand that she actually saw appellants maul During trial however, Dianne testified that she S: Opo, naalala ko po kahapon ika 7 ng Disyembre
and stab the victim, thus: witnessed the actual stabbing incident. 2002 humigit kumulang na alas 9:45 ng gabi noong
Q Miss witness, do you know the person of Niño The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) refutes kami ay papauwi dahil hinatid niya ako sa bahay,
Noel Ramos? the alleged inconsistencies in the statements made by pagdaan naming sa Wawa Sto. Niño may apat na
A Yes, sir. Dianne in the affidavit and during trial. It claims that kalalakihan, naka upo sa may daanan malapit sa
Q Why do you know him? Dianne was categorical in her testimony that she saw laruan ng pool, ang isa ay narinig ko nagsalita ng
A He was my boyfriend, sir. appellants stab her boyfriend. Furthermore, her "IYANG MAMA NA IYAN, MAY ARAW DIN SIYA
SA AKIN," hindi ko naman ito pinansin at tuloy tuloy Nevertheless, the prosecution’s case did not Q Cesar, will you please tell this Honorable court
po ang lakad namin. necessarily crumble. The victim’s dying declaration is where were you on the night of December 8, 2002
T: Nakilala mo ba kong sino ang apat na a most telling evidence identifying Joe-an. at about 9:30?
kalalakihan? Appellants question the alleged dying declaration of A I was near the crime scene, sir.
S: Akin pong napag-alaman ang dalawang the victim in that they were not sufficiently identified Q Where is this place?
magkatabi na sina, Michael Baluyot at @Joe-An. as the persons responsible for Niño’s death. A In N. Domingo, La Huerta, Parañaque City, sir.
T: Sino naman ang iyong narinig nagsalita ng Appellants anchor their argument on the utterance of Q At that time, what did you notice?
pagbabanta sa kanila kong natatandaan mo pa? the word "Joe-An" when the victim was asked on who A There was a commotion on top of the bridge, sir.
S: Opo, si @Joe-An po. stabbed him. Appellants advance that the victim may Q So, what did you do?
T: May ipapakita ako sa iyo, ano ang masasabi have been referring to some other person. Moreover, A We verified it, sir.
mo? the victim did not even mention "Joel" or "Joel Labad," Q After that, what did you do?
26
S: Opo, siya po ang nagsalita ng pagbabanta, the other suspect. A I saw my brother coming, sir.
affiant pointing to the person when asked identified The OSG defends the victim’s dying declaration Q Who is this brother of yours that you saw?
himself as JONEL SERENAS Y FALABRICA, and insists that there was no mistake that the victim A Niño Noel Ramos, sir.
@Joe-An, 23 yrs. old, single, jobless, residing at was indeed referring to Joe-An, considering that the Q When you saw Niño Noel approaching, what did
27
5058 Wawa Sto. Niño, P’que City. latter was familiar to him. you do?
T: Mayroon akong ihaharap sa iyo, ano naman ang As an exception to the rule against hearsay A I asked him what the commotion was all about,
iyong masasabi sa kanya? evidence, a dying declaration or ante mortem sir.
S: Opo, siya po ang sumagot kay Joe-An ng "Oo statement is evidence of the highest order and is Q What did he answer?
nga, Oo nga" na umaayon sa nasabing entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of A He told me that he was stabbed, sir.
pagbabanta, affiant pointing to the person inside his impending death would make a careless and false Q What else did he tell you?
28
investigation when asked voluntarily identified accusation. A I asked him who stabbed him, sir.
himself as MICHAEL BALUYOT Y ALIC, 17 yrs old In order for a dying declaration to be held Q What was his answer?
single of 117 Wawa, Sto. Niño, P’que City referred admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the A He answered [to] me that it was Joe-an, sir.
to this office by PO2 Ramoncito Lipana, et al. for declaration must concern the cause and surrounding Q What else did he tell you?
investigation.25 circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the A He asked me to bring him to the hospital, sir.
We cannot simply brush aside the fact that while time the declaration was made, the declarant must be Q What did you do when he asked you to bring him
Dianne pointed to the persons who threatened to do under the consciousness of an impending death; to the hospital?
harm on the victim, she failed to identify who the third, the declarant is competent as a witness; and A I held him up and brought him to the hospital, sir.
perpetrators of the crime are. To the mind of the fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal Q Why? What was the condition of your brother at
Court, this omission in Dianne’s affidavit is so glaring case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the that time?
29
on a material point, i.e., the failure to attribute declarant is the victim. A He was bloodied, sir.30
authorship to the crime. Therefore, the testimony of Niño’s ante mortem statement was relayed to his All requisites for a dying declaration were
Dianne altogether becomes suspect. brother Cesar, in this wise: sufficiently met by the statement of the victim
communicated to Cesar. First, the statement
pertained to Niño being stabbed, particularly pin- Q And you only came to know about these persons Dr. Valentin Bernales, Medico-Legal Officer of the
pointing Joe-An as the perpetrator. Second, Niño at the police precinct, is that correct? National Bureau of Investigation considering the
must have been fully aware that he was on the brink A Yes, sir. locations of the wound which was sustained by the
of death considering his bloodied condition when Q Because Dianne and your brother told you so? accused, the assailant was about an arm [sic] length
Cesar met him near the bridge. Third, the A Yes, sir.31 [Emphasis supplied] away and believed to be at the back of the victim who
competence of Niño is unquestionable had he While the police officers caught Joel hiding under was standing and almost in the same level when the
survived the stabbing incident. Fourth, Niño’s the bridge, this incident appears to be circumstantial first stab wound was inflicted. As to the second
statement was being offered in a criminal prosecution and cannot stand to prove Joel’s complicity without wound, according to Dr. Bernales, the victim appears
for his murder. any corroborating evidence. Admittedly, Joel’s already lying face down on the ground when stabbed
Note however that based on the testimonies of defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak, by the accused which to some extent is consistent
witnesses, there was no direct evidence linking however, it is doctrinal that the weakness of the with the testimony of Cesar that his brother/victim was
appellant Joel to the crime. Cesar testified, thus: defense cannot be the basis for conviction. The mauled by four (4) other persons. This may be the
Q But you only knew that there was a stabbing primary burden still lies with the prosecution whose reason why the victim sustained contuse abrasions on
incident when you were told by the victim that he evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and who the different parts of his body.34
was stabbed? must establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the The victim was suddenly attacked by appellant on
32
A Yes, sir. guilt of the accused before there can be conviction. his way home from his girlfriend’s house. He was
Q And he told you that he was stabbed by a certain, At this juncture, we acquit appellant Joel. stabbed twice from behind. The mode of attack on the
who was that? With respect to Joe-An, the lower courts properly victim was clearly executed without risk to the
A Joe-an, sir. appreciated the presence of treachery in qualifying attacker. We cannot discount the fact that there were
Q Only Joe-an? the crime to murder. other participants to the crime. Appellant could not
A Yes, sir. There is treachery when the offender commits any have acted alone based on the testimony of the
Q And aside from this, he was not mentioning any of the crimes against persons, employing means, witnesses and the medico-legal report. However, the
other person? methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend identity of the other assailants was not proven by the
A That is the only name he mentioned but there directly and especially to ensure its execution, without prosecution.1avvph!1
were three (3) or four (4) persons who mauled him, risk to himself arising from any defense which the While affirming that treachery attended the
33
sir. offended party might make. commission of the crime, we however rule out the
Q The accused in this case, of course, you do not The medical records support the finding of presence of evident premeditation.
know them? treachery. The nature and location of his wounds are In order for evident premeditation to be appreciated,
A I know them by their faces, sir. indicative of the positions of the victim and his the following requisites must be proven: (1) the time
Q Why did you say so? assailant at the time the incident occurred. The trial when the offender determined to commit the crime;
A Because I often pass by that place, sir. court drew a better picture of how the victim was (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
Q But you did not see these persons at that time of stabbed, thus: clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of
the incident? It is clear under the circumstances that the victim time between the determination and execution, to
A I saw them but I cannot see their faces because it has no opportunity to retaliate the aggression of the allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
was quite far, sir. accused when he was stabbed because according to and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will. In the instant case, appellant appellant, Joel, is in order on the ground of G.R. No. 188610 June 29, 2010
uttered the words "iyang mama na iyan, may araw din reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
siya sa akin." Even conceding that these utterances As to appellant’s pecuniary liability, we find it proper vs. ALBERT SANCHEZ, Accused-Appellant.
were in the form of a threat, it still cannot be to increase the award of civil indemnity and moral DECISION
37
presumed that at the time they were made, there was damages to P75,000.00 each. The trial court’s grant VELASCO, JR., J.:
indeed a determination to kill and that appellants had of P23,000.00 as actual damages is increased to For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
indeed clung to that determination, planning and P25,000.00, but as temperate damages in line with (CA) dated February 27, 2009, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
38
meditating on how to kill the victim. the ruling in People v. Villanueva. We uphold the No. 02902, which affirmed with modification, the
Finally, appellants question the sufficiency of grant of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, with the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina
evidence to prove conspiracy. They aver that there victim’s mother having hired a private prosecutor to City in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK, 06-8246-MK,
was no concerted action pursuant to a common prosecute the case.39 We increase the award of 06-8247-MK and 06-8248-MK, finding appellant Albert
criminal design between the appellants. Moreover, the exemplary damages to P30,000.00 in line with recent Sanchez y Galera guilty of two (2) counts of murder
40
manner by which appellants conspired with one jurisprudence. and two (2) counts of frustrated murder.
another in stabbing the victim was not discussed in WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of The accusatory portions of the criminal informations
35
the trial court’s decision. Appeals is hereby MODIFIED. filed against Sanchez for the crimes aforestated are
The OSG submits that conspiracy may be deduced Appellant JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS is found respectively reproduced below:
from the manner by which the crime was perpetrated. GUILTY of the crime of murder and is sentenced to Criminal Case No. 06-8245-MK for Murder
It recalled that appellants waited by the bridge where suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered That on or about the 27th day of January 2006, in
the victim passes by whenever he visits his girlfriend. to pay the heirs of the victim Niño Noel Ramos the the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the
Upon seeing the victim, they grabbed and mauled amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
him. Moments later, Joe-Ann stabbed the victim. as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary accused, armed with knife, with intent to kill, did then
Thereafter, appellants escaped and hid under the damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
bridge where they were eventually apprehended. P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. assault and stab one Jufer James De leon y Cruz, a
Clearly, they have performed overt acts in furtherance For failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt minor, 11 years of age, thereby inflicting upon him
36
of the common design of killing the victim. beyond reasonable doubt, appellant JOEL LORICA fatal wounds which caused his death soon after the
There is nothing on record that would prove that LABAD is ACQUITTED. The Director of Prisons is said killing having attended by the qualifying
conspiracy existed. The circumstantial evidence cited ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation,
by the OSG are not sufficient to prove that appellant being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform which upgrades the killing to Murder.
conspired with other individuals to perpetrate the this Court of such action within five days from receipt CONTRARY TO LAW.
crime. Further lending doubt to this claim is the fact of this Decision. Criminal Case No. 06-8246-MK for Murder
that the alleged co-conspirator’s identity was not SO ORDERED. That on or about the 27th day of January 2006, in
established. Republic of the Philippines the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the
In sum, we find that the prosecution has proven that SUPREME COURT jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused,
appellant Joe-An is guilty beyond reasonable doubt Manila armed with knife, with intent to kill, did then and there
for the crime of murder. The acquittal of the other FIRST DIVISION willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab one Edgar De Leon, thereby inflicting upon him did not produce it by reason of cause/s independent Later learning where Sanchez was, Edgar asked
fatal wounds which caused his death soon thereafter of his will, that is due to the timely and able medical the former to come out. Sanchez would thereafter
the said killing having attended by the qualifying assistance rendered to said Jelyn May De Leon y request Edgar for money, claiming that his sister is
circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation, Cruz, which prevented her death. confined in a hospital in a nearby town.
which upgrades the killing to Murder. CONTRARY TO LAW. From her room, Jeane later went downstairs, joined
CONTRARY TO LAW. When arraigned, Sanchez, duly assisted by Edgar and Sanchez, and explained to their irritated-
Criminal Case No. 06-8247-MK for Frustrated counsel, pleaded not guilty to all the charges. looking former houseboy that they could only spare
Murder In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in PhP 100 as they had just purchased several items for
That on or about the 27th day of January 2006, in evidence the testimonies of John Ray De Leon, Jelyn their business. In the meantime, Edgar handed
the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the Mae De Leon, Jeane De Leon, Dr. Arnel Marquez, the Sanchez P100, telling him just to come back the
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Medico-Legal Officer of Rizal who performed an following day. With a hostile expression, Sanchez
armed with knife, with intent to kill, did then and there autopsy on the cadaver of two of the victims, and the accepted the money, then left. Later, Jufer confided to
2
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and arresting and investigating police officers. his mother that Sanchez, while in the rest room, had
stab one Jeane De Leon y Cruz, thereby inflicting On the other hand, the defense waived its right to pointed a knife at and threatened to kill him.
upon [her] stab wounds which would ordinarily [cause] present evidence. Obviously terrified by the threat, Jufer slept in his
her death, thus performing all the acts of execution The pertinent facts, as gathered from the records, parents’ room that night.
which would have produced the crime of murder as a may be summarized as follows: Very early the following morning, June 27, Jeane
3
consequence thereof, but nevertheless did not On June 26, 2006, siblings John Ray, Jufer James prepared breakfast for her school children. Noticing
produce it by reason of cause/s independent of [his] (Jufer), Jelyn Mae (Jelyn), Jorvi and Junel, all Jufer’s absence at the breakfast table, she asked the
will that is due to the timely and able medical surnamed De Leon, were at home by themselves, 13-year-old Jelyn to get her kid brother down.6 Jelyn
assistance rendered to said Jeane de Leon y Cruz, their parents, Edgar and Jeane,4 having gone out to went to Jufer’s bedroom upstairs and there found him
which prevented [her] death. buy certain items for their catering business. Between lying on his bed face down. Suddenly, somebody
CONTRARY TO LAW 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. of that day, Sanchez entered the grabbed her from behind, covered her mouth, pointed
Criminal Case No. 06-8248-MK for Frustrated De Leon’s house in dela Paz St., Marikina City, and a knife on her neck and later stabbed her.7 The
Murder there and then told John Ray, then 10 years old, that assailant then pushed her towards the bed, told her to
That on or about the 27th day of January 2006, in his father Edgar would give him some money. be quiet and pressed her face down near her brother
the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the Sanchez then proceeded to the master’s bedroom at until she could not breathe. Jelyn recognized the
5
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, the second floor of the house. John Ray was familiar voice to be that of Sanchez. And while Jelyn was
armed with knife, with intent to kill, did then and there with Sanchez, the latter having once stayed with the calling out to get Jufer’s attention whom she thought
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and family as a houseboy. When John Ray asked him to was merely asleep, Sanchez stabbed her on the
stab one Jelyn Mae de Leon y Cruz, thereby inflicting leave, Sanchez proceeded to the comfort room on the chest. Jelyn reacted by boxing and kicking Sanchez,
upon the latter stab wounds which would ordinarily ground floor where Jufer was then inside defecating. shouting for help at the same time. And even as
[cause] her death, thus, performing all the acts of Sanchez was still inside that room when spouses Sanchez gave her a piece of cloth to wipe the blood in
execution which would have [produced] the crime of Jeane and Edgar arrived. her neck and motioned her to keep quiet, Jelyn
murder as a consequence thereof, but nevertheless managed to plead for her life.8
Meanwhile, Jeane who decided to look for Jufer After Sanchez has left, Jeane helped her husband burial expenses for Edgar and Jufer totaled to PhP
herself heard a commotion and a thudding sound. up, gathered all her children in one room, placed her 150,000.18
When she checked what it was, son Jorvi rushed bloodied son beside his equally bloodied father and When the defense was called for initial presentation
towards her to inform her that Sanchez was inside the locked the door. She then cried out for help. At this of its evidence, the defense counsel, in open court,
house. The nervous Jeane then hurried to Jufer’s time, Jufer was no longer moving, while Edgar was manifested, with the conformity of the accused, that
room upstairs where she saw Sanchez holding a knife hardly breathing. the defense is waiving its right to present evidence.19
against Jelyn’s bloodied neck. Then Jeane uttered, At around 6:35 in the morning of January 27, 2006, On July 23, 2007, in consolidated Crim. Case Nos.
9
"Dali, tumawag ka ng 161." At that instance, Sanchez POl Reynaldo Candelaria, responding to radio call 06-8245-MK to 068248-MK the Regional Trial Court
shoved Jeane inside Jufer’s room even as she reporting a stabbing incident, proceeded to the De (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 272, the RTC20
pleaded for their lives. In response, Sanchez placed Leons’ place. A trembling John Ray met and told tell rendered a decision finding accused Sanchez guilty of
his fingers on his lips to signal silence. Thereafter, him who stabbed his father. When Candelaria opened two (2) counts of murder and two (2) counts of
Jeane turned her son, Jufer, upside down only to the gate of the house, he saw Sanchez running frustrated murder. The dispositive portion of the
discover that he was bathed in blood. Jufer weakly towards the back of the house holding a knife. And decision states:
10
uttered, "Mama, si Kuya Albert sinaksak ako." At this after a chase, Candelaria, with the help of nearby WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment
point, Sanchez ran outside the room. residents, caught up with and arrested Sanchez. At is hereby rendered, as follows:
Jeane, cradling her bloodied son, intending to bring the Amang Rodriquez Hospital where police 1. In Criminal Case No. 06-8245-MK, accused
him to the hospital, again instructed daughter Jelyn to operatives brought him and where Jeane and Jelyn ALBERT SANCHEZ y GALERA is found GUILTY
call 161. While carrying Jufer outside the room, Jeane were sent for treatment, mother and daughter beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER
noticed Sanchez assaulting Edgar near the stairs. identified Sanchez as the assailant. as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
She then brought Jufer to her room so she could help Meanwhile, the bodies of Jufer and Edgar de Leon Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery and
Edgar. In the process, she spotted a knife in the were brought to the Eastern Police District crime evident premeditation and is hereby sentenced to
hallway floor, and picked it up as she approached laboratory for autopsy. Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
Edgar who was then sitting on the floor. At that The uniform entry, "Stab wounds, trunk", appeared victim Jufer James de Leon the amount of
12
juncture, Sanchez turned his ire towards her and in the separate autopsy reports prepared by Medico P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P42,500.00
11 13
stabbed her on the lower left side of the chest . Legal Officer Jose Arnel M. Marquez as the cause of as actual damages, and P100,000.00 as moral
14
When the injured Edgar stood up in an obvious bid to death of both Jufer and Edgar De Leon. On the damages.
help his wife, Sanchez again lunged at and stabbed other hand, the Medico-Legal Certificate15 issued by 2. In Criminal Case No. 06-8246-MK, accused
the former. Her own attempt to hit Sanchez with the Dr. Alejandro Geronimo stated that Jeane de Leon ALBERT SANCHEZ y GALERA is also found
knife she picked up earlier, however, proved was confined at the hospital from January 27, 2006 to GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
unsuccessful. In fact, Sanchez continued with his February 4, 2006 for treatment of multiple stab MURDER as defined and penalized under Article
16
stabbing spree inflicting on her injuries on her lower wounds. In the case of Jelyn, she was confined and 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by
17
left eye and stomach. Then he returned to Edgar, treated also for multiple wounds. treachery and evident premeditation and is hereby
stabbing him on the stomach and side, causing his Jeanne and Jelyn’s combined hospital bills sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the
large intestines to spill out. Only after Edgar again fell amounted to PhP 300,000, while the internment and heirs of the victim Edgar De Leon the amount of
did Sanchez run out of the house. P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P42,500.00
as actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral SO ORDERED. By virtually reiterating his arguments raised before
damages; Therefrom, Sanchez went to the CA on appeal, the CA, appellant admits criminal responsibility for the
3. In Criminal Case No. 06-8247-MK, accused docketed as CA G.R. HC-No. 02902, on the lone death of Edgar and Jufer and the almost fatal injuries
ALBERT SANCHEZ y GALERA is found GUILTY submission that the RTC erred in convicting him of of Jelyn and Jeane. He now presents the following
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and frustrated murder when the qualifying point as conclusion that the appellate court should
FRUSTRATED MURDER under Article 248 in circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation have made: that the prosecution failed to prove with
relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. moral certainty the circumstance of treachery and
Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, and in Eventually, the CA rendered on February 27, 2009 a evident premeditation, hence, he should be acquitted
the absence of modifying circumstances, he is Decision affirming that of the RTC, with the following of the crimes charged convicting him instead of the
hereby sentenced to in indeterminate prison term of modification: the increase in the award of civil lesser crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide.
TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision indemnity, but the reduction of the award for moral The desired downgrading of appellant’s criminal
mayor as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS damages in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06- liability, from murder to homicide (two counts) and
and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as 8246-MK, respectively. The fallo of the CA’s decision from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide (two
maximum, and to pay his victim Jeane de Leon the reads: counts) cannot be granted. The instant appeal is,
amount of P40,786.55 as actual expenses and P WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the accordingly, dismissed.
50,000.00 as moral damages; and appealed decision dated 23 July 2007 is AFFIRMED Article 24821 of the Revised Penal Code defines
4. In Criminal Case No. 06-8248-MK, the accused with MODIFICATIONS in that: (a) the awards of civil "Murder" as the unlawful killing of a person, which is
ALBERT SANCHEZ y GALERA is found GUILTY indemnity in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06- not parricide or infanticide, provided that treachery or
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 8246-MK are respectively increased to P75, 000.00; evident premeditation, among other circumstances,
FRUSTRATED MURDER under Article 248 in while the amounts of moral damages in said cases attended the killing. The presence of one of the
relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. are reduced to P50, 000.00 respectively. circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 of the Code
Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, and in As did the RTC, the CA found the killing of Edgar and would suffice to qualify a killing as murder.
the absence of modifying circumstances, he is Jufer and the wounding of the Jeane and Jelyn to There is treachery when the offender commits any
hereby sentenced to in indeterminate prison term of have been attended by treachery and evident of the crimes against persons, employing means,
TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision premeditation. methods or forms which tend directly and specially to
mayor as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS On March 12, 2009, appellant filed a timely Notice ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising
and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as of Appeal of the appellate court’s decision. from the defense, which the offended party might
maximum, and to pay his victim Jelyn Mae de Leon By Resolution of September 16, 2009, the Court make. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions
the amount of P66,341.85 as actual expenses and accepted the appeal and required the parties to must concur:
P50,000.00 as moral damages. submit supplemental briefs, if they so desire within 30 (1) The employment of means, methods or manner
The period during which the herein accused was in days from notice. Each, however, manifested the of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety
detention during the pendency of these cases shall be willingness to submit the case on the basis of the from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of
credited to him in full provided he agrees to abide by records and the pleadings already submitted. the offended party; and
and comply with the rules and regulations of the City The Ruling of the Court (2) The offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of
Jail of Marikina. means, method or manner of execution.22
In the case at bar, circumstances do obtain to assault is not shown. For, the weakness of the victim Witness: I went to their room sir.
justify the finding of treachery in the killing of Jufer. due to his tender years results in the absence of any Atty. Gonzales: When you said to their room, which
Consider: Appellant surreptitiously entered the De danger to the accused. room are you referring?
Leons’ residence at around 5:00 o’clock in the What Jufer uttered just before he expired - "Mama, Witness: The room of Jufer, sir.
morning of June 27, 2006 and snuck up inside Jufer’s si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako"- is admissible in xxxx
bedroom, while the other De Leon children were busy evidence against the appellant pursuant to Section Atty. Gonzales: What happened next after that?
preparing for school and their mother attending to 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Witness: I was looking for him and when I found
their breakfast. The family was unaware that appellant Sec. 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a him, somebody covered my mouth, sir.
went to the second floor and stabbed Jufer, at that dying person, made under the consciousness of an xxxx
time merely 11 years old who most likely had no impending death, may be received in any case Court: Where was he [Jufer], inside the room?
opportunity, but surely without the needed heft and wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as Witness: He was on the bed lying face down, Your
strength to ward off, much less overpower, the evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances Honor.
appellant. of such death. Atty. Gonzales: You said that someone covered
The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by A dying declaration is an evidence of the highest your mouth, what did you do when that somebody
26
an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the covered your mouth?
part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real premise that no one person who knows of his Witness: I kept silent, I felt something x x x a
chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the impending death would make a careless and false pointed object on my neck, sir.
commission of the crime without risk to the accusation. At the brink of death, all thoughts of Atty. Gonzales: After that, what transpired next, if
aggressor.23 The trial court correctly appreciated the concocting lies disappear. any?
qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in Treachery is likewise appreciated in the stabbing of Witness: I was pinned down and I was stabbed, sir.
the killing of Jufer. Jelyn. When Jelyn went up to look for Jufer, appellant Court: Did you see this someone who covered your
The Court can grant that no one witnessed the approached her from behind, covered her mouth and mouth?
actual killing of Jufer. This fact alone, however, is not stabbed her. The relative physical positions of the Witness: Not yet Your Honor.
an argument against the criminal liability of the unsuspecting Jelyn and appellant when the latter xxxx
appellant for the lad’s gruesome death. As may be commenced the attack and the suddenness thereof Atty. Gonzales: Madam witness, you said a person
recalled, appellant was in Jufer’s room, holding a caught Jelyn unaware and unable to defend herself. covered your mouth, you did not do anything but
bloody knife over the unmoving boy lying face down Jelyn’s testimony on direct examination established despite that he stabbed you?
27
on bed when Jelyn entered his brother’s room. More the elements of treachery: Witness: Yes, sir.
importantly, Jufer, before breathing his last, positively Court: What time was it when you were eating? Atty. Gonzales: You said that you were pinned
identified appellant him as his assailant. Witness: 5:30 0’clock in the morning your Honor. down by this person, what happened next?
Jurisprudence teaches that there is treachery when Court: Of what date? Witness: He pressed my head until I could not
an adult person attacks and causes the death of a Witness: January 27, 2006 Your Honor. breath[e] anymore, sir.
24
child of tender years. As the Court elucidated in xxxx xxxx
25
People vs. Cabarrubias, the killing of a child is Atty. Gonzales: You said that after eating you were
characterized by treachery even if the manner of looking for Jufer, what did you do to find him?
Atty. Gonzales: But at the time you were stabbed ATTY. GONZALES: By the way, where was this his large intestines spilling out, clearly exhibits the
by that person, were you not able to talk to your Albert when you entered the room? treacherous nature of the killing.
brother Jufer? WITNESS: When I saw Jelyn, Albert was on her Joshua Ray De Leon testified being awakened by
Witness: No sir. (Underscoring added.) back holding a knife, sir. the noise and seeing his father near the top of the
The notion of Jelyn being helpless when appellant ATTY. GONXALES: What was Jelyn doing at that stairs, while appellant, wielding a knife, was at the
made his brutal moves finds corroboration from her time? middle of the stairs following the former. Because of
mother’s testimony, as follows: WITNESS: I saw there was fear on her face, sir. fear, he hid in the hallway bathroom but witnessed the
COURT: What time did you wake up during the day xxxx stabbing through the slightly opened bathroom door.
[June 27, 2006] ? COURT: Was your son still alive at that time? Treachery is not, however, attendant in the stabbing
WITNESS: 5:00 o’clock in the morning your Honor. WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. He said something to of Jeane. While at the back of their house, son Jorvi
COURT: What about the children? me x x x "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako" informed her that appellant was upstairs. In fact, she
WITNESS: Same time your Honor. COURT: Where was the accused when your son instructed her daughter Jelyn to call 611 as she asked
xxxx Jufer told you that? the appellant to spare their lives. Appellant even
ATTY. GONZALES: What did he [Jorvi] tell you? WITNESS: He suddenly ran outside, Your Honor." warned her to keep quiet.29 After she discovered that
WITNESS: When he approached me, he told me, The manner appellant assaulted and eventually Jufer was wounded, she started to carry him outside
"Mama, nasa itaas si Kuya Albert" killed Edgar also indicated treachery. Like his wife their bedroom, only to see her husband wrestling with
ATYY. GONZALES: What was your reaction when and children, Edgar had at the start no idea of the appellant. She had the presence of mind to put
your son told you that Kuya Albert was upstairs? appellant’s armed and dangerous presence in the down her son, pick up a knife she found on the floor
WITNESS: I felt nervous because I realized that the house on the fateful morning in question. Jelyn and attempted to stab the accused.
28
commotion I heard was coming from upstairs, sir. testified that, while she and her mother were being ATTY. GONZALES: Going back to my question,
ATTY. GONZALES: What did you do after that? held in the room by appellant, Edgar came up but after you saw your husband wrestling with Albert
WITNESS: I immediately went inside the house and appellant pushed past Edgar by the stairs, stabbed Sanchez, what did you do if any?
went upstairs, sir. him, then grabbed another knife from the kitchen WITNESS: I ran towards to help my husband
ATTY. GONZALES: When you were upstairs, what before coming back upstairs to finish Edgar off. The because I saw Albert stabbed him on his side and
happened next? attack against Edgar when he was on his way to the my husband fell down, sir.
WITNESS: When I went upstairs I saw my daughter upper floor was so sudden and unexpected, negating xxxx
Jelyn Mae bloodied at the right side of her neck, sir. any suggestion that he was in a position to defend ATTY. GONZALES: Now while the accused was
ATTY. GONZALES: What was your reaction when himself. These circumstances are manifestly stabbing your husband, what did you do next?
you saw that your daughter was bloodied at the indicative of the presence of conditions under which WITNESS: I ran and I noticed a knife and I held it,
right side of her neck? treachery may be appreciated, i.e., the employment of sir.
WITNESS: I immediately uttered, "dali tumawag ka means of execution that affords the person attacked ATTY. GONZALES: After you were able to hold the
ng 161" no opportunity to defend himself. Even more, the fact knife, what did you do next?
ATTY. GONZALES: After that what happened? that appellant inflicted more stabbing blows on Edgar WITNESS: I approached him while Edgar was
WITNESS: I went inside the room of Jufer, sir. And after he fell on his bottom gravely wounded and with sitting down. When I approached him, he stabbed
when I entered the room, Albert shoved me, sir.
me (witness pointed to her lower side of the chest), appellant, although his sex and weapon gave him he was not required to go back to the house. But he
sir. superiority of strength as against Jeane. An attack by did return the following morning, January 27, 2006,
xxxx a man with a deadly weapon upon an armed and armed, surreptitiously entering the house and
COURT: According to you, you were able to see a defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of proceeding to Jufer’s bedroom while everyone was
knife? abuse of that superiority which his sex and weapon busy having breakfast and preparing for school.
WITNESS: I noticed the knife on the hallway, Your used in the act afforded him, and from which the Second, Jufer told his mother that while relieving
30
Honor. woman was unable to defend herself. himself in the comfort room, appellant pointed a knife
COURT: On your way out of the room? The next issue is whether or not the aggravating at him. John Ray corroborated the pointing-of- knife
WITNESS: Yes Your Honor. circumstance of evident premeditation attended the scenario. On the witness box, John Ray testified that
COURT: On the floor? assault on the De Leon family. Both the RTC and the on the night of June 26, 2006, appellant was toying
WITNESS: Yes Your Honor. CA resolved the question in the affirmative. with a knife while talking to him and Jufer, threatening
COURT: After you went out of the room, did you We agree with their parallel determinations. to kill them both should they report the matter to their
notice if the accused was still holding a knife? For evident premeditation to be considered, the parents.
WITNESS: Yes Your Honor. Because he was following must be established: (1) the time when the Last but not least, six different knives, all with blood
stabbing Edgar. accused determined (conceived) to commit the crime; stains, were found at the crime scene.33 Two pairs of
COURT: You picked up that knife from the floor? (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to gloves34 were discovered near Jufer’s body. These
WITNESS: I just saw another knife, Your Honor. his determination to commit the crime (kill his victim); compelling pieces of evidence presuppose planning.
COURT: The one you noticed? and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision There can be no serious argument that appellant was
WITNESS: I picked it up, Your Honor. to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow determined to commit a crime as early as on the night
COURT: You went to the accused? the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his of January 26, 2006, when he uttered the threat to kill
31
WITNESS: Yes Your Honor. act. Premeditation presupposes a deliberate Jufer at the bathroom. Jelyn and Joshua Ray testified
xxx planning of the crime before executing it. The to seeing appellant holding a knife while talking to
COURT: When you were stabbed, you were execution of the criminal act, in other words, must be Jufer.35 Appellant had the whole night to contemplate
holding a knife? preceded by cool thought and reflection. As here, his action and reflect upon its consequences before
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. there must be showing of a plan or preparation to kill, he entered the household the following morning.
COURT: You did not fight back? or proof that the accused meditated and reflected Finally, the covert manner appellant gained entry in
WITNESS: When I saw the intestines of my upon his decision to execute the crime.321avvphi1 the house and stabbed the victims showed a careful
husband, I trusted the knife on him, I thought I was In the case at bar, the interplay of the following deliberation of his criminal intent. As the CA aptly
able to stab him, Your Honor. circumstances indicate the presence of evident observed, taking into stock the incidents that
In fine, Jeane was sufficiently forewarned of the premeditation. First, the night before the stabbing happened on the night of January 26, 2006, the fact
aggression against her and her family by the incidents, appellant went to the De Leon residence to that he hid in the room of Jufer after sneaking into the
appellant. Appellant was on a killing frenzy when ask for money. Edgar, with much reluctance, gave De Leon’s household early the next morning and the
Jeane faced him up close at Jufer’s room. An attack appellant only P100. Jeane noted appellant receiving real evidence found in the house, appellant’s
from appellant was then something not unexpected. the money with a hostile expression on his face. "commission of the crime was not clearly a product of
Hence, treachery cannot be appreciated against Appellant was no longer working for the De Leon, so accident, it was evidently a premeditated one."
Clearly then, the presence of the attending wanton invasion of the rights of the victims, or Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 37, in
43
circumstances of treachery and/or evident punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. Criminal Case Nos. 6076, 6077, 6078, 6079, 6080
premeditation qualified the killing of Edgar and Jufer As to the stabbings of Jeane and Jelyn, appellant and 6081. The RTC found Paniterce guilty beyond
to murder, which, under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal committed frustrated murder as he inflicted on them reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape and Acts of
Code, as amended, is punishable by reclusion mortal wounds which could have had taken their lives Lasciviousness.
36
perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code had it not been for the prompt medical intervention, a In four Informations, all dated February 11, 2002,
th
provides that if the penalty prescribed is composed of cause independent of appellant’s will. 4 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Hedy S. Aganan
two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The charged Paniterce with four counts of rape of his
there is an aggravating circumstance the higher Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, daughter AAA. Except for the dates of the
penalty should be imposed. Since, evident 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02902 finding Albert commission of the rapes, the four Informations
premeditation can be considered as an ordinary Sanchez y Galera guilty of two counts of murder and identically read:
aggravating circumstance, treachery, by itself, being two counts of frustrated murder and sentencing him to Criminal Case Nos. 6076, 6077, 6078 and 6079
sufficient to qualify the killing, the proper imposable serve prison terms therein defined without parole is That sometime in the year 1997 in x x x Philippines
penalty – the higher sanction - is death. However, in hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
37
view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jufer James the above-named accused, with grave abuse of
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the and Edgar De Leon the increased amount of PhP confidence being the father of the offended party
penalty for the killing of each of the victim is reduced 75,000 as moral damages and the amount of PhP with lewd designs by means of force and
38
to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 30,000 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
The penalty of reclusion perpetua thus imposed by count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and feloniously succeed in having carnal
the CA on appellant for each count of murder is and 06-8246-MK. knowledge with his daughter AAA, a 10 year-old
correct. So is the award of PhP 75,000 as civil No pronouncements as to costs. minor, against her will and without her consent, to
39
indemnity ex delicto. 1avvph!1 SO ORDERED. her damage and prejudice in such amount as may
The Court, however, modifies the award of moral CRIMINAL LIABILITY: be awarded by the Honorable Court.
damages, which is mandatory in homicide and murder FIRST DIVISION In two Amended Informations, both dated
without need of allegation and proof other than the G.R. No. 186382 April 5, 2010 December 3, 2002, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
40
death of the victim. To conform with recent PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Appellee, Daniel M. Salvadora charged Paniterce with two
jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the proper -versus- DOMINGO PANITERCE, Accused-Appellant counts of rape of his other daughter BBB. Aside from
imposable penalty is death, if not for R.A. 9346, the R E SO L U T I O N the dates of the commission of the rapes, the
award of moral damages is increased to PhP 75,000 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Informations similarly state:
41
for each count of murder. The award of exemplary Before Us is an appeal filed by Domingo Paniterce Criminal Case Nos. 6080 and 6081
damages in the amount of PhP 30,000 is additionally y Martinez (Paniterce) assailing the Decision dated That on or about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of
in order if, as here, the crime was committed with an August 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. August 26, 2000 x x x Philippines, and within the
42
aggravating circumstance, be it generic or qualifying. CR-H.C. No. 01001, entitled People of the Philippines jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
The Court thus grants the same to serve as deterrent v. Domingo Paniterce,” which affirmed with named accused, with grave abuse of confidence
to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of the modification the Decision dated March 2, 2005 of the being the father of the offended party with lewd
designs by means of force and intimidation, did mayor as maximum and to pay AAA and BBB Fifty The decision of the trial court finding appellant
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each as moral guilty for Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case
committed RAPE upon his 12- year old daughter damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) No. 6076 is AFFIRMED without any modification.
BBB by then and there, caressing and inserting his as exemplary damages; On 16 September 2008, Paniterce, through
finger inside her vagina against her will and without In Criminal Case No. 6079, he is hereby sentenced counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of
her consent, to her damage and prejudice in such to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay AAA the Appeals conveying his intention to appeal to us the
amount as may be awarded by the Honorable amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as aforementioned Decision dated August 22, 2008 of
Court. moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos the appellate court. The Court of Appeals gave due
When arraigned, Paniterce pleaded not guilty to all (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages. course to Paniterce’s Notice of Appeal on September
the charges. On June 4, 2005, Paniterce was committed to the 23, 2008, and directed its Judicial Records Division to
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. elevate to us the original records in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
Decision on March 2, 2005, with the following Paniterce filed an appeal with the Court of No. 01001.
dispositive portion: Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. On 15 April 2009, we required the parties to file
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the No. 01001. The appellate court rendered a Decision their supplemental briefs, and the Director of the
prosecution having proved the guilt of accused on August 22, 2008 affirming the RTC judgment with Bureau of Corrections to confirm the commitment of
Domingo Paniterce of the crimes of Rape as modifications, to wit: Paniterce at the Bureau of Corrections and submit his
charged in the aforementioned Informations, he is WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court report thereon within 10 days from notice.
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalties of convicting DOMINGO PANITERCE is hereby Paniterce filed his Supplemental Brief on June 16,
imprisonment, to wit: AFFIRMED with the following modifications: 2009, while the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
In Criminal Case No. 6076, he is hereby sentenced 1. For Acts of Lasciviousness, in Criminal Cases Manifestation on June 18, 2009 stating that it would
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from Nos. 6077, 6078, 6080 and 6081, appellant is no longer file a supplemental brief considering that
FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto hereby sentenced to suffer in each [and] every case Paniterce did not raise any new issue in his appeal.
mayor as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of On July 22, 2009, we submitted G.R. No. 186382 for
MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of resolution.
correccional as maximum for Acts of prision correccional, as maximum and to pay AAA However, in a letter dated October 12, 2009, Julio
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised and BBB Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each A. Arciaga, the Assistant Director for Prisons and
Penal Code as the alleged molestation took place as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos Security of the Bureau of Corrections, informed us
in April 1997 and RA 8353 took effect only on (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; and that Paniterce had died on August 22, 2009 at the
October 22, 1997; 2. For Rape, in Criminal Case No. 6079, New Bilibid Prison Hospital. Paniterce’s Death
In Criminal Cases Nos. 6077, 6078, 6080 and appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty Certificate was attached to said letter.
6081, he is hereby sentenced to suffer in each of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay AAA the amount Given Paniterce’s death, we are now faced with the
every case the penalty of imprisonment ranging of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral question of the effect of such death on the present
from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) appeal.
ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum to as exemplary damages. Paniterce’s death on August 22, 2009, during the
EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision pendency of his appeal, extinguished not only his
criminal liabilities for the rape and acts of may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate him to imprisonment, and ordering him to indemnify
lasciviousness committed against his daughters, but civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the his victims – had become ineffectual.
also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. WHEREFORE, in view of the death of accused-
said crimes. This separate civil action may be enforced either appellant Domingo Paniterce y Martinez, the Decision
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal against the executor/administrator or the estate of dated August 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished: the accused, depending on the source of obligation G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01001 is SET ASIDE and Criminal
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal upon which the same is based as explained above. Case Nos. 6076, 6077, 6078, 6079, 6080, and 6081
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear before the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City are
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil DISMISSED. Costs de oficio.
offender occurs before final judgment. action by prescription, in cases where during the SO ORDERED.
Applying the foregoing provision, we laid down the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
following guidelines in People v. Bayotas: extinction, the private-offended party instituted
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of case, conformably with the provisions of Article
the accused prior to final judgment terminates his 1155 of the Civil Code that should thereby avoid
criminal liability and only the civil liability directly any apprehension on a possible privation of right by
arising from and based solely on the offense prescription.
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso Clearly, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on
strictiore.” Paniterce’s appeal. Whether or not he was guilty of
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives the crimes charged has become irrelevant since,
notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if the following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and
same may also be predicated on a source of our disquisition in Bayotas, even assuming Paniterce
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil had incurred criminal liabilities, they were totally
Code enumerates these other sources of obligation extinguished by his death. Moreover, because
from which the civil liability may arise as a result of Paniterce’s appeal was still pending and no final
the same act or omission: judgment of conviction had been rendered against
a) Law him when he died, his civil liabilities arising from the
b) Contracts crimes, being civil liabilities ex delicto, were likewise
c) Quasi-contracts extinguished by his death.
xxxx Consequently, the appealed Decision dated August
e) Quasi-delicts 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals – finding Paniterce
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness, sentencing
Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor
MINORITY (Exception): above-named accused, by means of force, violence their comfort room and raped her there. AAA testified
THIRD DIVISION and intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, that petitioner inserted his penis into her vagina and
[G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008] unlawfully and feloniously (sic) had carnal knowledge she felt pain. In all of these instances, petitioner
JOEMAR ORTEGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF of and/or sexual intercourse with the said AAA, a warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. minor, then about 6 years old, against her will. would spank her.[14] AAA did not tell her parents about
DECISION CONTRARY TO LAW.[8] her ordeal.
NACHURA, J.: Upon arraignment on September 10, 1998, The third and last occasion happened in the
[1] [9]
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. evening of December 1, 1996. Petitioner went to the
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Thus, trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the house of AAA and joined her and her siblings in
Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of trial, two varying versions arose. watching a battery-powered television. At that time,
Appeals (CA) Decision[2] dated October 26, 2000 Version of the Prosecution Luzviminda was conversing with MMM. While AAA's
[3]
which affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional On February 27, 1990, AAA was born to spouses siblings were busy watching, petitioner called AAA to
[10]
Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 50, dated FFF and MMM. Among her siblings CCC, BBB, come to the room of CCC and BBB. AAA obeyed.
[4]
May 13, 1999, convicting petitioner Joemar Ortega DDD, EEE and GGG, AAA is the only girl in the While inside the said room which was lighted by a
(petitioner) of the crime of Rape. family. Before these disturbing events, AAA's family kerosene lamp, petitioner pulled AAA behind the door,
The Facts members were close friends of petitioner's family, removed his pants and brief, removed AAA's shorts
[5]
Petitioner, then about 14 years old, was charged aside from the fact that they were good neighbors. and panty, and in a standing position inserted his
with the crime of Rape in two separate informations However, BBB caught petitioner raping his younger penis into the vagina of AAA.[15] AAA described
[6]
both dated April 20, 1998, for allegedly raping AAA, sister AAA inside their own home. BBB then informed petitioner's penis as about five (5) inches long and the
[11]
then about eight (8) years of age. The accusatory their mother MMM who in turn asked AAA. There, size of two (2) ballpens. She, likewise, narrated that
portions thereof respectively state: AAA confessed that petitioner raped her three (3) she saw pubic hair on the base of his penis.[16]
Criminal Case No. 98-19083 times on three (3) different occasions. This last incident was corroborated by BBB in his
That sometime in August, 1996, in the Municipality The first occasion happened sometime in August testimony. When BBB was about to drink water in
of XXX, Province of YYY, Philippines, and within the 1996. MMM left her daughter AAA, then 6 years old their kitchen, as he was passing by his room, BBB
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named and son BBB, then 10 years old, in the care of was shocked to see petitioner and AAA both naked
[12]
accused, by means of force, violence and Luzviminda Ortega (Luzviminda), mother of from their waist down in the act of sexual intercourse.
intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, petitioner, for two (2) nights because MMM had to BBB saw petitioner holding AAA and making a
unlawfully and feloniously (sic) had carnal knowledge stay in a hospital to attend to her other son who was pumping motion. Immediately, BBB told petitioner to
[13]
of and/or sexual intercourse with the said AAA, a sick. During the first night at petitioner's residence, stop; the latter, in turn, hurriedly left. Thereafter, BBB
minor, then about 6 years old, against her will. petitioner entered the room where AAA slept together reported the incident to his mother, MMM.[17]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7] with Luzviminda and her daughter. Petitioner woke MMM testified that when she asked AAA about
Criminal Case No. 98-19084 AAA up and led her to the sala. There petitioner raped what BBB saw, AAA told her that petitioner inserted
That on or about the 1st day of December, 1996, in AAA. The second occasion occurred the following his fingers and his penis into her vagina. MMM
the Municipality of XXX, Province of YYY, Philippines, day, again at the petitioner's residence. Observing learned that this was not the only incident that
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the that nobody was around, petitioner brought AAA to petitioner molested AAA as there were two previous
occasions. MMM also learned that AAA did not report women and children. Part of the settlement required matter to MMM, who at the time was with Luzviminda,
her ordeal to them out of fear that petitioner would petitioner to depart from their house to avoid contact saying that petitioner and AAA were having sexual
[23]
spank her. MMM testified that when BBB reported the with AAA. As such, petitioner stayed with a certain intercourse;[26] petitioner explained to MMM that they
matter to her, petitioner and Luzviminda already left priest in the locality. However, a few months later, were only playing, and that he could not have done to
her house. After waiting for AAA's brothers to go to petitioner went home for brief visits and in order to AAA what he was accused of doing, as they were
sleep, MMM, with a heavy heart, examined AAA's bring his dirty clothes for laundry. At the sight of together with her brothers, and he treated AAA like a
vagina and she noticed that the same was reddish petitioner, AAA's father FFF was infuriated and younger sister;[27] BBB was lying; AAA's parents and
and a whitish fluid was coming out from it. Spouses confrontations occurred. At this instance, AAA's his parents did not get angry at him nor did they
FFF and MMM were not able to sleep that night. The parents went to the National Bureau of Investigation quarrel with each other; petitioner and his parents
following morning, at about four o'clock, MMM called (NBI) which assisted them in filing the three (3) counts peacefully left AAA's house at about nine o'clock in
Luzviminda and petitioner to come to their house. of rape. However, the prosecutor's office only filed the the evening; however, at about four o'clock in the
MMM confronted Luzviminda about what petitioner two (2) instant cases. morning, petitioner and his parents were summoned
did to her daughter, and consequently, she demanded Version of the Defense by MMM to go to the latter's house; upon arriving
that AAA should be brought to a doctor for Petitioner was born on August 8, 1983 to spouses there they saw BBB being maltreated by his father as
[18] [24]
examination. Loreto (Loreto) and Luzviminda Ortega. He is the AAA pointed to BBB as the one who molested her;
MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to second child of three siblings ― an elder brother and and MMM and Luzviminda agreed to bring AAA to a
[19]
Dr. Lucifree Katalbas (Dr. Katalbas), the Rural a younger sister. Petitioner denied the accusations doctor for examination.[28]
Health Officer of the locality who examined AAA and made against him. He testified that: his parents and Luzviminda corroborated the testimony of her son.
found no indication that she was molested.[20] AAA's parents were good friends; when MMM left She testified that: her son was a minor at the time of
Refusing to accept such findings, on December 12, AAA and her brothers to the care of his mother, the incident; CCC and BBB were the children of MMM
1996, MMM went to Dr. Joy Ann Jocson (Dr. Jocson), petitioner slept in a separate room together with BBB in her first marriage, while AAA and the rest of her
Medical Officer IV of the Bacolod City Health Office. and CCC while AAA slept together with Luzviminda siblings were of the second marriage; CCC and BBB
[21]
Dr. Jocson made an unofficial written report and his younger sister; he never touched or raped are half-brothers of AAA; when MMM entrusted AAA
showing that there were "abrasions on both right and AAA or showed his private parts to her; petitioner did and her brothers to her sometime in August of 1996,
left of the labia minora and a small laceration at the not threaten AAA in any instance; he did not rape she slept with AAA and her youngest daughter in a
posterior fourchette." She also found that the minor AAA in the former's comfort room, but he merely separate room from petitioner; on December 1, 1996,
injuries she saw on AAA's genitals were relatively accompanied and helped AAA clean up as she she was at AAA's house watching television and
fresh; and that such abrasions were superficial and defecated and feared the toilet bowl; in the process of conversing with MMM, while FFF and Loreto were
could disappear after a period of 3 to 4 days. Dr. washing, he may have accidentally touched AAA's having a drinking spree in the kitchen; from where
Jocson, however, indicated in her certification that her anus; on December 1, 1996, petitioner together with they were seated, she could clearly see all the
[25]
findings required the confirmation of the Municipal his parents, went to AAA's house; they were children, including petitioner and AAA, playing and
Health Officer of the locality. dancing and playing together with all the other dancing in the dining area; she did not hear any
[22]
Subsequently, an amicable settlement was children at the time; while they were dancing, unusual cry or noise at the time; while they were
reached between the two families through the DAWN petitioner hugged and lifted AAA up in a playful act, at conversing, BBB came to MMM saying that petitioner
Foundation, an organization that helps abused the instance of which BBB ran and reported the and AAA were having sexual intercourse; upon
hearing such statement, Luzviminda and MMM Subsequently, AAA's parents filed the instant cases. On October 26, 2000, the CA affirmed in toto the
[29]
immediately stood up and looked for them, but both ruling of the RTC, holding that the petitioner's defense
mothers did not find anything unusual as all the The RTC's Ruling of denial could not prevail over the positive
children were playing and dancing in the dining area; On May 13, 1999, the RTC held that petitioner's identification of the petitioner by the victim AAA and
Luzviminda and MMM just laughed at BBB's defenses of denial cannot prevail over the positive her brother BBB, which were categorical, consistent
statement; the parents of AAA, at that time, did not identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the and without any showing of ill motive. The CA also
examine her in order to verify BBB's statement nor did crime by AAA and BBB, who testified with honesty held that the respective medical examinations
they get angry at petitioner or at them; and they and credibility. Moreover, the RTC opined that it could conducted by the two doctors were irrelevant, as it is
peacefully left AAA's house. However, the following not perceive any motive for AAA's family to impute a established that the slightest penetration of the lips of
day, MMM woke Luzviminda up, saying that FFF was serious crime of Rape to petitioner, considering the the female organ consummates rape; thus, hymenal
spanking BBB with a belt as AAA was pointing to BBB close relations of both families. Thus, the RTC laceration is not an element of rape. Moreover, the
nor to petitioner as the one who molested her. At this disposed of this case in this wise: CA opined that petitioner acted with discernment as
instance, Luzviminda intervened, telling FFF not to FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the shown by his covert acts. Finally, the CA accorded
spank BBB but instead, to bring AAA to a doctor for accused Joemar Ortega Y Felisario GUILTY beyond great weight and respect to the factual findings of the
examination. Luzviminda accompanied MMM to Dr. reasonable doubt as Principal by Direct Participation RTC, particularly in the evaluation of the testimonies
Katalbas who found no indication that AAA was of the crime of RAPE as charged in Criminal Cases of witnesses.
molested. She also accompanied her to Dr. Jocson. Nos. 98-19083 and 98-19084 and there being no Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration[32] of
After getting the results of the examination conducted aggravating or mitigating circumstance, he is the assailed Decision which the CA denied in its
by Dr. Jocson, they went to the police and at this sentenced to suffer the penalty of Two (2) Reclusion Resolution[33] dated November 7, 2001.
instance only did Luzviminda learn that MMM Temporal in its medium period. Applying the Hence, this Petition based on the following
accused petitioner of raping AAA. Petitioner Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall be grounds:
vehemently denied to Luzviminda that he raped AAA. imprisoned for each case for a period of Six (6) years I.
Thereafter, MMM and Luzviminda went to their and One (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS
employer who recommended that they should seek Fifteen (15) years of Reclusion Temporal, as OVERLOOKED CERTAIN FACTS OF SUBSTANCE
advice from the Women's Center. At the said Center, maximum. The accused is condemned to pay the AND VALUE WHICH IF CONSIDERED MIGHT
both agreed on an amicable settlement wherein offended party AAA, the sum of P100,000.00 as AFFECT THE RESULT OF THE CASE.
petitioner would stay away from AAA. Thus, petitioner indemnification for the two (2) rapes (sic). II.
stayed with a certain priest in the locality for almost Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision to THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
[30]
two (2) years. But almost every Saturday, petitioner the CA. COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO
would come home to visit his parents and to bring his Taking into consideration the age of petitioner and APPRECIATE THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF DR.
dirty clothes for laundry. Every time petitioner came upon posting of the corresponding bail bond for his LUCIFREE KATALBAS.
home, FFF bad-mouthed petitioner, calling him a provisional liberty in the amount of P40,000.00, the III.
rapist. Confrontations occurred until an altercation RTC ordered the petitioner's release pending appeal. THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT,
[31]
erupted wherein FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda. AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT, THAT
The CA's Ruling PETITIONER-APPELLANT IN FACT COMMITTED
AND IS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING THE ALLEGED presumption of innocence in favor of the petitioner case is the reliable testimony of AAA that petitioner
RAPE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM subsists. Moreover, petitioner opines that like AAA, raped her in August and December of 1996; even in
WHERE SEVERAL OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S petitioner is also a child of the barrio who is innocent, the absence of force, rape was committed considering
FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE unsophisticated and lacks sexual experience. As AAA's age at that time; as such, AAA did not have
MOTHERS WERE PRESENT IS IMPROBABLE AND such, it is incredible and contrary to human reason any ill motive in accusing petitioner; and it is
CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE. that a 13- year-old boy would commit such act in the established that the crime of rape could be committed
IV. very dwelling of AAA, whose reaction to pain, at the even in the presence of other people nearby.
THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN age of six, could not be controlled or subdued. Moreover, the OSG relies on the doctrine that the
UPHOLDING THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE Petitioner claims that poverty was MMM's motive in evaluation made by a trial court is accorded the
ALLEGED VICTIM REGARDING THE filing the instant case, as she wanted to extort money highest respect as it had the opportunity to observe
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE COMMISSION from the parents of the petitioner. Petitioner points out directly the demeanor of a witness and to determine
[34]
OF RAPE SOMETIME IN AUGUST 1996. that the medical report of Dr. Jocson indicated that whether said witness was telling the truth or not.
Petitioner argues that, while it is true that the factual the abrasions that were inflicted on the genitalia of Lastly, the OSG claims that petitioner acted with
findings of the CA are conclusive on this Court, we AAA were relatively fresh and the same could discernment when he committed the said crime, as
are not prevented from overturning such findings if the disappear within a period of 3 to 4 days. Considering manifested in his covert acts.[36]
CA had manifestly overlooked certain facts of that Dr. Jocson conducted the medical examination However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,[37] or the
substance and value which if considered might affect on December 12, 1996, or after the lapse of eleven Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, was
the result of the case. Petitioner stresses that from the (11) days after the alleged incident of rape, and that enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect
testimonies of AAA and BBB, it can be deduced that AAA's parents only filed the instant case after almost on May 20, 2006.[38] The law establishes a
penetration was achieved; thus, AAA felt pain. a year, in order to deter Luzviminda from filing a case comprehensive system to manage children in conflict
Petitioner contends that assuming the allegations of of slander by deed against FFF, it is not inconceivable with the law[39] (CICL) and children at risk[40] with child-
AAA are true that petitioner inserted his fingers and that MMM inflicted said abrasions on AAA to prove appropriate procedures and comprehensive programs
his penis into her vagina, certainly such acts would their case and to depart from the initial confession of and services such as prevention, intervention,
leave certain abrasions, wounds and/or lacerations on AAA that it was actually BBB who raped her. Finally, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration and after-care
the genitalia of AAA, taking into consideration her age petitioner submits that AAA and BBB were merely programs geared towards their development. In order
[35]
at the time and the alleged size of petitioner's penis. coached by MMM to fabricate these stories. to ensure its implementation, the law, particularly
However, such allegation is completely belied by the On the other hand, respondent People of the Section 8[41] thereof, has created the Juvenile Justice
medical report of Dr. Katalbas who, one day after the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General and Welfare Council (JJWC) and vested it with certain
alleged rape, conducted a medical examination on (OSG) contends that: the arguments raised by the duties and functions[42] such as the formulation of
AAA and found that there were no signs or indications petitioner are mere reiterations of his disquisitions policies and strategies to prevent juvenile delinquency
that AAA was raped or molested. Petitioner submits before the CA; the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did and to enhance the administration of juvenile justice
that the CA committed a grave error when it not rely on the testimonies of both doctors since as well as the treatment and rehabilitation of the
disregarded such medical report since it disproves the despite the absence of abrasions, rape is CICL. The law also provides for the immediate
allegation of the existence of rape and, consequently, consummated even with the slightest penetration of dismissal of cases of CICL, specifically Sections 64,
the prosecution failed to prove its case; thus, the the lips of the female organ; what is relevant in this 65, 66, 67 and 68 of R.A. No. 9344's Transitory
Provisions.[43] (18) years pending diversion and court proceedings, In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed
The said Transitory Provisions expressly provide: the appropriate diversion authority in consultation with the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for
Title VIII the local social welfare and development officer or the rape, the complainant's candor is the single most
Transitory Provisions Family Court in consultation with the Social Services important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets
SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted
Fifteen (15) Years Old and Below. -- Upon effectivity Court, as the case may be, shall determine the solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed by the
of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old and appropriate disposition. In case the appropriate court CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill
below at the time of the commission of the crime shall executes the judgment of conviction, and unless the motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be child in conflict with the law has already availed of crime of rape and to positively identify him as the
referred to the appropriate local social welfare and probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to
development officer. Such officer, upon thorough similar laws, the child may apply for probation if BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual
assessment of the child, shall determine whether to qualified under the provisions of the Probation Law. intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner
release the child to the custody of his/her parents, or SECTION 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the
refer the child to prevention programs, as provided and are Serving Sentences. -- Persons who have imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for
under this Act. Those with suspended sentences and been convicted and are serving sentence at the time no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop
undergoing rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations
center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that
to the best interest of the child. commission of the offense for which they were such a traumatic experience would damage their
SECTION 65. Children Detained Pending Trial. -- If convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not
the child is detained pending trial, the Family Court benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted
shall also determine whether or not continued They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of
detention is necessary and, if not, determine provided under this Act and their sentences shall be AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner's
appropriate alternatives for detention. If detention is adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that
necessary and he/she is detained with adults, the released if they are so qualified under this Act or other in most cases of rape committed against young girls
court shall immediately order the transfer of the child applicable laws. like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total
to a youth detention home. Ostensibly, the only issue that requires resolution in penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to
SECTION 66. Inventory of "Locked-up" and this case is whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that
Detained Children in Conflict with the Law. -- The reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as found by actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of
PNP, the BJMP and the BUCOR are hereby directed both the RTC and the CA. However, with the advent the hymen is not required.[46] Therefore, it is not
to submit to the JJWC, within ninety (90) days from of R.A. No. 9344 while petitioner's case is pending necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded
the effectivity of this Act, an inventory of all children in before this Court, a new issue arises, namely, in having full penetration, because the slightest
conflict with the law under their custody. whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia
SECTION 67. Children Who Reach the Age of apply to petitioner's case, considering that at the time of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47]
Eighteen (18) Years Pending Diversion and Court he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the
Proceedings. -- If a child reaches the age of eighteen years old. exempting circumstances, although he commits a
crime, by the complete absence of any of the No. 9344 providing for automatic suspension of offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age
conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness sentence if finally found guilty. Lastly, the OSG of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to
of the act, no criminal liability arises.[48] Therefore, argued that while it is a recognized principle that laws 15 years old. [52]
while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability favorable to the accused may be given retroactive Given this precise statutory declaration, it is
[49]
attaches. Thus, in Guevarra v. Almodovar, we held: application, such principle does not apply if the law imperative that this Court accord retroactive
[I]t is worthy to note the basic reason behind the itself provides for conditions for its application. application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No.
enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied We are not persuaded. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in
in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly criminal law - favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the provides: restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the
[53]
absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal accused are given retroactive effect. This principle
expounding on intelligence as the second element of Responsibility. -- A child fifteen (15) years of age or is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code,
dolus, Albert has stated: under at the time of the commission of the offense which provides:
"The second element of dolus is intelligence; shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. -- Penal
without this power, necessary to determine the child shall be subjected to an intervention program laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a
illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
infant (has) no intelligence, the law exempts (him) (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
from criminal liability." criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention publication of such laws, a final sentence has been
It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
years of age and below are not capable of performing in which case, such child shall be subjected to the We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle
a criminal act. appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. has been given expanded application in certain
[50] [54]
In its Comment dated April 24, 2008, the OSG The exemption from criminal liability herein instances involving special laws. R.A. No. 9344
posited that petitioner is no longer covered by the established does not include exemption from civil should be no exception.
provisions of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 since as liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with In fact, the legislative intent for R.A. No. 9344's
early as 1999, petitioner was convicted by the RTC existing laws. retroactivity is even patent from the deliberations on
and the conviction was affirmed by the CA in 2001. Likewise, Section 64 of the law categorically the bill in the Senate, quoted as follows:
R.A. No. 9344 was passed into law in 2006, and with provides that cases of children 15 years old and Sections 67-69 On Transitory Provisions
the petitioner now approximately 25 years old, he no below, at the time of the commission of the crime, Senator Santiago. In Sections 67 to 69 on
longer qualifies as a child as defined by R.A. No. shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be Transitory Provisions, pages 34 to 35, may I humbly
9344. Moreover, the OSG claimed that the retroactive referred to the appropriate local social welfare and propose that we should insert, after Sections 67 to 69,
effect of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 is development officer (LSWDO). What is the following provision:
applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption ALL CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL
years old as explained under Sections 67 and 68 from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL's LIABILITY UNDER THIS LAW PENDING THE
thereof. The OSG also asserted that petitioner may age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF JUVENILE
[51]
avail himself of the provisions of Section 38 of R.A. the CICL's age at the time of the commission of the WELFARE AND RESTORATION (OJWR) AND THE
LOCAL COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF be able to absorb these individuals. Likewise, the x x x x
CHILDREN (LCPC) WITHIN A YEAR, SHALL BE issue should also be incorporated in the amendment. PIMENTEL AMENDMENTS
IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO DSWD The President. Just a question from the Chair. The x x x x
INSTITUTIONS, AND DSWD SHALL UNDERTAKE moment this law becomes effective, all those children Senator Pimentel.
DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR THEM, in conflict with the law, who were convicted in the x x x x
PRIORITIZING THE YOUNGER CHILDREN BELOW present Penal Code, for example, who will now not be Now, considering that laws are normally
15 YEARS OF AGE AND THE LIGHTER subject to incarceration under this law, will be prospective, Mr. President, in their application, I would
OFFENSES. immediately released. Is that the understanding? like to suggest to the Sponsor if he could incorporate
The only question will be: Will the DSWD have Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. some kind of a transitory provision that would make
enough facilities for these adult offenders? Senator Santiago. They would immediately fall this law apply also to those who might already have
Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President, according to the under . . . . been convicted but are awaiting, let us say, execution
CWC, the DSWD does not have the capability at the Senator Pangilinan. The diversion requirements, of their penalties as adults when, in fact, they are
moment. It will take time to develop the capacity. Mr. President. juveniles.
Senator Santiago. Well, we can say that they shall Senator Santiago. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We do
be transferred whenever the facilities are ready. The President. But since the facilities are not yet have a provision under the Transitory Provisions
Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Mr. President, just a available, what will happen to them? wherein we address the issue raised by the good
clarification. When we speak here of children who do Senator Santiago. Well, depending on their age, Senator, specifically, Section 67. For example, "Upon
not have criminal liability under this law, we are which has not yet been settled . . . . . provides, for effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15)
referring here to those who currently have criminal example, for conferencing family mediation, years old and below at the time of the commission of
liability, but because of the retroactive effect of this negotiation, apologies, censure, et cetera. These the crime shall immediately be dismissed and the
measure, will now be exempt. It is quite confusing. methodologies will apply. They do not necessarily child shall be referred to the appropriate local social
Senator Santiago. That is correct. have to remain in detention. welfare and development officer." So that would be
Senator Pangilinan. In other words, they should be Senator Pangilinan. Yes, that is correct, Mr. giving retroactive effect.
released either to their parents or through a diversion President. But it will still require some sort of Senator Pimentel. Of cases that are still to be
program, Mr. President. That is my understanding. infrastructure, meaning, manpower. The personnel prosecuted.
Senator Santiago. Yes, that is correct. But there will from the DSWD will have to address the counseling. Senator Pangilinan. Yes.
have to be a process of sifting before that. That is why So, there must be a transition in terms of building the Senator Pimentel. What about those that have
I was proposing that they should be given to the capacity and absorbing those who will benefit from already been prosecuted? I was trying to cite the
DSWD, which will conduct the sifting process, except this measure. instance of juvenile offenders erroneously convicted
that apparently, the DSWD does not have the The President. Therefore, that should be as adults awaiting execution.
physical facilities. specifically provided for as an amendment. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, we are willing to
Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, conceptually, we Senator Pangilinan. That is correct, Mr. President. include that as an additional amendment, subject to
have no argument. We will now have to just craft it to The President. All right. Is there any objection? style.
ensure that the input raised earlier by the good [Silence] There being none, the Santiago amendment Senator Pimentel. I would certainly appreciate that
Senator is included and the capacity of the DSWD to is accepted. [55] because that is a reality that we have to address,
otherwise injustice will really be . . . Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of
[58]
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, we would favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning rape.[59]
also include that as a separate provision. of R.A. No. 9344's unambiguous language, coupled A final note. While we regret the delay, we take
The President. In other words, even after final with clear lawmakers' intent, is most favorable to consolation in the fact that a law intended to protect
conviction if, in fact, the offender is able to prove that herein petitioner. No other interpretation is justified, our children from the harshness of life and to
at the time of the commission of the offense he is a for the simple language of the new law itself alleviate, if not cure, the ills of the growing number of
minor under this law, he should be given the benefit of demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the CICL. CICL and children at risk in our country, has been
the law. It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 enacted by Congress. However, it has not escaped us
Senator Pimentel. Yes, Mr. President. That is years old at the time of the commission of the alleged that major concerns have been raised on the effects
correct. rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live of the law. It is worth mentioning that in the Rationale
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We accept birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the for the Proposed Rule on Children Charged under
[56]
that proposed amendment. testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner's age R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
The Court is bound to enforce this legislative intent, was never assailed in any of the proceedings before Drugs Act of 2002, it was found that:
which is the dominant factor in interpreting a statute. the RTC and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the The passage of Republic Act No. 9344 or the
Significantly, this Court has declared in a number of time of the commission of the crime, was below 15 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 raising the
cases, that intent is the soul of the law, viz.: years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted age of criminal irresponsibility from 9 years old to 15
The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid from criminal liability. years old has compounded the problem of
it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent However, while the law exempts petitioner from employment of children in the drug trade several
of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the criminal liability for the two (2) counts of rape times over. Law enforcement authorities, Barangay
essence of the law, and the primary rule of committed against AAA, Section 6 thereof expressly Kagawads and the police, most particularly, complain
construction is to ascertain and give effect to the provides that there is no concomitant exemption from that drug syndicates have become more aggressive in
intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a civil liability. Accordingly, this Court sustains the ruling using children 15 years old or below as couriers or
law is the law itself, and must be enforced when of the RTC, duly affirmed by the CA, that petitioner foot soldiers in the drug trade. They claim that
ascertained, although it may not be consistent with and/or his parents are liable to pay AAA P100,000.00 Republic Act No. 9344 has rendered them ineffective
the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the as civil indemnity. This award is in the nature of actual in the faithful discharge of their duties in that they are
letter of a statute when it leads away from the true or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon a proscribed from taking into custody children 15 years
intent and purpose of the legislature and to conviction for rape. old or below who openly flaunt possession, use and
conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of The RTC, however, erred in not separately delivery or distribution of illicit drugs, simply because
the act. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a awarding moral damages, distinct from the civil their age exempts them from criminal liability under
legislative enactment. In construing statutes the indemnity awarded to the rape victim. AAA is entitled the new law.[60]
proper course is to start out and follow the true intent to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for The Court is fully cognizant that our decision in the
of the legislature and to adopt that sense which each count of rape, pursuant to Article 2219 of the instant case effectively exonerates petitioner of rape,
harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional a heinous crime committed against AAA who was
fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral only a child at the tender age of six (6) when she was
legislature.[57] damages are granted in recognition of the victim's raped by the petitioner, and one who deserves the
law's greater protection. However, this consequence On appeal is the November 5, 2007 Decision1 of weapon, by means of force, threat and intimidation,
is inevitable because of the language of R.A. No. the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
9344, the wisdom of which is not subject to review by 02210 which affirmed with modification the November have sexual intercourse with one "AAA," a minor 9
[61] 2
this Court. Any perception that the result reached 28, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) years of age, against her will and consent, to the
herein appears unjust or unwise should be addressed of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51. The CA found damage and prejudicie of said "AAA."
to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to appellant Saturnino Villanueva guilty beyond CONTRARY to Article 335 of the Revised Penal
give statutes a meaning detached from the manifest reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape and Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353.5
intendment and language of the law. Our task is sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion Crim. Case No. T-3159:
constitutionally confined only to applying the law and perpetua and to pay his victim the amounts of That on or about the 28th day of September, 1999,
jurisprudence to the proven facts, and we have done P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral at dawn, at x x x, province of Pangasinan, Philippines,
so in this case.[62] damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Criminal for each count. above-named accused who is the father of
Case Nos. 98-19083 and 98-19084 filed against Factual Antecedents: complainant, armed with a bladed weapon, by means
petitioner Joemar F. Ortega are hereby DISMISSED. On November 6, 2002, three Informations were of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there
Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social welfare filed against appellant for the crime of rape. The willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
and development officer of the locality for the accusatory portions of the Informations read: intercourse with one "AAA," a minor 9 years of age,
appropriate intervention program. Nevertheless, the Crim. Case No. T-3157: against her will and consent, to the damage and
petitioner is hereby ordered to pay private That on or about the 9th day of June, 2002, at prejudice of said "AAA."
complainant AAA, civil indemnity in the amount of dawn, x x x, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and CONTRARY to Article 335 of the Revised Penal
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353.6
moral damages in the amount of One Hundred above-named accused who is the father of When arraigned on November 14, 2002, appellant
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). No costs. complainant, armed with a bladed weapon, by means pleaded not guilty to all charges.7
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the two of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the
Houses of Congress and the Juvenile Justice and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual appellant is the father of "AAA." It was likewise
3
Welfare Council (JJWC). intercourse with one "AAA," a minor 12 years of age, agreed that "AAA" was below 12 years of age when
SO ORDERED. against her will and consent, to the damage and the rape incidents happened.8 "AAA’s" birth and
Republic of the Philippines prejudice of said "AAA." medical certificates were likewise marked as Exhibits
SUPREME COURT CONTRARY to Article 335 of the Revised Penal "A" and "C," respectively.9
Manila Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353.4 Thereafter, the cases were tried jointly.10
FIRST DIVISION Crim. Case No. T-3158: Version of the Prosecution
G.R. No. 181829 September 1, 2010 That on or about the 27th day of September, 1999, The prosecution presented "AAA" as its witness.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. in the evening, at x x x, province of Pangasinan, "AAA" narrated that when she was about 4 years old,
SATURNINO VILLANUEVA, Appellant. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this her mother left her in the care of her father, herein
DECISION Honorable Court, the above-named accused who is appellant. Since then, she had been living with her
DEL CASTILLO, J.: the father of complainant, armed with a bladed father.
"AAA" claimed that appellant sexually abused her Q Now, after your father tied you on September 27, Q How did he [threaten] you?
on September 27 and 28, 1999 and on June 9, 2002. 1999, what did he do, if there’s any? A That if I would report the matter to anyone he
During her testimony, "AAA" narrated that: A He raped me, sir. would kill the person to whom I will report, sir.
PROS. ULANDAY: COURT: Q Do you remember June 9, 2002 at 3:00 o’clock
Q Will you please state your name, age and other Q What do you mean by x x x saying he raped you? dawn?
personal circumstances? xxxx A Yes, sir.
WITNESS: A He undressed me, sir. Q Why do you remember that particular date?
A I am "AAA," 13 years old, out-of-school youth, xxxx A Because he again raped me, sir.
presently residing at x x x11 COURT: Q Who raped you?
xxxx And we make of record that [witness is now] in A My father, sir.
PROS. ULANDAY: tears.13 Q In what particular place [were] you raped?
Q Madam Witness, do you still remember xxxx A In our house, sir.
September 27, 1999? PROS. ULANDAY: xxxx
A Yes, sir. Q Madam Witness, during the last hearing you Q You claimed that you were raped by your father,
Q Why do you remember that particular date? uttered the word "incua na." What do you mean by how did he rape you?
A That was the birthday of my father and the date that? A He undressed me, sir.
when he touched me, sir. A He inserted his penis into my vagina, sir. Q What else did he do aside from undressing you?
xxxx Q How long a time did your father [insert] his penis A He poked a knife at me, sir.
Q Who rape[d] you? into your vagina? Q And after poking a knife at you, what happened
A My papa, sir. Witness pointed to the accused. A About two minutes, sir. next, if any?
xxxx Q At early dawn of September 28, 1999, what A Then he touched (kinuti) me, sir.
PROS. ULANDAY: happened if any, between you and your father? Q What part of your body was touched by your
Q You claimed that your father touched and used A The same, sir. father?
you. How did he begin in touching you? Q What do you mean by the same? A My vagina, sir.
A He tied me, sir. A That he inserted his penis into my vagina, sir. Q How did he touch your vagina?
xxxx Q Before your father inserted his penis into your A He inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q What part of your body was x x x tied by your vagina, what did he do, if there was any? Q What happened when he inserted his penis into
father? A He first undressed me, sir. your vagina?
A My mouth, sir. Q While he was undressing you what were you A I cried, sir.14
Q What other parts of your body, if there [are] any? doing, if any? After the presentation of "AAA’s" testimony, the
A My hands and my feet, sir. A I failed to do any, sir. prosecution rested its case.
PROS. ULANDAY: Q Why did you fail to do any? Version of the Defense
My witness is crying, your Honor.12 A Because I was afraid, sir. The defense presented appellant as its first
xxxx Q Why were you afraid at the time? witness. In his testimony, appellant admitted that
A Because he threatened me, sir. "AAA" is his daughter.15 He also admitted that on
September 27 and 28, 1999 and June 9, 2002, he sufficed to qualify every sexual molestation the medical examination to testify on his findings.28
was living in the same house as "AAA."16 However, perpetrated by her father as rape x x x."23 Likewise, "AAA’s" birth certificate was not formally
when asked regarding the rape charges filed against The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: offered. Neither did the Municipal Civil Registrar who
him by his daughter, appellant denied the same. WHEREFORE, finding the accused SATURNINO allegedly prepared the same take the witness stand.
Thus: VILLANUEVA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Thus appellant claimed that assuming he was indeed
Q And this daughter of your[s] now charge you three counts of rape, defined and penalized by Article guilty of the crimes charged, he should only be held
[with] rape in Crim. Case Nos. T-3157/3158/3159 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, perpetrated liable for simple rape and not qualified rape because
for allegedly having sexual intercourse with her against [his] daughter on September 27, 1999, the minority of the victim was not duly established.29
against her will and consent. What can you say September 28, 1999 and June 9, 2002, x x x and as Further, with the passage of Republic Act No. 9346,
against these charges by your daughter? mandated by Article 266-B, same Code, the Court appellant should not be sentenced to death.30
A [Those are] not true, sir.17 hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH On the other hand, appellee maintained that
The defense next presented Marcelino Villanueva for each offense, to indemnify the complainant "AAA" "AAA’s" credibility was beyond doubt31 and that it was
(Marcelino) who testified that he is the father of the for damages in the amount of P50,000.00 per [count], unnecessary to offer proof of resistance where the
18
appellant. He claimed that "AAA" filed the rape and to pay the costs. assailant exercised moral ascendancy against his
24
cases against appellant because the latter forbade SO ORDERED. victim, as in this case.32 Appellee insisted that the
her to entertain suitors.19 Marcelino also alleged that Ruling of the Court of Appeals crimes committed were three counts of qualified, and
after appellant was incarcerated, "AAA" eloped with In his brief filed before the appellate court, appellant not simple, rape considering that "AAA" was a minor
her 20-year old boyfriend and that "AAA" only claimed that the prosecution failed to present and the offender was her father,33 and that the parties
separated from her boyfriend when she was brought evidence that would overcome the presumption of his had already stipulated during pre-trial as regards the
under the care of the Department of Social Welfare innocence. Appellant also alleged that the trial court age of the victim.34
and Development.20 When asked how old "AAA" was erred in lending credence to the unrealistic and On November 5, 2007, the appellate court rendered
25
when she allegedly eloped with her boyfriend, unnatural testimony of "AAA." He claimed that it was its Decision disposing thus:
Marcelino answered that "AAA" was only 13 years unusual for "AAA" not to offer any resistance to the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
21
old. advances allegedly made by him considering that he dated 28 November 2003 of the Regional Trial Court
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court was unarmed. According to the appellant, "AAA" of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51 in Crim. Case Nos.
The trial court lent credence to the testimony of should have struggled or at least offered some T-3157, T-3158 and T-3159 finding accused-appellant
"AAA." However, it noted that although it was agreed resistance because she was not completely Saturnino Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt
26
upon during the pre-trial that "AAA" was a minor helpless. Appellant also suggested that "AAA" must of three (3) counts of qualified rape under Articles
below 12 years of age, the fact remains that "AAA" have been coached because initially, she did not 266-A and 266-B is AFFIRMED with the
was 12 years, six months and 19 days when she was know the acts which constitute rape. However, during MODIFICATION that pursuant to Republic Act No.
22
ravished by the appellant on June 9, 2002. The the succeeding hearings, "AAA" allegedly testified in 9346, the penalty of death imposed on appellant is
27
court below also observed that "AAA has always been detail the bestial acts committed against her. reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of
a pathetic child of oppression, abuse and neglect" and Moreover, appellant argued that the prosecution qualified rape, without eligibility for parole under Act
that "[h]er innocence, tender age, dependence [on failed to formally offer in evidence the medical No. 4103, as amended. Further, accused-appellant is
appellant] for survival, and her virtual orphanhood certificate and to present the doctor who conducted ordered to pay the private complainant/victim ["AAA"],
for each count of qualified rape, the amounts of Php Both the appellant and the appellee opted not to file certificate in evidence. In fact, the prosecution rested
43
75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 75,000.00 as moral their supplemental briefs. its case after presenting the testimony of "AAA"
damages and Php 25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The appeal is partly meritorious. without formally offering any documentary exhibit at
35
SO ORDERED. At the outset, we must state that we entertain no all.
The appellate court found no reason to reverse the doubt that appellant thrice raped his daughter, "AAA." Our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha45 is
findings of the trial court on the credibility of "AAA."36 We examined the records and we find "AAA’s" instructive, thus:
Although there were occasions when "AAA" would not testimony convincing and straightforward. We The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial
immediately answer the questions propounded to her, therefore have no reason to reverse or modify the matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a
the CA opined that it was because she was either findings of the trial court on the credibility of the considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver
distressed in recounting her horrible experiences or in victim’s testimony, more so in this case where the to submit it. Consequently, as in this case, any
tears.37 The appellate court likewise considered the said findings were affirmed by the CA. evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded
fact that "AAA" was only 13 years old when she We also agree with the ruling of the appellate court and rejected.
38
testified on her harrowing experiences. that appellant could be convicted of rape even without xxxx
The appellate court likewise brushed aside the medical certificate. "In rape cases, the accused The Rules of Court [provide] that ‘the court shall
appellant’s contention that "AAA" did not offer any may be convicted solely on the testimony of the consider no evidence which has not been formally
resistance. According to the CA, appellant’s moral victim, provided the testimony is credible, natural, offered.’ A formal offer is necessary because judges
ascendancy over "AAA" substitutes for violence or convincing, and consistent with human nature and the are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
39 44
intimidation. normal course of things." As stated above, "AAA’s" judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered
The CA also concluded that even without the testimony was credible and convincing. As such, by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the
medical certificate, appellant could still be held liable appellant’s conviction could rest solely on it. The trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which
for three counts of rape. His conviction could rest medical certificate would only serve as corroborative the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the
exclusively on the credible testimony of "AAA" and the evidence. other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine
medical certificate would only be corroborative We, however, agree with the appellant that both the the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover,
40
evidence. Anent the birth certificate, the CA recalled medical certificate and "AAA’s" birth certificate, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
that during pre-trial, the minority of the victim and her although marked as exhibits during the pre-trial, required to review documents not previously
relationship with the appellant had already been should not have been considered by the trial court scrutinized by the trial court.
stipulated upon. Hence, the said elements have been and the CA because they were not formally offered in xxxx
sufficiently alleged in the Informations and proven evidence. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the
41
during trial. explicitly provides: "The court shall consider no testimonial evidence presented and exclude the
Finally, the CA held that appellant’s denial is evidence which has not been formally offered. The documents not offered. Documents which may have
intrinsically weak and self-serving especially purpose for which the evidence is offered must be been identified and marked as exhibits during pre-trial
considering "AAA’s" credible and straightforward specified." or trial but which were not formally offered in evidence
42
testimony. In this case, we note that after the marking of the cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither
Our Ruling exhibits during pre-trial, the prosecution did not can such unrecognized proof be assigned any
formally offer the said medical certificate or birth evidentiary weight and value. It must be stressed that
there is a significant distinction between identification formally offer these pieces of evidence, despite CTA’s crime charged on the basis of his plea of guilty and
of documentary evidence and its formal offer. The directives, is fatal to its cause. Such failure is before receiving any evidence. While the trial court
former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason committed an error in rendering judgment immediately
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an was advanced by the BIR to justify such fatal after the accused had pleaded guilty, and, thereafter,
49
exhibit; while the latter is done only when the party omission. This, we take against the BIR. conducted hearings for the reception of the evidence
rests its case. The mere fact that a particular We are not unaware that there is an exception to for the prosecution, such an irregularity, is insufficient
50
document is identified and marked as an exhibit does the above-stated rule. In People v. Mate, Silvestre to justify the setting aside of the judgment of
not mean that it has already been offered as part of Mate (Mate) was charged with the crime of conviction, considering that it is supported by the
the evidence. It must be emphasized that any "Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder and Frustrated judicial and extra-judicial confessions of the accused
51
evidence which a party desires to submit for the Murder." During arraignment, he entered a plea of and by other evidence. x x x
consideration of the court must formally be offered by "guilty." The court then propounded clarificatory xxxx
the party; otherwise, it is excluded and questions to determine whether the accused The defense questions also the failure of the state
46
rejected. ten.lihpwal understood the consequences of his plea. prosecutor Cornelio Melendres to make a formal offer
We reiterated the above ruling in Dizon v. Court of Immediately thereafter, the trial court promulgated its of his exhibits, although they have been marked and
47
Tax Appeals where one of the issues presented was decision finding the accused guilty as charged and identified. Such an oversight appears trivial because
52
whether the Court of Tax Appeals and the CA gravely sentenced him to death. It was only after the the entire evidence for the prosecution is recorded.
abused their discretion "in allowing the admission of rendition of the judgment that the trial court conducted Even without the exhibits which have been
the pieces of evidence which were not formally hearings for the reception of the prosecution’s incorporated into the records of the case, the
offered" by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.48 In evidence.53 prosecution can still establish the case because the
finding the case impressed with merit, the Court held From the prosecution’s evidence, it would appear witnesses properly identified those exhibits and their
that: that during the investigation, Mate voluntarily made testimonies are recorded.
Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is extra-judicial statements as contained in Exhibits "A," Exhibits "A", "B", and "J" are all admissible against
categorically described as a court of record. As cases "B," and "J." Also, after his conviction, he appeared as Mate because it appears with clarity that he
filed before it are litigated de novo, party-litigants shall witness for the prosecution against his co-accused voluntarily and spontaneously gave those narrations
prove every minute aspect of their cases. Indubitably, where he affirmed his extra-judicial statements in without compulsion from anybody. In fact, . . . when
no evidentiary value can be given the pieces of Exhibits "A," "B," and "J." However, the state he testified against Ben Bohol he affirmed those
evidence submitted by the BIR, as the rules on prosecutor failed to formally offer said exhibits. narrations again.54
documentary evidence require that these documents In debunking the defense’s contentions that the trial In Mato v. Court of Appeals,55 we concretized the
must be formally offered before the CTA. x x x court erred in rendering a judgment of conviction on above ruling by holding that evidence, although not
xxxx Mate even before the prosecution could present its formally offered in evidence, may be "admitted and
x x x [T]he presentation of the BIR’s evidence is not a evidence, and in considering the exhibits which were considered by the trial court provided the following
mere procedural technicality which may be not formally offered, the Court held thus: requirements are present, viz: first, the same must
disregarded considering that it is the only means by The defense contends that the trial court committed have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded
which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of a serious error in rendering judgment of conviction and, second, the same must have been incorporated
BIR’s claims against the Estate. The BIR’s failure to immediately after Mate had pleaded guilty to the in the records of the case."56 In Ramos v. Dizon,57 we
deemed the exhibits to have been incorporated into they cannot be used against the accused. x x x." In qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal
64
the records because they had been "presented and People v. Chua Uy, we held that: certainty and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise,
marked during the pre-trial of the case."58 Likewise, Even granting for the sake of argument that there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified
the first requisite was deemed satisfied because one RAMON admitted during the pre-trial that Exhibits "D" form. As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of
of the parties therein explained the contents of the to "D-4", inclusive, and Exhibit "E" contained rape, the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her
exhibits when interrogated by the respondents’ methamphetamine hydrochloride, the admission relationship to the accused-appellant must be both
59
counsel. cannot be used in evidence against him because the alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt."65
In the instant case, we find the rulings espoused in Joint Order was not signed by RAMON and his In view of the foregoing, we find appellant guilty
60 61
People v. Mate, Mato v. Court of Appeals, and counsel. Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court only of three counts of simple rape66 the penalty for
Ramos v. Dizon62 not applicable. Thus, we find that expressly provides: which is reclusion perpetua for each count.
both the trial court and the CA erred in allowing the SEC. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No Accordingly, the awards of civil indemnity must be
admission of "AAA’s" medical certificate and birth agreement or admission made or entered during the reduced to P50,000.00 and moral damages to
certificate. The records would show that the lone pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against P50,000.00. Finally, the award of exemplary damages
witness for the prosecution did not identify the said the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by is proper. "Exemplary damages may be awarded in
exhibits or explain their contents. When "AAA" was his counsel. criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was
placed on the witness stand, she merely stated that Put in another way, to bind the accused the pre-trial committed with one or more aggravating
she was 13 years old. No reference was ever made to order must be signed not only by him but his counsel circumstances. Relationship as an alternative
her birth certificate. The same is true with the medical as well. The purpose of this requirement is to further circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal
certificate. After the marking during the pre-trial, the safeguard the rights of the accused against Code is considered aggravating in the crime of
prosecution did not refer to it in any stage of the improvident or unauthorized agreements or rape."67 In this case, the aggravating circumstance of
proceedings. Neither did it present the doctor who admissions which his counsel may have entered into relationship was duly established. Appellant himself
prepared the same. without his knowledge, as he may have waived his admitted when he testified in open court that he is
Moreover, appellant’s admission during the pre-trial presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any "AAA’s" father. However, the award of P25,000.00 as
63
that "AAA" was a minor below 12 years of age would doubt on the conformity of the accused of the facts exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00
not help the prosecution’s case. First, the trial court agreed upon. in line with prevailing jurisprudence.68
found this admission inaccurate as in fact, "AAA" was In this case, records would show that the Pre-trial WHEREFORE, we find appellant Saturnino
already above 12 years of age when the rape incident Order was not signed by both appellant and his Villanueva GUILTY of three counts of simple rape and
transpired on June 9, 2002. Second and more counsel. accordingly sentence him to suffer the penalty of
important, appellant’s admission during pre-trial is not In view of the foregoing, we find that the reclusion perpetua and to indemnify his victim "AAA"
admissible as it violates Section 2, Rule 118 of the prosecution did not present any satisfactory evidence the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
Rules of Court which explicitly provides that: "All to prove "AAA’s" minority. "In the prosecution of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
agreements or admissions made or entered during criminal cases, x x x, nothing but proof beyond exemplary damages, for each count.
the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute SO ORDERED.
and signed by the accused and his counsel, otherwise the crime with which an accused is charged must be
established. Qualifying circumstances or special
ANTI-FENCING LAW: One (1) White Gold Bracelet Macario agreed. He then went to the shop of
SECOND DIVISION ---- 150,000.00 petitioner Ernesto “Erning” Francisco located at
[G.R. No. 146584. July 12, 2004] One (1) Diamond Ring Pacheco Street, Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan,
ERNESTO FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF ---- 100,000.00 which had a poster outside that said, “We buy gold.”
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. One (1) Ring with Diamond Macario entered the shop, while Pacita stayed
DECISION ---- 5,000.00 outside. Macario offered to sell to Ernesto two rings
CALLEJO, SR., J.: with the total value of P655,000.00, belonging to and one bracelet. Ernesto agreed to buy the jewelry
This is an appeal via a petition for review on Jovita Rodriguez y Cruz, which he knows, or should for P25,000, and paid the amount to Macario. He
certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in be known to him, to have been derived from the also gave Macario P300 as a tip.
CA-G.R. CR No. 19110 affirming the Decision of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. Sometime in November 1991, Pacita asked
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 22, Contrary to law. Macario anew to sell a pair of earrings. He agreed.
finding petitioner Ernesto Francisco guilty of violating The petitioner was arraigned, with the assistance of He and a friend of his went to the shop of Ernesto and
Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty. Trial offered to sell to Ernesto the pair of earrings for
the Anti-Fencing Law, sentencing him to suffer the forthwith ensued. P18,000. The latter agreed and paid Macario the
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision The Case for the Prosecution amount. Ernesto gave a P200 tip to Macario. After
mayor maximum, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of Jovita Rodriguez was a resident of Barangay these transactions, Macario saw the petitioner in his
reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, with the Manggahan, Rodriguez, Rizal. She was engaged in shop for about five to six more times and received
accessory penalties corresponding to the latter, and business as a general contractor under the business some amounts.
to pay the corresponding value of the subject pieces name J.C. Rodriguez Contractors. Macario Linghon Sometime in November 1991, Jovita was asked to
of jewelry. was one of her workers. She and her husband, the be a principal sponsor at a wedding. She was
The Indictment former Municipal Mayor of Rodriguez, Rizal, acquired shocked when she opened the locked cabinet
The petitioner was charged of violating P.D. No. several pieces of jewelry which were placed inside a containing her jewelry, and found that the box was
1612 under the Information filed on June 23, 1993, locked cabinet in a locked room in their main house. empty. She noticed that the lock to the cabinet was
the accusatory portion of which reads: Jovita hid the key to the cabinet inside the room. The not broken. Among the pieces of jewelry missing
That in or about the month of November 1991, in couple and their son resided inside a compound. were one pair of diamond heart-shaped earrings
the municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, They hired Pacita Linghon, Macario’s sister, as one of worth P400,000; one heart-shaped diamond ring
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this their household helpers us sometime in February worth P100,000; one white gold bracelet with
Honorable Court, the said accused Ernesto Francisco 1989. Pacita swept and cleaned the room diamond stones worth P150,000; and one ring with a
y Spenocilla, with intent to gain for himself, did then periodically. Sometime in May 1991, she left the small diamond stone worth P5,000. She suspected
and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously buy, employ of the Rodriguez family. that it was Pacita who stole her jewelry. She was,
receive, possess and acquire from one Pacita Sometime in the third week of October 1991, Pacita however, occupied with her business ventures that
Linghon y Liza, not the owner, several pieces of contacted her brother Macario, who resided in Sitio she had little time to gather evidence and charge
jewelry, to wit: Baloongan, Barangay Paltok, Meycauayan, Bulacan, Pacita.
One (1) pair of earrings (Heart Shape) and asked him to sell some pieces of jewelry. She On August 19, 1992, Jovita filed a complaint for
--- P 400,000.00 told Macario that a friend of hers owned the jewelry. theft against Pacita and her mother Adoracion
Linghon with the Counter-Intelligence Group of the petitioner for questioning in Camp Crame. Upon his According to Pacita, she found the jewelry belonging
Philippine National Police in Camp Crame, Quezon insistence, the petitioner was brought to the police to Jovita while she was cleaning the room in the
City. She stated that she owned several jewels, viz: station of Meycauayan, Bulacan. When they were at house, and that she brought the jewelry home. The
one (1) heart-shaped pair of earrings with diamond the police station, the petitioner, in the presence of court found probable cause against the petitioner, and
worth P400,000; one (1) heart-shaped ring with SPO4 Valdez, offered an amount of P5,000 to the issued a warrant for his arrest.
diamond worth P100,000; one (1) white gold bracelet policemen as a bribe, for them not to implicate him in On June 23, 1993, an Information was filed by the
with diamond stones worth P150,000; and, one (1) the case. PO1 Roldan, Jr. rejected the offer. They Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC charging the
ring with a small diamond stone worth P5,000. She again invited the petitioner to go with them to Camp petitioner with violating P.D. No. 1612.
also averred that Pacita had stolen the pieces of Crame, but the petitioner refused and demanded that In the meantime, on August 20, 1993, judgment
jewelry, and that she and her mother Adoracion the policemen first secure a warrant for his arrest was rendered by the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal,
disposed of the same. should they insist on taking him with them. Branch 76, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1992 and 2005,
A team of police investigators, including PO1 Nevertheless, Pacita was charged with qualified finding Pacita guilty of theft and Adoracion guilty of
Santiago Roldan, Jr. of the Counter-Intelligence theft in the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, fencing under P.D. No. 1612, beyond reasonable
Group, invited Pacita and Adoracion to Camp Crame, Branch 76. The case was docketed as Criminal Case doubt. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
Quezon City, for investigation in connection with No. 2005. Adoracion was also charged with violating WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
Jovita’s complaint. Pacita arrived in Camp Crame P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), docketed as hereby rendered in these cases, as follows:
without counsel and gave a sworn statement pointing Criminal Case No. 1992. The cases were 1. In Crim. Case No. 2005, finding accused
to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold consolidated and jointly tried. Pacita Linghon y Liza GUILTY beyond reasonable
Jovita’s jewelry. On August 23, 1992, Pacita gave a Meanwhile, Jovita succeeded in convincing Macario doubt of the crime of theft, as defined and penalized
sworn statement to PO1 Roldan, Jr., admitting that to testify against the petitioner, assuring him that he under Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309 of the Revised
she sold one pair of heart-shaped earrings with would not be prosecuted for violation of P.D. No. Penal Code, and sentencing her to suffer the
diamond, one white gold bracelet, one heart-shaped 1612. Macario agreed to testify against the petitioner. indeterminate sentence of Nine (9) years and Four (4)
diamond ring, and one ring “with big and small PO1 Roldan, Jr. and SPO1 Peralta executed a joint months of prision mayor as minimum to Eighteen (18)
stones” to “Mang Erning” of Meycauayan, Bulacan, for affidavit on their investigation. years, Two (2) months and Twenty (20) days of
the total price of P50,000 to cover the cost of her On September 1, 1992, Jovita executed a sworn reclusion temporal as maximum, to return to
father’s operation and for food. When asked about statement in the office of the police station of complainant Jovita Rodriguez the unrecovered stolen
the full name of the person to whom the jewelry was Meycauayan, Bulacan, charging the petitioner of pieces of jewelry subject of this case and if restitution
sold, Pacita replied that she knew him only as “Mang buying stolen jewelry worth P655,000. A criminal is not possible, to indemnify the said complainant in
Erning.” complaint against the petitioner for violation of P.D. the amount of P1,300,000.00; and to pay the costs.
Pacita accompanied a group of five police officers, No. 1612 was filed in the Municipal Trial Court of 2. In Crim. Case No. 1992, finding accused
which included SPO1 Dremio Peralta and PO1 Meycauayan, Bulacan, docketed as Criminal Case Adoracion Linghon y Liza GUILTY beyond reasonable
Roldan, Jr. to the shop in Meycauayan, Bulacan. No. 92-13841. During the preliminary investigation, doubt of the offense of violation of PD 1612,
Pacita pointed to the petitioner as the “Mang Erning” Pacita and Macario testified that they sold a set of otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, and
who had purchased the jewelry from her. The earrings, bracelet and two rings to the petitioner for sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12)
policemen alighted from their vehicle and invited the P50,000 at his shop in Meycauayan, Bulacan. years of prision mayor; to indemnify complainant
Jovita Rodriguez in the amount of P45,000.00; and to reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1612. The THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
pay the costs. decretal portion of the decision reads: THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION
SO ORDERED. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is WITNESSES ARE ALL HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
The Case for the Petitioner hereby rendered as follows: II
The petitioner testified that he was a resident of 1. Finding the accused GUILTY beyond THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan. He had a shop reasonable doubt of the violation of Pres. Decree No. THAT THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS NOT
located at Pacheco Street, Calvario, Meycauayan, 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) and is hereby sentenced to SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED-
Bulacan, where he bought and sold jewelry. He had suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
been in this business since 1980. He did not transact mayor maximum, as minimum, to 20 years of III
with Pacita regarding Jovita’s missing jewels. In fact, reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, with the THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING ON
he did not even know Jovita and met her only during accessory penalties corresponding to the latter. THE CONTRADICTING TESTIMONY (sic) OF
the preliminary investigation of the case before the 2. Ordering the accused to pay to private PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan. He, likewise, denied complainant Jovita Rodriguez the corresponding IV
knowing Pacita Linghon, and claimed that he first saw value of the subject items of jewelries (sic): THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING THE
her when she accompanied some policemen in one (1) pair of earrings, heart shaped TESTIMONY OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AS
civilian clothes to his shop, where he was thereafter TO THE ALLEGED ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
invited to Camp Crame for investigation. He saw P400,000.00 OFFER OF BRIBE WITHOUT SHOW OF MONEY.
Pacita again only during the preliminary investigation one (1) white gold bracelet V
of the case. The petitioner also averred that he had THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING
no transaction with Macario of whatever nature. 150,000.00 THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The petitioner further testified that when the one (1) diamond ring On December 29, 2000, the CA rendered judgment
policemen in civilian clothes approached him in his affirming the decision of the RTC.
100,000.00
shop, they asked who “Mang Erning” was, as the sign The Present Petition
one (1) ring with diamond
in his shop carried such name. When he responded In the present recourse, petitioner Ernesto Francisco
5,000.00
to the question, the policemen identified themselves asserts that:
TOTAL VALUE
as members of the police force. The petitioner then The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial
gave them his full name. When the policemen invited court’s decision finding petitioner guilty beyond
P655,000.00
him for questioning, he refused at first. Eventually, he reasonable doubt of violation of the (sic) Presidential
with 6% interest on all amounts due from the filing of
agreed to be interrogated at the municipal hall, where Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-
the information on June 23, 1993 until said amounts
the policemen insisted on bringing him to Camp Fencing Law.
have been fully paid.
Crame. He told them that he would go with them only The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the
SO ORDERED.
if they had a warrant of arrest. He denied ever offering conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses, all of
The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of
any bribe to the policemen. which consisted of hearsay evidence.
Appeals contending that:
On November 29, 1995, the court rendered The petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to
I
judgment finding the petitioner guilty beyond prove his guilt for the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt. He avers that the prosecution P655,000 were sold to him for only P50,000. It Pacita stole the subject jewelry from the locked
failed to prove that Pacita stole the jewelry subject of contends that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of cabinet in the main house of her then employer.
the charge, and that Macario sold the said pieces of the prosecution witnesses referred to by the petitioner Jovita testified on her ownership of the jewelry and
jewelry to him. He, likewise, posits that the were minor, and could not be made as a basis to the loss thereof, and narrated that Pacita had access
prosecution failed to present Pacita as its witness to disregard the trial court’s findings of facts, which are to the cabinet containing the pieces of jewelry.
prove that she stole the pieces of jewelry and sold the entitled to great respect and credit. We, however, agree with the petitioner that the
same to him, and to adduce in evidence the jewelry The Ruling of the Court decision of the RTC of Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal
allegedly sold to him. He contends that the The petition is meritorious. Case No. 2005 convicting Pacita of theft does not
testimonies of Macario and PO1 Roldan, Jr., on his The essential elements of the crime of fencing are constitute proof against him in this case, that Pacita
investigation of Jovita’s complaint for theft, are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been had, indeed, stolen the jewelry. There is no showing
hearsay evidence. The appellant argues that committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or that the said decision in Criminal Case No. 2005 was
assuming that Macario sold the subject jewelry to him, accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery already final and executory when the trial court
Macario had no personal knowledge that the same or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, rendered its decision in the instant case.
belonged to Jovita. The petitioner avers that the conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in On the second element of the crime, the trial and
testimony of Macario, the principal witness of the any manner deals in any article, item, object or appellate courts held that the prosecution proved the
prosecution, is inconsistent on substantial matters; anything of value, which has been derived from the same beyond reasonable doubt based on the
hence, should not be given credence and probative proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the testimony of Jovita during the trial in Criminal Cases
weight. accused knew or should have shown that the said Nos. 1992 and 2005; that Pacita had confessed to
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor article, item, object or anything of value has been Jovita that she sold some of the jewelry to the
General (OSG) maintains that the prosecution was derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or petitioner; the joint affidavit of PO1 Roldan, Jr. and
able to prove all the elements of the crime charged. It theft; and, (4) there is, on the part of the accused, SPO1 Peralta on their investigation of the complaint
asserts that the first element was proved through intent to gain for himself or for another. Fencing is of Jovita; the testimony of PO1 Roldan, Jr. relating to
Pacita’s conviction for theft in Criminal Case No. malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a said investigation; the RTC decision in Criminal
2005; the second element was shown to exist with prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of Cases Nos. 1992 and 2005; the testimonies of Pacita
moral certainty via the testimony of Macario possession by the accused of any good, article, item, and her brother Macario during the preliminary
identifying the petitioner as the one who bought the object or anything of value which has been the investigation of Criminal Case No. 92-13841 before
subject pieces of jewelry, corroborated by the subject of robbery or theft, and prescribes a higher the MTC of Meycauayan as shown by the transcripts
testimony of PO1 Roldan, Jr.; and, the third element penalty based on the value of the property. The stolen of the stenographic notes taken during the
was proven by evidence showing that the petitioner property subject of the charge is not indispensable to proceedings; the supplemental sworn statement of
had been in the business of buying and selling jewelry prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the Pacita on August 23, 1992 in Camp Crame, Quezon
for a long period of time, and that he had the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the City, and, the testimony of Macario before the trial
expertise to know the correct market price of the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing. court.
jewelry he purchased from Macario and Pacita. The We agree with the trial and appellate courts that the However, we find and so hold that –
OSG asserts that the petitioner must have been put prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of First. Jovita’s testimony in Criminal Cases Nos.
on his guard when the subject pieces of jewelry worth evidence, on the basis of the testimony of Jovita, that 1992 and 2005, that Pacita had confessed to her that
she had sold four pieces of jewelry to the petitioner, is knowledge of the said sale, and, more importantly, he and his sister Pacita sold two rings and one
inadmissible in evidence against the latter to prove Pacita did not testify in the court a quo. Indeed, the bracelet to the petitioner for P25,000, while in
the truth of the said admission. It bears stressing that petitioner was deprived of his right to cross-examine November 1991, he and Pacita sold a pair of earrings
the petitioner was not a party in the said criminal Pacita on the truth of what she told the policemen. to the petitioner for P25,000. On direct examination in
cases. The well-entrenched rule is that only parties to Fourth. On the other hand, the testimony of Macario the court a quo, Macario testified that he and Pacita
a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court. during the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case sold the earrings to the petitioner in May 1992, not in
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of No. 92-13841 is admissible in evidence against the November 1991, and only for P18,000. On cross-
said case. Jovita did not reiterate her testimony in the petitioner since he testified for the prosecution and examination, Macario testified that he and his sister
said criminal cases during the trial in the court a quo. was cross-examined on his testimony during the Pacita went to the petitioner’s shop in Meycauayan,
The prosecution did not present Pacita as witness preliminary investigation. Bulacan and sold the subject jewelry on both
therein to testify on the admission she purportedly In fine, the only evidence of the prosecution to occasions. On further cross-examination, Macario
made to Jovita; hence, the petitioner was not able to prove that the petitioner purchased the jewelry from changed his testimony anew, and declared that he
cross-examine Pacita. The rule is that the acts or Macario and Pacita are the following: the testimony sold the jewelry to the petitioner for P18,000 and not
declarations of a person are not admissible in and affidavit of PO1 Roldan, Jr.; and, the testimony of P25,000; only to change his testimony again, and
evidence against a third party. Macario during the preliminary investigation and trial declare that he sold the jewelry for P25,000.
Second. The testimony of Pacita during the in the court a quo. However, Macario testified during the preliminary
preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 92- Although the well-entrenched rule is that the investigation in Criminal Case No. 92-13841 that
13841, as well as her supplemental affidavit, is, testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to when he transacted with the petitioner for the second
likewise, inadmissible against the petitioner since anchor a judgment of conviction, it is required that time, he was with a friend, and not with his sister
Pacita did not testify in the court a quo. The petitioner such testimony must be credible and reliable. In this Pacita. On redirect examination, Macario declared
was, thus, deprived of his constitutional right to case, we find the testimony of Macario to be dubious; that in October 1991, he and Pacita sold four (4)
confront and cross-examine a witness against him. hence, barren of probative weight. pieces of jewelry, namely, two rings, one bracelet and
Third. The testimony of PO1 Roldan, Jr., that on Macario admitted when he testified in the court a a pair of earrings, contrary to his testimony on direct
August 23, 1992, Pacita pointed to the petitioner, quo that his testimony during the preliminary examination. He also testified that he and his sister
while the latter was having a drinking spree, as the investigation in Criminal Case No. 92-13841 and his sold the earrings in November 1991. Because of the
person who bought the subject jewelry from her, is testimony in the court a quo were inconsistent. He contradicting accounts made by Macario, the court
indeed admissible in evidence against the petitioner. even admitted that some portions of his testimony on made the following observations:
It is, likewise, corroborative of the testimony of direct examination in the court a quo were Court
Macario. However, such testimony is admissible only inconsistent with his testimony on cross-examination q According to you, you were “nalilito” but you
to prove such fact - that Pacita pointed to the and on re-direct examination. These admissions are gave the correct answer, you are not “nalilito” here
petitioner as the person to whom she sold the subject buttressed by the records of the case, which show but you gave the wrong answer. Bakit ganoon,
jewelry; it is inadmissible to prove the truth of Pacita’s that such inconsistencies pertained to material points sabi mo nalilito ka roon (sic) pero ang sagot mo
declaration to the policemen, that the petitioner was and not merely to minor matters. Thus, during the pala tama. Dito hindi ka naman nalilito, bakit mali.
the one who purchased the jewelry from her. It must preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 92- Bakit ka nalilito eh tama iyong P25,000.00. Hindi
be stressed that the policemen had no personal 13841, Macario admitted that on October 10, 1991, ka nalilito, mali ang sabi mo.
a Because I am scare[d] here that’s why I gave to inform the petitioner that the said jewelry was Q Now, will you tell this Court some of those
the wrong answer. stolen. Following is the testimony of Macario: jewels which you own?
q You better think about it. Atty. Lerio A I own several jewels and the one (sic) in
a I was confused, Sir. Q When you learned that those jewels were question are: 1-pair of earrings, diamond heart-
The testimonies of Macario are even contrary to the owned by Mrs. Rodriguez, did you, if at all, shaped P400,000.00; 1-ring, heart-shaped diamond
averments of the Information, that the petitioner informed (sic) “Mang Erning” about it? worth P100,000.00; 1-bracelet, white gold full of
received the said jewelry from Pacita. Court stones, diamond worth P150,000.00; 1-diamond
Assuming, for the nonce, that the petitioner Q No basis, when did you come to know that the ring with small stones worth P5,000.00. So, all in
purchased the said jewelry from Macario, there is no jewels belong to Mrs. Rodriguez? all, the jewelry is (sic) worth P665,000.00.
evidence on record that the petitioner knew that they A In 1992, when my sister already had a case. When asked by the trial court to declare the present
were stolen. Significantly, even Macario did not know Q What did you do when you come (sic) to know market value of the stolen jewelry, Jovita merely
that the jewelry was stolen. He testified that his sister about that? declared:
Pacita told him before he sold the jewelry to the A I was not able to do anything but just to help Atty. Lerio
petitioner that they belonged to a friend of hers. my sister with her case and also to help the case of Q Now again, when did you acquire those jewels
Atty. Lerio Mrs. Rodriguez. if you can still remember?
Q At that time you and your sister sold those Atty. Lerio A I remember several years ago when my
jewels to “Mang Erning” did … do you know already Q After that, after knowing that these jewels are husband is (sic) alive.
[that] it was Mrs. Rodriguez who is the owner of (sic) owned by Mrs. Rodriguez, was there any Court
those jewels? occasion where you (sic) able to inform “Mang Q Please tell the court, [is] the market value of the
A No, Sir, I do not know. Erning” that those jewels were owned by Mrs. jewels the same today?
Q And who do you know was the owner of that Rodriguez? A No, that is (sic) the market value several years
jewels and that time you and your sister sold those A No more, I have no more time. ago.
jewels to “Mang Erning”? The prosecution cannot even validly argue that the Q So, can you explain [if] the market value, more
A According to my sister, it is (sic) owned by a petitioner should have known which pieces of or less, [is] the same today?
friend of hers. jewelry were stolen, considering that Macario was A No. The price, if we will appraise now, is much
Court selling the same for P50,000 when the said pieces bigger.
Q How did you come to know of this “Mang stolen from Jovita were alleged to be worth When required by the petitioner, through counsel,
Erning?” P655,000. This is so because the prosecution failed to bring to the court any receipts reflecting the price of
A Only at that time when we brought the jewels. to adduce sufficient competent evidence to prove the pieces of jewelry to show that she purchased the
Q But previous to that, do you know him? the value of the said stolen articles. The same, Jovita answered that she had no such
A No. prosecution relied solely on the bare and receipts. Thus:
Macario learned, after the case against Pacita had uncorroborated testimony of Jovita, that they were Court
already been filed in the trial court, that the jewelry worth P655,000: Q You bought it from [a] private person?
was, after all, owned by Jovita. However, he failed Atty. Lerio A Yes, Your Honor.
Atty. Bernal
Q What then is your proof that you bought these bag and its contents at P100.00 based on the Criminal Case Nos. 16263 and 16264. They were
jewelries (sic) from a private person? attendant circumstances of the case. More found guilty of violating Sections 15 and 16 of Article
Atty. Lerio pertinently, in the case of People vs. Reyes, this III of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended. The
That was already answered, Your Honor. She Court held that if there is no available evidence to dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as
said, no receipt. prove the value of the stolen property or that the follows:
In People v. Paraiso, we cited our ruling in People prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding “WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment as
v. Marcos that an ordinary witness cannot establish penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant follows:
the value of jewelry, nor may the courts take judicial should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft “1. In Criminal Case No. 16263, finding both Rosdia
notice of the value of the same: involving the value of P5.00. Hajili y Sakilan a.k.a. Rosdia Hajili y Jayadi alias
…[A]nd as we have ruled in the case of People vs. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is ‘Hadji Usdi’ and Normina Unday y Aloh GUILTY
Antonio Marcos, an ordinary witness cannot establish GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of
the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take CA-G.R. CR No. 19110 affirming the Decision of the Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No.
judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 22, 6425, as amended, also known as The Dangerous
of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is Drugs Act of 1972, and SENTENCING each of said
demonstration. The value of jewelry is not a matter of ACQUITTED of the crime of violating P.D. No. 1612 accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond PERPETUA and its accessory penalties, to pay a fine
demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any reasonable doubt. of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00)
other competent evidence besides the self-serving SO ORDERED. pesos each, and to pay the costs; and
valuation made by the prosecution, we cannot award THIRD DIVISION “2. In Criminal Case No. 16264, finding accused
the reparation for the stolen jewelry. [G.R. Nos. 149872-73. March 14, 2003] Rosdia Hajili y Sakilan a.k.a. Rosdia Hajili y Jayadi
It bears stressing that, in the absence of direct PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. alias ‘Hadji Usdi’ GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
evidence that the accused had knowledge that the ROSDIA HAJILI alias “Hadji Usdi,” and NORMINA DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article
jewelry was stolen, the prosecution is burdened to UNDAY, appellants. III of Republic Act No. 6425, also known as The
prove facts and circumstances from which it can be DECISION Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and SENTENCING
concluded that the accused should have known that PANGANIBAN, J.: said accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
the property sold to him were stolen. This requirement The buy-bust operation in this case is supported by SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor as minimum to
serves two basic purposes: (a) to prove one of the the credible and straightforward testimonies of the FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
elements of the crime of fencing; and, (b) to enable police officers. Appellants’ desperate attempt to taint correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs.”
the trial court to determine the imposable penalty for them with accusations of bias and irregular procedure Appellants were charged in two separate
the crime, since the penalty depends on the value of is not supported by the evidence. Hence, the Informations, both dated August 24, 1999.
the property; otherwise, the court will fix the value of affirmation of the appealed judgment is inevitable. In Criminal Case No. 16263, the Information reads:
the property at P5.00, conformably to our ruling in Statement of the Case “That on or about August 23, 1999, in the City of
People v. Dator: Rosdia Hajili and Normina Unday appeal the Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
In the absence of a conclusive or definite proof February 21, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
relative to their value, this Court fixed the value of the Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16) in conspiring and confederating together, mutually
aiding and assisting x x x one another, not being In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) at the hotel. Rosdia told him that the amount was just
authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to presents the prosecution’s version of the facts as equivalent to five (5) lowest. One (1) lowest is a pack
another, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did follows: of shabu weighing more or less 50 grams. PO3
then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously, “Around 3 o’clock in the afternoon of August 21, 1999, Rivera agreed to buy five (5) lowest. They agreed to
sell and deliver to PO3 ENRIQUE C. RIVERA, PNP PO3 Enrique Climaco Rivera, then assigned to the meet again at 11 o’clock the following morning at the
Tumba droga agent, who pose[d] as buyer, five (5) Task Force Tumba Droga Team I, Zamboanga City, same place. Rosdia told PO3 Rivera to bring the
big transparent plastic packs containing 241.6338 was on duty at police headquarters. Momentarily, a money. Thereafter, PO3 Rivera and the informant
grams of white crystalline substance which when lady informant reported to P/Ins. Alfredo Francisco, left. They agreed to meet at the gate of the
subjected to qualitative examination gave positive the team leader, that a certain Rosdia was selling puericulture center fronting the Mindpro [Citymall]
result to the tests for Methamphetamine prohibited drugs at the second floor of Mindpro between 10:00 to 10:30 in the morning of the
Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing same to be a [Citymall]. P/Ins. Francisco brought the lady following day.
regulated drug.” informant to PO3 Rivera. P/Ins. Francisco instructed “SPO3 Rivera returned to headquarters and reported
The Information in Criminal Case No. 16264 PO3 Rivera to go with the informant and verify the what transpired to P/Insp. Francisco. They withdrew
charges them as follows: report. And after confirming the report to be true, he the amount of P200,000.00 from the Finance Section
“That on or about August 23, 1999, in the City of should negotiate with the suspect to buy shabu worth of the police. P/Insp. Francisco got a bag, put the
Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of P200,000.00. The informant told PO3 Rivera that money inside, and brought it to the office of Task
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not Rosdia was a big-time pusher. Force Tumba Droga. P/Insp. Francisco conducted a
being authorized by law, did then and there wil[l]fully, “PO3 Rivera and the lady informant proceeded to the short briefing on the planned buy-bust operation. The
unlawfully and feloniously have in [their] possession second floor of Mindpro [Citymall] to look for Rosdia. target of the buy-bust operation was a certain Rosdia
and under [their] custody and control one (1) medium After failing to find her at the mall, PO3 Rivera and the Hajili who was frequently seen at Mindpro [Citymall].
transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline lady informant left. They agreed to return to the place PO3 Rivera was designated poseur-buyer while PO3
substance having a total weight of 4.0859 gram which the afternoon of the following day. Alfredo S. Trumata would act as Rivera’s back-up.
when subjected to qualitative examination gave “In the afternoon of August 22, 1999, PO3 Rivera and The other members of the team were assigned as
positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine the lady informant went to Mindpro [Citymall] and perimeter guards. It was agreed that when PO3
Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a proceeded to the second floor where they saw Rosdia Rivera remove[s] his bull cap, it would mean that the
regulated drug.” taking a snack in an eatery. The informant told PO3 deal was consummated. The members of Task Force
During their arraignment on September 23, 1999 for Rivera that she alone would approach Rosdia. After Tumba Droga Team present at the briefing were
Criminal Case No. 16263 and on October 25, 1999 for talking briefly to Rosdia, the informant waved at PO3 P/Insp. Alfredo Francisco, PO3 Enrique Rivera, SPO1
Criminal Case No. 16264, appellants, assisted by Rivera to join them. The informant introduced Rosdia Eduardo Bernardo, SPO1 Amado Mirasol, SPO1
their counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the to PO3 Rivera saying: ‘Nelson, si Rosdia, yong Marcelino Herbano, PO3 Alfredo Trumata, PO3
charges. After a joint trial of the cases, the lower sinasabi ko sa iyo.’ PO3 Rivera and Rosdia shook Renato dela Peña, PO3 Allan Obut, PO1 Yasser
court rendered the assailed Judgment. hands. PO3 Rivera introduced himself as Nelson Salonga and PO1 Hilda Montuno.
The Facts Yap, while Rosdia introduced herself as Rosdia Hajili. “The next day, August 23, 1999, about 9 o’clock in the
Version of the Prosecution Rosdia asked PO3 Rivera if he had money. PO3 morning, PO3 Rivera and the rest of the members of
Rivera told her that he had P200,000.00 which he left the team were at the office of Task Force Tumba
Droga. P/Insp. Francisco again conducted a short a big amount of money in that critical place. Rosdia, and handed it over to PO3 Rivera. She told PO3
briefing. He reminded the members of the team to however, told him not to worry as she was from that Rivera: ‘Lima yan.’ PO3 Rivera inspected the white
deploy themselves in strategic positions at the place. PO3 Rivera excused himself. He went to the plastic bag with the label TONG’S, containing five (5)
[Citymall] where they could not be seen. P/Insp. comfort room. He was followed inside by P/Insp. transparent plastic packs of crystalline substance.
Francisco would post himself near the toilet where he Francisco. PO3 Rivera informed Francisco that the PO3 Rivera then gave the pre-arranged signal to the
could see PO3 Rivera. P/Ins Francisco handed over transaction would be finalized in Baliwasan Chico, at buy-bust team members by removing his bull cap.
to PO3 Rivera the bag containing P200,000.00 in Sampaloc Drive. P/Insp. Francisco told PO3 Rivera Rosdia Hajili asked PO3 Rivera, ‘Yung pera?’ PO3
bundles of P10,000.00 each. The members of the to go ahead because members of the team would be Rivera pretended to open the bag he was carrying. At
team then proceeded to Mindpro [Citymall]. SPO3 there. PO3 Rivera returned to their table. Rosdia that juncture, PO3 Rivera noticed the group of P/Sr.
Rivera boarded his motorcycle followed by the other Hajili and her two companions went down and Insp. Francisco and PO3 Trumata entering the gate.
members. boarded a tricycle. PO3 Rivera and the lady PO3 Rivera identified himself as a policeman. He told
“About an hour later, SPO3 Rivera and the informant informant followed in another tricycle. The two Rosdia Hajili and Normina Unday that they were both
met. They proceeded to the second floor of Mindpro tricycles headed towards Baliwasan Chico. P/Insp. under arrest. Normina Unday attempted to run but
[Citymall] where they waited for Rosdia Hajili. Francisco and his team members furtively followed PO3 Rivera grabbed hold of her wrist and made her
Moments later, Rosdia arrived and approached PO3 the two tricycles. sit on the bench. Rosdia Hajili remained seated on
Rivera and the lady informant. She asked SPO3 “The group arrived at Baliwasan Chico about 2:45 in the bench and did not offer any resistance.
Rivera if he had the money with him. PO3 Rivera the afternoon. Rosdia and her companions, together “PO3 Alfredo Trumata placed Rosdia Hajili under
opened the bag and showed the contents to her. with PO3 Rivera and the lady informant, passed arrest. He confiscated from her a brown shoulder bag
PO3 Rivera counted one bundle amounting to through a blue steel gate and into a bungalow house. with brand name BON containing a medium size
P10,000.00 in the presence of Rosdia. He took a Rosdia talked to one of its occupants. PO3 Rivera, transparent plastic pack of suspected shabu.
P100.00 bill and gave it to the lady informant. He told the lady informant and Rosdia’s two companions were “PO3 Rivera turned over to the investigator, PO3 Dela
the informant to buy snacks for them. After Rosdia left waiting at the terrace. Rosdia returned to the Peña, the white plastic bag, marked TONG’S,
was convinced, she told PO3 Rivera to come back at terrace and told PO3 Rivera and the lady informant containing five (5) big transparent plastic packs which
2 o’clock in the afternoon in the same place to finalize that the house belonged to her friend. Rosdia contained white crystalline substance and the marked
their transaction. instructed her companions to summon a certain money in P100.00 bills amounting to P6,000.00
“At 1:30 in the afternoon, after a short briefing in their Normina. Rosdia’s companions left and proceeded to placed in two (2) brown mailing envelopes which
office, PO3 Rivera and the other members of the Task the interior portion of Sapang Palay. After a few were, in turn, placed inside a black bag. PO3
Force Tumba Droga Team returned to Mindpro minutes, Rosdia’s companions returned with Normina Trumata turned over a brown shoulder bag with brand
[Citymall]. He brought the black bag containing Unday. Rosdia’s companions then left the house. name ‘BON’ which he confiscated from Rosdia Hajili.
marked money in the lesser amount of P6,000.00 and Rosdia instructed Normina to get the shabu. Normina Inside, PO3 Trumata found a medium[-sized] heat-
crumpled bond paper. Rosdia arrived at 2 o’clock in also went out and headed for Sapang Palay. sealed transparent plastic pack containing suspected
the afternoon accompanied by a man and a woman. “A few minutes later, Normina Unday returned shabu.
Rosdia told PO3 Rivera that they would finalize the bringing with her a folded white plastic bag clasped “After their arrest, Rosdia Hajili and Normina Unday
transaction at Baliwasan Chico, Sampaloc Drive. At under her armpit. She gave it to Rosdia Hajili. were brought to the police station. PO3 Rivera placed
first, PO3 Rivera expressed apprehension in bringing Rosdia inspected the contents of the white plastic bag his markings ‘ECR’ (Enrique Climaco Rivera) on the
confiscated items at the Office of Task Force Tumba of Hadja Fatima in Baliwasan Chico. While she was Ruling of the Trial Court
Droga, particularly on the white plastic bag with the being treated by Delma Abubakar, the quack doctor, The trial court gave credence to the evidence of the
label TONG’S and on the five (5) big transparent policemen suddenly entered the house, among one of prosecution and found the buy-bust operation lawful.
plastic packs containing suspected shabu. them was whom she recognized as PO3 Rivera in It held that the apprehending police officers could not
“P/Sr. Insp. Mercedes Delfin-Diestro, Forensic connection with her case for violation of the Anti- have merely concocted the facts, which they had
Chemist, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 9, Fencing Law. She further declared before August 21, clearly and convincingly narrated in their respective
conducted laboratory tests on the five (5) big 22 and 23, 1999 she knew Rivera was a Police testimonies. Thus, it upheld the presumption that
transparent plastic packs containing white crystalline Officer. they had performed their duties in a regular manner,
substance with a total weight of 241.6338 grams and “On the other hand, Accused-Appellant x x x Normina since no evidence to the contrary had been
one (1) medium-sized transparent plastic pack Unday y Aloh, testified that x x x [s]he came to presented.
containing white crystalline substance, weighing Zamboanga City for the first time on August 14, 1999 Moreover, the trial court rejected appellants’
4.0889 grams. The specimens submitted proved with her sister who was leaving for Saudi Arabia. defense of frame-up, because it found the testimonies
POSITIVE for METHAMPHETAMINE They stayed at the house of Hadja Fatima who is the of the accused and their witnesses to be dubious and
HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), a regulated drug.” friend of her sister. When her sister left for Saudi unconvincing. It declared as suspicious the statement
Version of the Defense Arabia, she was employed as a house helper of Hadja that the police officers had simply barged into the
Denying the charges and claiming to be victims of a Fatima. She further avers that on the afternoon of house and escorted both of the accused to the police
police frame-up, appellants present their version of August 23, 1999, she was inside the bathroom of station without any explanation. It was convinced that
the facts as follows: Hadja Fatima’s house taking a bath and washing the policemen had been led to the house by the
“x x x. Rosdia Hajili y Jayadi, testified that x x x [s]he clothes when suddenly there was a knock at the accused Hajili in connection with a drug transaction
was previously arrested by the police and charged in door. Upon opening it she was confronted by a she had previously arranged with PO3 Rivera.
court in connection with the violation of the Anti- policeman holding a pistol by the door who brought Hence, this appeal.
Fencing Law, wherein she was detained and later her to the sala where x x x other policemen [were] Issues
acquitted. Among the arresting policemen was PO3 gathered. At that time she was still wet. The In their Brief, appellants raise the following
Trumata. On the day in question, August 22, 1999, policeman talked to them nicely that they will bring assignment of errors for our consideration:
she denies being at the Mindpro [Citymall] in the her and Rosdia Hajili to the police station and “I
afternoon of the said date, since it was a Sunday, and afterwards they will bring them back home. They That the court a quo erred when it did not dismiss the
that on the afternoon she had attended a wedding at were then taken to the police station at Sta. Barbara. charges against both appellants on the ground that
the Garden Orchids Hotel together with Evangeline After being searched they were then brought to the their guilt was not prove[n] beyond reasonable doubt.
Asmad y Ayani who testified she met her neighbor, police station at Divisoria [where] they stayed for two “II
Appellant Rosdia Hajili. They even had their picture nights, after which they were then brought to the city The trial court erred when it held there was
at the wedding taken together with Helen Sakkam. jail. Accused-Appellant Unday further x x x denies conspiracy between the two appellants.
Appellant Hajili further aver x x x that she never went that she brought shabu upon the instruction of “III
to Mindpro Citymall on that fateful day. As she was Accused-Appellant Rosdia Hajili to the house of Hadja The trial court erred when it resolved the case against
feeling ill and so much so that she had to go see a Fatima. She said that she has not sold shabu to both appellants because public officers have in their
quack doctor (‘tawal-tawal’) for her fever at the house anyone at any time.”
favor the presumption that they did their job regularly substantial facts and circumstances which, if A I proceeded to were they were and when I
in the performance of their duties.” considered, would materially affect the result of the arrived there, she introduced me to the subject
In short, appellants are questioning (1) the sufficiency case. person.
of the prosecution evidence and (2) the regularity of PO3 Enrique Rivera, the poseur-buyer in the Q How were you introduced to the subject
the conduct of the buy-bust operation. buy-bust operation, positively identified Hajili and person?
The Court’s Ruling Unday as the peddlers of the confiscated shabu. A The informant introduced to me that I gave her
The appeal has no merit. He testified thus: name as Nelson. She said, ‘Nelson, si Rosdia,
First Issue: “Q So, on the following day, August 22, at about yong sinasabi ko sa iyo’ and then we [shook]
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence past 3:00, tell this Honorable Court where were hands.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, you? Q You said your informant introduced you to the
the following elements must first be established: (1) A I was at the vicinity of the Puericulture Center, target and she gave to you the name Rosdia Hajili
proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) fronting the Citymall waiting for the informant. after you gave your name as Nelson Yap. If you
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the Q [Was] that [the] time and date and place x x x see her again, will you be able to identify her if you
illicit drug as evidence. you [met] the informant? see her again?
On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal A Yes, after a few minutes, she arrived and after [A] Yes.
possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown we met we proceeded to the second floor of the Q If she is in the courtroom, please point to her?
that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or Citymall. COURT INTERPRETER:
an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated Q This time, when you arrived at the second floor Witness pointed to a person when asked [her]
drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, of the Citymall, what happened? name identified [her]self as Rosdia [Hajili].
and (3) the accused was freely and consciously A When we arrived at the second floor, she was COURT:
aware of being in possession of the drug. able to spot the subject taking a snack in one of the Q You were introduced as Nelson?
A review of the records and the transcripts of tables and she told me to wait for a while, while she A Nelson Yap, your Honor.
stenographic notes of these cases reveals that the goes and talks to the subject person. FISCAL LIM:
prosecution has proven the presence of these Q And you said the informant was able to spot the Q After that introduction, what happened next?
elements. target person taking a snack at that time[.] Was A Rosdia asked me ‘Ikaw ba yong buyer?’ I
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely she alone or with a companion x x x when she was said[,] ‘Yes,’ so she asked me if I have money and I
on the credibility of the police officers who conducted taking the snack? said ‘Yes, I have money but I left it at the hotel.’ So
the buy-bust operation. Furthermore, this Court is A That time she was alone. she asked me how much am I buying then I told her
guided by the entrenched rule that the assessment of Q Your informant told you to wait because she worth P200,0000. And I ask what is the equivalent
witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best will go and approach the target. What happened of that and she told me it is just equivalent to 5
undertaken by the trial court, which had the when the informant approached the target? lowest. That is the term x x x used [by] drug
opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or A I saw them having a conversation[.] [A]fter that traffickers which means more or less 50 grams per
attitude of the witnesses. The findings of the lower she [waved] her hand so I proceeded to where they plastic worth P40,000.00.
court on this point are accorded great respect and will were seated. Q You said, Mr. Witness that Rosdia [Hajili] told
not be reversed on appeal, unless it overlooked Q What did you do after [she waved] her hand? you that your money worth P200,000.00 is only
equivalent to five (5) lowest, what happened next, A She approached x x x our table and sat down her it is critical in that area [to bring a] big amount of
after that? and asked me if I have the money. money and we [might fall victims] there and she
A So, I agreed that it was okay then she also told Q What did you tell her? gave me an assurance that she is from that place
me, all right, in that case we will see each other A I told her ‘Yes, I have the money. I am and I agreed and we proceeded there.
tomorrow at 11:00, the same place, but you have to bringing it now with me.’ COURT:
bring along the money. According to her, I have to xxx xxx xxx Q [Where] at Baliwasan Chico?
bring money to make sure that I really have such Q You said, that the suspect, Rosdia Hajili, A Sampaloc Drive.
amount. peeped inside your bag and after she checked on COURT:
xxx xxx xxx your bag, what happened next? Proceed.
Q You said, you returned back to your office. A After she peeped [at] the money that I FISCAL CABARON:
About what time was that when you arrived there at [brought,] I even took x x x [it] and counted [it] in her Q [What happened after] you agreed that you will
your office? presence [and it] amounted to P10,000.00 and after be going with her at Baliwasan Chico, Sampaloc
A It was already 4:00 o’clock. that I x x x/got P100.00 and gave [it] to my Drive?
Q When you arrived in the office, tell this Informant and told [her] to buy some snacks for us. A I [told her] that I have some personal necessity
Honorable Court what did you do there? xxx xxx xxx and I went to the Comfort Room and Inspector
A When I arrived, Ins. Francisco was around so I Q What happened after that? Francisco followed me and I informed him that we
informed him about the deal that I was able to take A During our conversation x x x my Informant will be transferring to Baliwasan Chico and he gave
with the subject Rosdia Hajili and was able to returned x x x and brought snacks and we ate and me the assurance that I can go with them and I
transact and we agreed to have a deal and that I after consuming it, the suspect Rosdia Hajili told must not be worried because the group will follow
have to bring money tomorrow at 11:00 o’clock, the me that she was satisfied and she told me that we behind.
same place, so I also [told] Ins. Francisco that the will be seeing again at 2:00 o’clock on the same xxx xxx xxx
money worth P200,000.00 is only worth 5-lowest. afternoon, the same date, the same place. Q About what time was that when you left and
Ins. Francisco told me that, all right, we will xxx xxx xxx boarded tricycles and proceeded to Baliwasan
withdraw money from the Finance Section.” Q What happened when you met there? Chico?
“FISCAL CABARON: A We waited for the arrival of the subject Rosdia A About 2:25 in the afternoon.
Q Mr. Witness, what time was that when you Hajili and it was already 2:00 o’clock, the same Q Were you able to arrive at Baliwasan Chico?
arrived at Mindpro [Citymall] in the morning of day[.] I noticed that x x x this time she was x x x A Yes. We arrived there at Baliwasan Chico.
August 23, 1999, when you met your Informant with two companions[,] a male and a female Q Particularly could you point to any point of
there on your way to the second floor? compa[n]ion[.] [There] were three of them. reference in Baliwasan Chico where you went
A About 10:10 in the morning. Q What happened Mr. Witness after the suspect together with Rosdia Hajili and her two
xxx xxx xxx arrived together with the two companions? companions?
Q What happened when you said she appeared, A We were waiting and x x x she told me that we A We went to the cemented road and inside
who was that suspect who arrived? will be finalizing at Baliwasan Chico and I asked there about 60 meters from the main road
A Rosdia Hajili. where[.] What particular place at Baliwasan Chico particularly near the house of former City Director
xxx xxx xxx and she told me at Sampaloc Drive and x x x I told Colonel Mohammid.
Q About what time was that when you arrived along another female that was] later on identified as A Rosdia Hajili opened the plastic cello[phane]
there? Nurmina? and inspected the contents and later on she gave
A More or less it was already up to 2:45 in the A Yes. me the cello[phane] and told me ‘Lima Yan’.
afternoon. Q And if this Nurmina is around the Court Room, COURT:
Q What happened Mr. Witness, when you arrived will you be able to identify her? Q Where were you at that precise time?
there? A Yes. A I was on the bench of the terrace.
A When we arrived there they went inside the Q Look if this Nurmina is inside the Court Room COURT:
house and we also followed[. I] and my Informant please point to her? Proceed.
and her two companions were left in the terrace of A (Witness pointing) FISCAL CABARON:
the said house while Rosida Hajili proceeded inside [COURT INTERPRETER:] Q What did you do after this Rosdia Hajili handed
and I was also able to see that she was talking with Witness pointed to a woman in Court and when to you this plastic cello[phane] and said[,] ‘Lima
one of the occupants of the house. asked her name identified herself as Nurmina Yan’, what did you do?
Q What happened next after you saw Rosdia Unday. A I also inspected the contents of it -- the
Hajili talked with the occupants of the house inside? [FISCAL CABARON:] contents of the Jollibee plastic bag containing
A Then, she went back and told me that we can Q What happened next when Nurmina Unday crystalline substance -- and it [contained] shabu
stay there for a while; that is the house of a friend, arrived together with the two companions of Rosdia and while inspecting it when I saw that it is shabu I
we can stay there x x x for the final deal. Hajili? made my pre-arranged signal x x x and I noticed
xxx xxx xxx A Her two companions left us in the house and that at the same time when I gave my pre-arranged
Q What did you do there, Mr. Witness, at the proceeded to the portion of the main door and signal Rosdia Hajili was asking the payment ‘yung
terrace? proceeded outside and Rosdia Hajili instructed pera’ and when she demanded the payment I
A We only wait[ed] there and after informing me Nurmina Unday to get the shabu and so, pretended to open the bag and, at this juncture, I
that we can stay there[,] she instructed her two immediately Nurmina Unday went out of the house noticed that the group of Inspector Francisco and
companions, the male and the female and proceeded again where they came from at Trumata was already inside the gate and at this
companions[,] to proceed and [fetch a] certain [Sapang Palay]. juncture, I also identified myself as a policeman[,]
Nurmina. Q What happened next when Nurmina Unday left ‘Pulis kami huwag kayong kikilos arestado kayo’.
xxx xxx xxx and proceeded to the inner portion of [Sapang Nurmina Unday was about [to] run and I was able
Q What did these two persons do after Rosdia Palay]? to hold her wrist and I let her sit on the bench and
Hajili directed them to call a certain Nurmina? A After a few minutes Nurmina Unday came back Rosdia Hajili remained sitting with no resistance[.]
A The two companions left and proceeded to the and she was bringing along with her a white plastic She remained seated on the bench and, at this
interior part of the place at Sapang Palay Portion cello[phane] and upon arrival Nurmina Unday juncture, Your Honor, Alfredo Trumata placed
and after [a] few minutes they returned x x x handed the white plastic cello[phane] to Rosdia Rosdia Hajili under arrest and I was able to see that
bringing [a] bag along with them with another lady Hajili. Alfredo Trumata recovered a x x x small brown
there [who was] later on identified as Nurmina. Q What happened next when Nurmina Unday shoulder bag from Rosdia Hajili and I noticed that
Q When you said that a male and a female handed the plastic cello[phane] to Rosdia Hajili? Alfredo Trumata recovered a plastic chasi
[companion] of Rosdia Hajili returned and [brought containing a suspected shabu from that bag.
COURT: suspects boarded the vehicle and then, we point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of action
Proceed. proceeded to the station. and a community of interest.
FISCAL CABARON: Q What happened when you arrived at the Second Issue:
Q Mr. Witness, what else transpired after the station? Defense of Frame-up or Hulidap
group of Inspector Francisco was already there and A Upon arrival we booked in the investigation x x Appellants contend that they are victims of a police
you have already effected the arrest of the two x the two suspects. frame-up or hulidap. They assert that without any
suspects Nurmina Unday and Rosdia Hajili? Q You said you booked them in[. Was] the arrest authority, permission or search warrant, the police
A At this juncture, I turned over the shabu plastic of the two suspects registered in your Office? officers suddenly barged into the house where they
bag inside the cello[phane] containing the A Yes. It was registered.” were staying and demanded money from its
suspected shabu to our Investigator PO3 Renato The foregoing testimony was substantially occupants.
Dela Peña and the marked money [which was] corroborated by PO3 Renato Dela Peña and PO3 We are not convinced. Once the elements of a
(P6,000.00) six thousand pesos and the crumpled Alfredo Trumata. The clear, straightforward and crime have been established, the defense of frame-up
bond paper and returned to PO3 Renato Dela Peña consistent testimonies of the police officers or hulidap must be clearly proven by the defense.
and Alfredo Trumata turned over to our Investigator sufficiently support the trial court’s conclusions. This defense is difficult to substantiate, as we have
the bag of Nurmina Unday containing a small The allegation that Appellant Hajili knew the held in People v. Chen Tiz Chang:
plastic cello[phane] containing shabu. poseur-buyer to be a policeman is not a ground for “Courts generally view with disfavor this defense
Q What happened to the Informant after you inferring that she could not have sold the illegal commonly raised in drug cases, for it is easy to
arrested the two suspects Nurmina Unday and drugs to him. Such sales to police officers do take concoct and difficult to prove. Moreover, there is a
Rosdia Hajili? place nowadays. presumption that public officers, including the
A x x x [W]hen there [was a] commotion [the Furthermore, the prosecution was able to establish arresting officers, regularly perform their official
Informant] went out of the house and she that the substance obtained from appellants was duties. In the present case, the defense failed to
disappeared and she left. shabu. Physical Sciences Report No. D-531-99 overcome this presumption to present clear and
xxx xxx xxx states: “Qualitative examination conducted on the convincing evidence to prove ‘hulidap.’”
FISCAL CABARON: above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to In the cases at bar, the defense failed to support its
Q Now, after the arrest of Rosdia Hajili and the tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE allegations. The testimonies of appellants and other
Nurmina Unday, Mr. Witness, you said you turned HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), a regulated drug.” defense witnesses are silent on the claim that the
over the cello[phane] which [contains] the five Conspiracy apprehending policemen demanded hush money.
packs of shabu inside the cello[phane] (plastic) x x We are not persuaded by the argument of Also, as aptly observed by the trial court, assuming
x to the Investigator and likewise you turned over appellants that conspiracy was not duly proven. Their that appellants had been brought to the police station
the bag which [contains the shabu recovered from] behavior during the entrapment shows that there was and detained without any explanation, they could
the buy-bust operation, what did you do next? conspiracy between them. Direct proof is not have filed charges -- administrative or criminal --
A Inspector Francisco called thru the radio to essential to the establishment of conspiracy, as it may against the policemen. No complaints, however, were
fetch us with the vehicle[.] x x x [As] soon as the be inferred from the acts of the accused before, ever reported.
vehicle arrived we boarded in the vehicle with during and after the commission of the crime. All Likewise, we find no merit in appellants’ claim that
Renato Dela Peña, Alfredo Trumata and the two such acts imply conspiracy when they indubitably the Zamboanga City policemen’s use of the same
method in conducting buy-bust operations is a THIRD DIVISION respondent’s demand,[6] Gregorio Amante refused to
reflection of the irregularity of the procedure. It must G.R. No. 143572 September 30, 2005 return the vehicle. Hence, respondent instituted a
be noted that there is no rigid or textbook method of GREGORIO “GEORGE” AMANTE AND VICENTE replevin suit with the trial court.[7] Asserting
conducting buy-bust operations. The choice of AMANTE, Petitioners v e r s u s BIBIANO ownership of the vehicle, petitioner Vicente Amante,
effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the SERWELAS, Respondent the proprietor of Amante Motors, intervened in the
ambit of police authority. Police officers have the DECISION suit.
expertise to determine which specific approaches are CORONA, J.: On April 29, 1996, the trial court rendered a
necessary to enforce their entrapment operations. The subject of this petition for review on certiorari decision[8] declaring respondent as the lawful owner
The courts’ duty in these cases is to ensure that the under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the decision[1] of the vehicle:
rights of the accused have not been violated during of the Court of Appeals dated December 28, 1999 The illegal seizure of the vehicle was triggered by
buy-bust operations. declaring respondent Bibiano Serwelas as the lawful the suspicion of the defendant[9] that [the] said
Finally, the reliance of appellants on People v. Lim owner of a contested vehicle. vehicle was spirited out of Amante Motors by Danilo
is misplaced. Contrary to their assertion in their Reply The facts, as found by the appellate court, follow. [Bicomong] who was formerly the plant supervisor
Brief, the facts in that case are hardly similar to those Danilo Bicomong was the registered owner of a therein.
in the instant cases. In the aforementioned case, we 1990 Isuzu Jitney with motor no. 139328, chassis no. Aside from the suspicion and the inconclusive
found substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of SPMM 35092-90-C and plate no. DHH 230, conclusion of the technician that the chassis
the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust evidenced by certificate of registration no. 00567641. number of the vehicle in question was “re-stamped”
operation. Significantly, the testimony of the poseur- [2] He was employed as plant supervisor of Amante no other evidence – like registration certificate –
buyer on the sale of illegal drugs was not credibly Motors. was adduced by defendant/intervenor, to support
corroborated, thus, creating uncertainty on whether On July 17, 1992, Bicomong sold the vehicle for the claim of ownership.
the crime had indeed been committed. P200,000 to respondent in a deed of absolute sale.[3] xxx xxx xxx
There were no such attendant circumstances in the On October 7, 1992, respondent had the vehicle Besides, it was not shown that the certificate of
present cases. As mentioned earlier, appellants failed registered in his name, as shown in certificate of registration of Danilo was spurious or fake. It was
to destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. registration no. 14058314.[4] He then operated it as a not also shown that the subject vehicle was
The former alluded to inconsistencies that were, common carrier on a boundary system.[5] registered in the name of either the defendant or
however, not specifically identified and supported. On December 9, 1993, the vehicle was seized by intervenor[10] or Amante Motors. Now, between
What is essential is that the prosecution witnesses the police highway patrol group in General Mariano the plaintiff[11] who purchased the vehicle in good
positively identified appellants as the ones who had Alvarez, Cavite without a warrant, upon the request of faith and for value and with supporting genuine
possessed the dangerous drug and sold it to the petitioner Gregorio Amante, the manager of Amante documents and the defendant/intervenor who
poseur-buyer. Motors. merely presumed that they owned the chassis, the
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the The vehicle was brought to Camp Vicente Lim in choice is clear.[12]
appealed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against Laguna and, after being subjected to macro-etching The trial court also awarded damages to
appellants. examination by SPO1 Elfin B. Rico of the Philippine respondent for lost earnings[13] amounting to
SO ORDERED. National Police Crime Laboratory Service, was later P103,200 plus P37,963 as premium for the replevin
released to petitioner Gregorio Amante. Despite bond of respondent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Between one who is armed with a certificate of Crime Laboratory Service on the subject motor
court’s decision holding respondent as the rightful registration clearly establishing his ownership and vehicle clearly revealed “presence of signs of
owner of the vehicle. It ruled that respondent had another whose claim is supported only by grinding on the metal surface where the chassis
established ownership of the vehicle to the exclusion unconvincing allegations, we do not hesitate to rule number is normally located” per his Physical
of the whole world. [14] It also affirmed the award of for the former. Investigation Report No. PI-369-93 dated
damages as unrealized earnings[15] but deleted the A certificate of registration of a motor vehicle December 9, 1993.
award for replevin bond premium since no claim for it creates a strong presumption of ownership in favor of 8. Chassis no. SPMM-35092-90C (the chassis
was made in the complaint. one in whose name it is issued, unless proven number in Bicomong’s certificate of registration)
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. otherwise. In this case, we have not found sufficient was merely re-stamped on the chassis of subject
Hence, this recourse. proof to destroy the presumption. Petitioners seek to motor vehicle as per the aforesaid Physical
Petitioners impute errors involving questions of fact dispel the presumption by alleging that the vehicle Investigation Report No. PI-369-93 of SPO1 Rico.
which we are not at liberty to review. Our jurisdiction was stolen by Bicomong from them and therefore the 9. [T]he chassis bearing no. SPMM-35092-90-C, as
is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that respondent was a buyer in bad faith. In this found re-stamped on the chassis of the vehicle in
may have been committed by the Court of connection, petitioners raise the following points: question by SPO1 Rico is with the police authorities
Appeals. We reiterate the oft-repeated but not so 1. Bicomong was merely a supervisor at Amante of San Pablo City, Laguna.
well-heeded rule that findings of fact of the Court of Motors owned by petitioner Vicente Amante. 10. [T]he dorsal side of the hood of subject motor
Appeals, especially when they are in agreement with 2. Bicomong had no motor shop of his own. vehicle, when its paint was scratched, showed the
those of the trial court, are accorded not only respect 3. Bicomong had no other [source] of income or original chassis number secretly stamped thereon
but even finality, and are binding on this Court. livelihood aside from being a supervisor at Amante by petitioners.
Barring a showing that the findings complained of Motors and did not own any passenger-type 11. Danilo Bicomong was not even presented in
were devoid of support, they must stand for this Court jeepney. court to prove his alleged ownership of [the] subject
is not expected or required to examine or refute the 4. [R]espondent was brought to the shop of Amante motor vehicle; and
oral and documentary evidence submitted by the Motors where he chose and picked the subject 12. Danilo Bicomong, among others, was charged
parties.[16] The trial court, having heard the motor vehicle from among the jeepneys on display by the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo
witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner thereat for sale. City for theft of subject motor vehicle and other
of testifying, is in a better position to assess their 5. [T]he jeepney chosen by respondent at the shop jeepneys as per Resolution of the San Pablo City
credibility. of Amante Motors was the very same vehicle in Prosecutor’s Office. [17]
In any event, we carefully reviewed the records of question delivered to him by Danilo Bicomong at his We are not convinced. There is no clear indication
this case and found no compelling reason to disturb residence [in] Cavite. that the vehicle was stolen by Bicomong, much less
the findings and conclusions of the trial court and the 6. [T]he subject motor vehicle was among the that respondent had knowledge thereof. Hence, the
appellate court. passenger-type jeepneys manufactured and/or presumption of ownership created by respondent’s
Respondent’s ownership of the vehicle was proven assembled by Amante Motors spirited out of the certificate of registration stands.
by the certificate of registration in his name. Petitioner shop of Amante Motors by Danilo Bicomong. More telling are the following observations.
Vicente Amante, on the otherhand, could not present 7. [T]he macro-etching examination conducted by The fact that Bicomong was only a supervisor at
any certificate of registration to support his claim. SPO1 Elfin B. Rico of the Philippine National Police Amante Motors did not conclusively prove that he
never at any time owned a jeepney for sale. That was Next, in an attempt to prove that the vehicle was Gregorio Amante could have easily obtained a
pure speculation. One’s wealth is not measured stolen from them, petitioners presented evidence warrant if he really believed that the vehicle had been
solely by his occupation. There are so many such as the police report on the macro-etching stolen from them.
possibilities which might have explained how examination conducted on the vehicle. There is We rule therefore that the reports, based as they
Bicomong managed to own one although that is no something legally anomalous about this, however. were on chattel illegally seized, were inadmissible in
longer within the extent of our review. The seizure of the vehicle on December 9, 1993 by evidence and thus carried no weight.
Next, as supervisor of Amante Motors, Bicomong the highway patrol group (which led to such Finally, the resolution of San Pablo City Assistant
was clothed with authority to deal and transact with examination) was done without a court warrant. Prosecutor Esperidion Gajitos[21] could not but
customers. When respondent was shown the Obviously, Gregorio Amante could not have effected strengthen respondent’s claim of good faith. Petitioner
vehicles on display, it was not necessary for him to the seizure without the cooperation of his “friendly Gregorio Amante’s criminal complaint for violation of
verify in whose names the vehicles were registered. contacts” in the police force. This, on the mere RA 6539[22] and the Anti-Fencing Law was filed in
What a customer normally does under such suspicion that it was spirited out of the Amante Motor court only against Bicomong. Respondent was
circumstances is to take a look at the items and take Shop sometime in 1992. How are we supposed to exonerated of any liability whatsoever.
his pick. rule on this in the light of the Bill of Rights guaranteed All told, we find no reason to disturb the findings of
Petitioners wish to establish bad faith on the part of by the Constitution? One of the most protected both the court a quo and the appellate court on the
respondent for purchasing a jeepney which was rights of every person is the right against good faith of respondent.
registered not to Amante Motors but to Danilo unreasonable searches and seizures[18]. The As to the issue of damages, we concur with the
Bicomong. Was this sufficient proof of bad faith on fundamental law mandates that these must be carried Court of Appeals that only petitioner Gregorio Amante
the part of a purchaser? Whatever internal out only on the strength of a judicial warrant, should be held liable for the unrealized rentals of
arrangement the motor shop may have had with otherwise evidence secured therefrom is deemed respondent during the period he was deprived of the
Bicomong regarding why the latter’s vehicle was tainted. In the language of the fundamental law, it is vehicle’s possession. Petitioner Vicente Amante was
among those on display in its premises was not the inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any not privy to the unlawful seizure and detention of the
responsibility of respondent buyer to inquire into. proceeding.[19] vehicle.
What was crucial was the valid certificate of Although the exclusionary rule admits of some WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
registration in Bicomong’s name, true and clean on its exceptions such as customs searches, searches of decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 28,
face. Respondent buyer was not required to go moving vehicles, seizure of evidence in plain view, 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
beyond that. consented searches, searches incidental to a lawful Respondent Bibiano Serwelas is hereby declared the
Petitioners also assert that the delivery of the arrest and “stop and frisk” measures,[20] the case at owner of the disputed vehicle. Petitioner Gregorio
vehicle to respondent’s residence should have made bar does not fall under any of the foregoing. Amante is hereby ordered to pay respondent the
him suspicious. We do not agree. In order to attract Moreover, the element of immediacy between the amount of P103,200 as unrealized rentals plus
buyers, sellers are known to extend all kinds of time of the commission of the offense and the time of P37,963 as premium for the replevin bond.[23]
gimmicks and accommodations, one of which could the seizure was missing. The alleged commission of Costs against petitioners.
have been the delivery of the vehicle right at a buyer’s the theft was in 1992 while the seizure was effected SO ORDERED.
doorstep. only in 1993. There was thus no compelling reason
for the haste in seizing the vehicle because petitioner
FIRST DIVISION Branch 272, Regional Trial Court of Marikina City on the day that Judge Beldia issued the release order.
[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1731. February 16, 2005] (RTC-Marikina City). Respondent Judge Beldia [9]
SHIRLEY C. RUIZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE apparently granted bail to Santos and approved the On November 20, 2002, the complaint was re-
ROLINDO D. BELDIA, JR., Regional Trial Court, corresponding bail bond without serving notice to the docketed as a regular administrative matter. At the
Branch 57, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, prosecutor. same time, the parties were required to manifest
[Assisting Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Consequently, Ruiz filed the instant administrative whether they are willing to submit the case for
Branch 272, Marikina City,] respondent. complaint contending that respondent Judge Beldia resolution based on the pleadings filed.[10] The
DECISION had no authority to grant bail to Santos since the parties failed to file their manifestations, hence the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Investigating Prosecutor has yet to conclude the filing thereof was deemed waived.
In an Affidavit-Complaint[1] filed with the Office of preliminary investigation. She claimed that for as long In its report[11] dated July 31, 2002, the OCA
the Court Administrator (OCA), complainant Shirley C. as the information has not yet been filed in court, a recommended that respondent Judge Beldia be held
Ruiz charged respondent Judge Rolindo D. Beldia, Jr. court has no power to grant bail to a detained person liable for gross ignorance of the law and fined in the
of Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, San Carlos City, since it has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the amount of P5,000.00. It opined that although a
Negros Occidental, with gross ignorance of the law person of the accused. person in custody and who is not formally charged in
and grave abuse of authority in connection with the In his Comment[7] dated August 14, 2000, court could apply for bail pursuant to Section 17 (c),
grant of bail and issuance of a release order in favor respondent Judge Beldia maintained that Section 1 Rule 114, the grant thereof by Judge Beldia was
of one Lourdes Estrella Santos. (c), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court allows any person nonetheless irregular. It noted that no formal petition
Ruiz is the private complainant in I.S. No. 2000- in custody, even if not formally charged in court, to or application for bail was filed by Santos, and even if
1031 for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[2] pending apply for bail. one was filed, the Marikina courts could not have
before the Department of Justice (DOJ). Santos, who Meanwhile, the OCA directed the Clerk of Court, properly taken cognizance of the same since Santos
was arrested during entrapment operations relative to Branch 272, RTC-Marikina City, Atty. Elvira Badillo- was detained at Camp Crame in Quezon City. There
the carnapping of Ruiz’s vehicle, was one of the Adarlo, to confirm whether a formal petition for was also no showing that the regular judge of Branch
respondents therein. admission to bail was filed by Santos or her counsel 272, RTC-Marikina City, was unavailable to act on the
After her arrest on May 24, 2000, Santos was and, whether Executive Judge Reuben P. de la Cruz application for bail.
detained in Camp Crame, Quezon City, pending the and Presiding Judge Olga P. Enriquez were absent or We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.
filing of formal charges in court. Upon inquest, she unavailable on May 30, 2000 when the release order Record shows that Executive Judge De la Cruz and
executed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125[3] of was issued.[8] Presiding Judge Enriquez were present on May 30,
the Revised Penal Code in relation to Rule 112, On June 18, 2002, Atty. Badillo-Adarlo informed the 2000 to act on the bail application of Santos. When
Section 7[4] of the then applicable 1985 Rules of OCA that the records of release orders and bailbonds respondent Judge Beldia acted on the bail application
Criminal Procedure. The Inquest Prosecutor thus set in her custody did not include the subject release of Santos on May 30, 2000, his designation was
the hearing of the preliminary investigation on May order issued by respondent Judge Beldia. As such, merely an “assisting judge” in the RTC-Marikina City,
31, 2000 at 2:00 PM.[5] she could not tell whether a formal petition for his permanent station being in Branch 57, RTC-San
However, on May 30, 2000, Santos obtained an admission to bail was filed by Santos. She likewise Carlos City, Negros Occidental. As such, his
Order of Release[6] signed by respondent Judge confirmed that Executive Judge De la Cruz and authority in the Marikina court is limited and he could
Beldia who was then detailed as assisting judge of Presiding Judge Enriquez were present and available
only act on an application for bail filed therewith in the In addition, it appears that no formal application or There is no dearth of jurisprudence on the rules to
absence or unavailability of the regular judge. petition for the grant of bail was filed before the RTC- be applied in the grant of bail.[19] These same rules
Concededly, a person lawfully arrested and detained Marikina City. There were no records of the have been incorporated in the Rules of Court, of
but who has not yet been formally charged in court, application or the release order issued by respondent which a judge must have more than just a superficial
can seek his provisional release through the filing of Judge Beldia. Neither was there a hearing conducted understanding, if he were to discharge his functions
an application for bail. He need not wait for a formal thereon nor the prosecutor notified of the bail properly and competently. Indeed, everyone,
complaint or information to be filed since bail is application. especially a judge, is presumed to know the law.
available to “all persons” where the offense is Under the present rules, a hearing on an When, as in this case, the law is so elementary, not to
bailable.[12] Section 7, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of application for bail is mandatory.[15] In Cortes v. be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Criminal Procedure provides that a judge could grant Judge Catral,[16] we ruled that in all cases, whether [20]
bail to a person lawfully arrested but without a bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be
warrant, upon waiver of his right under Article 125 of notice of hearing must be given to the prosecutor, or faithful to the law and maintain professional
the Revised Penal Code, as Santos had done upon at least his recommendation on the matter must be competence. A judge is called upon to exhibit more
her inquest. sought. The rationale for this was explained in this than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
Undeniably too, Santos was entitled to bail as a wise: procedural rules; it is imperative that he be
matter of right since the offense with which she was Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of
charged does not carry the penalty of life of each case. The amount fixed should be sufficient to well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive
imprisonment, reclusion perpetua or death.[13] ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth,
Notwithstanding, it was incumbent upon respondent reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional to the end that he be the personification of justice and
Judge Beldia to grant bail to Santos in accordance provision that bail should not be excessive. Therefore, the rule of law.[21]
with established rules and procedure. Respondent whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, Under Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending
Judge Beldia failed in this respect and must thus be reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of
held administratively liable. the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked Justices and Judges, which took effect on October 1,
Section 17, par. (c) of Rule 114 distinctly states: for his recommendation because in fixing the amount 2001, gross ignorance of the law is classified as a
SEC. 17. Bail, where filed. – … of bail, the judge is required to take into account a serious charge punishable by either dismissal from
(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in number of factors such as the applicant’s character service, suspension or a fine of more than P20,000.00
court may apply for bail with any court in the and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he but not exceeding P40,000.00. In this case,
province, city, or municipality where he is held. is a fugitive from justice.[17] considering that the incident took place on May 30,
(Emphasis supplied) Judge Beldia disregarded basic procedural rules 2000 which is before the effectivity of A.M. No. 01-8-
The Certificate of Detention[14] issued by the PNP- when he granted bail to Santos sans hearing and 10-SC, and malice or bad faith on the part of
TMG-SOD shows that Santos was detained at Camp notice and without the latter having filed a formal respondent Judge Beldia not having been
Crame in Quezon City. Thus, as correctly pointed out petition for bail. Accordingly, the prosecution was established, and further, this being his first
by the OCA, the application for bail should have been deprived of procedural due process for which administrative offense, we deem it just and
filed before the proper Quezon City court and not in respondent Judge Beldia must be held accountable. reasonable to impose upon him a fine of P5,000.00.
Marikina City. [18] [22]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent gun, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Rodelio gave a description of the driver of the
Judge Rolindo D. Beldia, Jr. of Branch 57, Regional feloniously, with intent [to] gain and by means of motorcycle but not of the two armed men who entered
Trial Court, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental is force, violence and intimidation upon person, enter the cashier’s office since they had their backs turned
found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law, and is the gasoline station owned by Jose Buencamino and to him. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
FINED in the amount of P5,000.00. He is further once inside, take, rob and carry away with them prepared a cartographic sketch based on the
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts P40,000.00, belonging to the said Jose Buencamino, information provided by Rodelio. Jose, the owner of
shall be dealt with more severely. to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the the gas station, stated that the stolen money was
SO ORDERED. amount of P40,000.00, and on the occasion of the worth P40,000.00. Receipts in the amount of
COMPLEX CRIME: commission of the said robbery or by reason thereof, P14,500.00 were presented as funeral expenses.
Republic of the Philippines the herein accused, in furtherance of their conspiracy, On February 23, 2001, the petitioner was detained
SUPREME COURT did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, after being implicated in a robbery that occurred in
Manila attack, assault and shoot Janet Ramos, cashier of San Miguel, Bulacan. During his detention, Rodelio
FIRST DIVISION said gasoline station, thereby inflicting on her serious and another gasoline boy arrived and identified him in
G.R. No. 171526 September 1, 2010 physical injuries which directly caused her death. a police lineup as one of the three robbers who killed
3
RODEL CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF Contrary to law. Janet.
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. During his arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of Version of the Defense
4
DECISION not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. Petitioner denied committing the crime for which he
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Version of the Prosecution was charged. He maintained that the face of the man
For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is On February 12, 2001, at around 12:20 in the depicted in the cartographic sketch by the NBI was
the Decision1 dated September 22, 2005 of the Court afternoon, Rodelio Pangilinan (Rodelio) was working completely different from his appearance in the police
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01192, affirming at a gasoline station owned by Jose Buencamino lineup in which Rodelio pointed at him as one of the
with modification the Decision 2
rendered by the (Jose) at Buliran, San Miguel, Bulacan. He was by the perpetrators. He argued that the only reason why
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12, gasoline tank which was two or three arms length Rodelio pointed to him in the police lineup was
in Criminal Case No. 1632-M-2001, finding petitioner from the cashier’s office when three armed men on because he was the only one in handcuffs.
Rodel Crisostomo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of board a motorcycle arrived. Two of the men Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. immediately went to the cashier while the driver The trial court rendered its Decision convicting
Factual Antecedents stayed on the motorcycle. Inside the office, one of the petitioner of robbery with homicide. The dispositive
The Information filed against petitioner and his two men pulled out a fan knife while the other, armed with portion reads:
companions designated only as John Doe and Peter a gun, fired a shot at Janet Ramos (Janet), the WHEREFORE, finding herein accused RODEL
Doe contained the following accusatory allegations: cashier. They forcibly took the money in the cash CRISOSTOMO y DE LEON guilty as principal beyond
That on or about the 12th day of February, 2001, in register and the man with the gun fired a second shot reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
the municipality of San Miguel, province of Bulacan, that fatally hit Janet in the right side of her head. The homicide as charged, there being no circumstances,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this two armed men returned to their companion waiting aggravating or mitigating, found attendant in the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by the motorcycle and together sped away from the commission thereof, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
conspiring and helping one another, armed with a scene of the crime. the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of victim Janet Ramos in the amount of Our Ruling be given to the issue of alleged prejudice and
P75,000.00, the owner or operator, Jose The petition is unmeritorious. partiality of the trial judge.
Buencamino, Jr., of the gasoline station that was The trial court properly denied the motion for Petitioner is guilty of the complex crime of robbery
robbed, in the amount of P40,000.00 plus P14,500.00 inhibition. with homicide.
as funeral expenses (Exh. "H") defrayed by said Petitioner claims that his motion for inhibition Robbery with homicide exists "when a homicide is
owner for its cashier Janet Ramos, as actual should have been granted since his counsel filed a committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
damages, and to pay the costs of the proceedings. case against the wife of the trial judge involving a land robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with
In the service of his sentence said accused, a dispute. Petitioner alleges that the case rendered the homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
detention prisoner, shall be credited with the full time trial judge partial, biased and, thus, incapable of elements: (1) the taking of personal property
during which he had undergone preventive rendering a just and wise decision. belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with
imprisonment, pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised We are not convinced. It must be stressed that as a the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
Penal Code. rule, "a motion to inhibit must be denied if filed after x and[,] (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
5
SO ORDERED. x x the Court had already given its opinion on the the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense,
Not satisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for merits of the case, the rationale being that ‘a litigant was committed. A conviction requires certitude that
6
Reconsideration and Inhibition, which was denied by cannot be permitted to speculate upon the action of the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the
7
the trial court in an Order dated January 13, 2003. the court x x x (only to) raise an objection of this sort malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the
11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals after a decision had been rendered’." Here, robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
Upon review of the case pursuant to this Court’s petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Inhibition human life but the killing may occur before, during or
ruling in People v. Mateo,8 the CA affirmed with was filed on November 29, 200212 after the trial court after the robbery."16
modification the conviction of petitioner. The rendered its Decision on November 14, 2002.13 In this case, the prosecution successfully adduced
dispositive portion of the CA’s Decision reads: Accordingly, the trial judge did not commit any proof beyond reasonable doubt that the genuine
In VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed impropriety in denying the motion to inhibit as it came intention of the petitioner and his companions was to
decision is AFFIRMED, with a modification that the after the case had been decided on the merits. rob the gasoline station. Rodelio testified that at
awarded civil indemnity is reduced from P75,000.00 Further, in a motion for inhibition, "[t]he movant around 12:20 in the afternoon of February 12, 2001,
to P50,000,00. Costs de oficio. must x x x prove the ground of bias and prejudice by the petitioner and his companions arrived on board a
9
SO ORDERED. clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge motorcycle at the gas station located at Buliran, San
Issue from participating in a particular trial."14 "Bare Miguel, Bulacan. While the petitioner stayed on the
Before us, the petitioner assails the Decision of the allegations of partiality x x x [is not sufficient] in the motorcycle, his companions entered the cashier’s
CA and raises the following issue: absence of clear and convincing evidence to office. One of them pulled out a fan knife while the
WHETHER X X X THE X X X COURT OF APPEALS overcome the presumption that the judge will other fired his gun at Janet. After divesting the
COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE undertake his noble role to dispense justice according amount of P40,000.00, the man with the gun fired a
15
TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN THE to law and evidence and without fear or favor." fatal shot to the head of Janet. The petitioner’s
APRPECIATION OF FACTS AND APPLYING THE Petitioner’s bare allegations in his motion to inhibit are companions returned to and boarded their
17
LAW IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF ROBBERY not adequate grounds for the disqualification or motorcycle, and sped away together.
WITH HOMICIDE.10 inhibition of the trial judge. Thus, credence should not
From the foregoing, it is clear that the overriding subpoena was because he does not know how to go the prosecution’s proposed witnesses. As a rule, "the
intention of the petitioner and his cohorts was to rob to court. Thus: prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to
the gasoline station. The killing was merely incidental, Q: Why did you fail to appear before this Honorable determine whom to present as witnesses. [It] need not
resulting by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Court when you were first summoned to appear present each and every witness but only such as may
The petitioner attempts to discredit Rodelio, the before this court? be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to
eyewitness presented by the prosecution, by A: Because my employer was sick, sir. establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
asserting that his testimony is in conflict with the COURT: doubt."23 Here, the testimony of Reinerio would
statements in his affidavit. In his testimony, Rodelio Q: Who was that employer? merely corroborate the statements of Rodelio on the
said that it was one of the men who entered the A: Ping Buencamino, your Honor. witness stand, which when considered together with
cashier’s office who was holding a gun while in his ATTY. KLIATCHKO: the other evidence presented by the prosecution,
sworn statement, he alleged that petitioner had a .45 Q: Assuming that he is sick why did you not go to established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability
caliber pistol which was poked at him. this Honorable Court? of the petitioner and his cohorts. Further, there is
Such an argument fails to impress as discrepancies A: I have no companion. I have no idea. nothing on record which would show that Rodelio was
between sworn statements and testimonies made at Q: You have no idea about what? actuated by ill motive or hate in imputing a serious
the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the A: I do not know how to come to this court, sir.20 offense of robbery with homicide against the
witness. "Sworn statements/affidavits are generally Even assuming that Rodelio was initially reluctant petitioner.
subordinated in importance to open court declarations to testify and get involved in the ensuing criminal We are also not impressed with the petitioner’s
because the former are often executed when the prosecution against the petitioner and his co-accused, insistence that his identification in the police lineup
affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to this "is but normal and does not by itself affect [his] was highly irregular. There is simply no factual basis
21
afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the credibility." to prove that he was the only suspect in the lineup
incident which transpired. Testimonies given during The petitioner also avers that he was not the with handcuffs that prompted Rodelio to point to him
trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus, person depicted in the cartographic sketch. However, as the suspect. It is worth stressing that the police
testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn "a cartographic sketch, unlike a photograph, is only investigators are presumed to have performed their
18
statements/affidavits." intended to give the law enforcers a general idea of duties regularly and in good faith.24 In the absence of
"Further, to the extent that inconsistencies were in the likeness of a suspect and is never expected to sufficient proof to overturn this presumption,
fact shown, they appear to [this] Court to relate to exactly resemble his actual facial appearance. Even petitioner’s positive identification by Rodelio remains
details of peripheral significance which do not negate the description of the suspect given in the free from any stain of wrongdoing.1avvphi1
22
or dissolve the positive identification [by the cartographic sketch may not be unerringly exact." Besides, not only did Rodelio identify the petitioner
eyewitness of the petitioner and his co-accused] as What is important is the fact that the petitioner was in the police lineup, he also positively identified
19
the perpetrators of the crime." positively identified by Rodelio as the perpetrator of petitioner when he testified in court.
That Rodelio had to be subpoenaed five times and the crime even without a moustache and curly hair. The petitioner’s contention that he did not conspire
be arrested in order to testify for the prosecution do We are not likewise impressed with petitioner’s with the other accused in the commission of the crime
not weaken the case against the petitioner and his assertion that the case against him was weakened cannot be given credence. There is no doubt that the
cohorts. During cross-examination, Rodelio explained with the failure to present Reinerio, the other petitioner participated actively in the commission of
that his failure to respond immediately to the eyewitness to the commission of the crime and one of the crime. He was positively identified as the driver of
the motorcycle with his two male companions on co-conspirators, the criminal liabilities of the sustained since these are expenditures supported by
board. They arrived together at the gasoline station. [petitioner and his co-accused] are one and the receipts. Also, the courts below correctly held
His cohorts then went inside the office to conduct the same."27 petitioner liable to return the amount of P40,000.00
robbery while he remained on the motorcycle and The Proper Penalty which was stolen from the gas station before the
waited for his cohorts. After his two companions stole The crime of robbery with homicide is punishable victim was shot and killed.
the money and killed the cashier, they sped away under Article 294 (as amended by Republic Act No. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
from the scene of the crime in each other’s company 7659) of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01192 that affirmed
28
using the same motorcycle. perpetua to death. Article 63 of the Revised Penal with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial
Against the testimony of the prosecution’s Code states that when the law prescribes a penalty Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12, in Criminal
eyewitness, the petitioner could only rely on the consisting of two indivisible penalties, and the crime is Case No. 1632-M-2001 is AFFIRMED with further
defense of denial. This defense, however, deserves neither attended by mitigating nor aggravating MODIFICATION that petitioner is hereby ordered to
scant consideration since "denial cannot prevail over circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. pay the heirs of the victim moral damages in the
the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, Considering that no modifying circumstance was amount of P50,000.00.
just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence proven to have attended the commission of the crime, SO ORDERED.
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight the trial court correctly sentenced the petitioner to
than the declaration of credible witnesses who suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.29
[testified] on affirmative matters."25 The Civil Liabilities
"The concerted manner [in which the petitioner and In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral
his] companions perpetrated the crime showed damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each is
beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying
Where conspiracy is established, it matters not who aggravating circumstances.30 These awards are
among the accused actually shot and killed the victim. mandatory without need of allegation and evidence
The consistent doctrinal rule is that when a homicide other than the death of the victim owing to the fact of
takes place by reason or on the occasion of the the commission of the crime. In this case, the CA
robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
special complex crime of robbery with homicide indemnity. In addition, we also award the amount of
whether or not they actually participated in the killing, P50,000.00 as moral damages.31
unless there is proof that they had endeavored to To be entitled to compensatory damages, it is
26
prevent the killing." There was no evidence adduced necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a
in this case that petitioner attempted to prevent his reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon
companions from shooting the victim. "Thus, competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to
regardless of the acts individually performed by [the the injured party. "[R]eceipts should support claims of
petitioner] and his co-accused, and applying the basic actual damages."32 Thus, as correctly held by the trial
principle in conspiracy that the ‘act of one is the act of court and affirmed by the CA, the amount of
all,’ [the petitioner] is guilty as a co-conspirator. Being P14,500.00 incurred as funeral expenses can be
PROBATION: shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or the qualifications and disqualifications of elective local
EN BANC suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully officials.
G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006 discharge his liability for any fine imposed. The order In this petition, Moreno argues that the
URBANO M. MORENO, Petitioner versus of the trial court dated December 18, 2000 allegedly disqualification under the Local Government Code
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS terminated his probation and restored to him all the applies only to those who have served their sentence
and NORMA L. MEJES, Respondents civil rights he lost as a result of his conviction, and not to probationers because the latter do not
DECISION including the right to vote and be voted for in the July serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law
TINGA, J.: 15, 2002 elections. should allegedly be read as an exception to the Local
In this Petition dated July 6, 2005, Urbano M. The case was forwarded to the Office of the Government Code because it is a special law which
Moreno (Moreno) assails the Resolution of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Samar for applies only to probationers. Further, even assuming
Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc dated preliminary hearing. After due proceedings, the that he is disqualified, his subsequent election as
June 1, 2005, affirming the Resolution of the Investigating Officer recommended that Moreno be Punong Barangay allegedly constitutes an implied
Comelec First Division dated November 15, 2002 disqualified from running for Punong Barangay. pardon of his previous misconduct.
which, in turn, disqualified him from running for the The Comelec First Division adopted this In its Comment dated November 18, 2005 on behalf
elective office of Punong Barangay of Barangay recommendation. On motion for reconsideration of the Comelec, the Office of the Solicitor General
Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002 filed with the Comelec en banc, the Resolution of the argues that this Court in Dela Torre v. Comelec
Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang First Division was affirmed. According to the definitively settled a similar controversy by ruling that
Kabataan Elections. Comelec en banc, Sec. 40(a) of the Local conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude
The following are the undisputed facts: Government Code provides that those sentenced by stands even if the candidate was granted probation.
Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to disqualify final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude The disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local
Moreno from running for Punong Barangay on the or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more Government Code subsists and remains totally
ground that the latter was convicted by final judgment of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation.
of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced sentence, are disqualified from running for any Moreno filed a Reply to Comment dated March 27,
to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One elective local position. Since Moreno was released 2006, reiterating his arguments and pointing out
(1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months by the from probation on December 20, 2000, material differences between his case and Dela
Regional Trial Court, Branch 28 of Catbalogan, disqualification shall commence on this date and end Torre v. Comelec which allegedly warrant a
Samar on August 27, 1998. two (2) years thence. The grant of probation to conclusion favorable to him. According to Moreno,
Moreno filed an answer averring that the petition Moreno merely suspended the execution of his Dela Torre v. Comelec involves a conviction for
states no cause of action because he was already sentence but did not affect his disqualification from violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, an offense involving
granted probation. Allegedly, following the case of running for an elective local office. moral turpitude covered by the first part of Sec. 40(a)
Baclayon v. Mutia, the imposition of the sentence of Further, the Comelec en banc held that the of the Local Government Code. Dela Torre, the
imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties, provisions of the Local Government Code take petitioner in that case, applied for probation nearly
was thereby suspended. Moreno also argued that precedence over the case of Baclayon v. Mutia cited four (4) years after his conviction and only after
under Sec. 16 of the Probation Law of 1976 by Moreno and the Probation Law because it is a appealing his conviction, such that he could not have
(Probation Law), the final discharge of the probation much later enactment and a special law setting forth been eligible for probation under the law.
In contrast, Moreno alleges that he applied for and is not decisive of this case, the crucial issue being common sense, means the confinement of a
was granted probation within the period specified whether Moreno’s sentence was in fact served. convicted person in a penal facility for the period
therefor. He never served a day of his sentence as a In this sense, Dela Torre v. Comelec is not adjudged by the court. This seemingly clear and
result. Hence, the disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of squarely applicable. Our pronouncement therein that unambiguous provision, however, has spawned a
the Local Government Code does not apply to him. the grant of probation does not affect the controversy worthy of this Court’s attention because
The resolution of the present controversy depends disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local the Comelec, in the assailed resolutions, is alleged to
on the application of the phrase “within two (2) years Government Code was based primarily on the finding have broadened the coverage of the law to include
after serving sentence” found in Sec. 40(a) of the that the crime of fencing of which petitioner was even those who did not serve a day of their sentence
Local Government Code, which reads: convicted involves moral turpitude, a circumstance because they were granted probation.
Sec. 40. Disqualifications. – The following persons which does not obtain in this case. At any rate, the Moreno argues, quite persuasively, that he should
are disqualified from running for any elective local phrase “within two (2) years after serving sentence” not have been disqualified because he did not serve
position: should have been interpreted and understood to apply the adjudged sentence having been granted probation
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an both to those who have been sentenced by final and finally discharged by the trial court.
offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude and In Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court declared that an
punishable by one (1) year or more of to those who have been sentenced by final judgment order placing defendant on probation is not a
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of sentence but is rather, in effect, a suspension of the
sentence; [Emphasis supplied.] imprisonment. The placing of the comma (,) in the imposition of sentence. We held that the grant of
. . . . provision means that the phrase modifies both parts probation to petitioner suspended the imposition of
We should mention at this juncture that there is no of Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code. the principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as the
need to rule on whether Arbitrary Detention, the crime The Court’s declaration on the effect of probation accessory penalties of suspension from public office
of which Moreno was convicted by final judgment, on Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, we and from the right to follow a profession or calling,
involves moral turpitude falling under the first part of should add, ought to be considered an obiter in view and that of perpetual special disqualification from the
the above-quoted provision. The question of whether of the fact that Dela Torre was not even entitled to right of suffrage. We thus deleted from the order
Arbitrary Detention is a crime involving moral probation because he appealed his conviction to the granting probation the paragraph which required that
turpitude was never raised in the petition for Regional Trial Court which, however, affirmed his petitioner refrain from continuing with her teaching
disqualification because the ground relied upon by conviction. It has been held that the perfection of an profession.
Mejes, and which the Comelec used in its assailed appeal is a relinquishment of the alternative remedy Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the
resolutions, is his alleged disqualification from running of availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which accessory penalties of suspension from public office,
for a local elective office within two (2) years from his is to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of from the right to follow a profession or calling, and
discharge from probation after having been convicted an accused who, although already eligible, did not at that of perpetual special disqualification from the right
by final judgment for an offense punishable by Four once apply for probation, but did so only after failing in of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor
(4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and his appeal. in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
Four (4) Months. Besides, a determination that the Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code appears minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly
crime of Arbitrary Detention involves moral turpitude innocuous enough at first glance. The phrase suspended upon the grant of probation.
“service of sentence,” understood in its general and
It appears then that during the period of probation, The fact that the trial court already issued an order instance, it provides that the benefits of probation
the probationer is not even disqualified from running finally discharging Moreno fortifies his position. Sec. shall not be extended to those sentenced to serve a
for a public office because the accessory penalty of 16 of the Probation Law provides that “[t]he final maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6)
suspension from public office is put on hold for the discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore years; convicted of any offense against the security of
duration of the probation. to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of the State; those who have previously been convicted
Clearly, the period within which a person is under his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any by final judgment of an offense punished by
probation cannot be equated with service of the fine imposed as to the offense for which probation imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one
sentence adjudged. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law was granted.” Thus, when Moreno was finally (1) day and/or a fine of not less than P200.00; those
specifically provides that the grant of probation discharged upon the court’s finding that he has who have been once on probation; and those who are
suspends the execution of the sentence. During the fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his already serving sentence at the time the substantive
period of probation, the probationer does not serve case was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or provisions of the Probation Law became applicable.
the penalty imposed upon him by the court but is suspended as a result of his conviction were restored It is important to note that the disqualification under
merely required to comply with all the conditions to him, including the right to run for public office. Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code covers
prescribed in the probation order. Even assuming that there is an ambiguity in Sec. offenses punishable by one (1) year or more of
It is regrettable that the Comelec and the OSG 40(a) of the Local Government Code which gives imprisonment, a penalty which also covers
have misapprehended the real issue in this case. room for judicial interpretation, our conclusion will probationable offenses. In spite of this, the provision
They focused on the fact that Moreno’s judgment of remain the same. does not specifically disqualify probationers from
conviction attained finality upon his application for It is unfortunate that the deliberations on the Local running for a local elective office. This omission is
probation instead of the question of whether his Government Code afford us no clue as to the significant because it offers a glimpse into the
sentence had been served. intended meaning of the phrase “service of sentence,” legislative intent to treat probationers as a distinct
The Comelec could have correctly resolved this i.e., whether the legislature also meant to disqualify class of offenders not covered by the disqualification.
case by simply applying the law to the letter. Sec. those who have been granted probation. The Court’s Further, it should be mentioned that the present
40(a) of the Local Government Code unequivocally function, in the face of this seeming dissonance, is to Local Government Code was enacted in 1991, some
disqualifies only those who have been sentenced by interpret and harmonize the Probation Law and the seven (7) years after Baclayon v. Mutia was decided.
final judgment for an offense punishable by Local Government Code. Interpretare et When the legislature approved the enumerated
imprisonment of one (1) year or more, within two (2) concordare legis legibus est optimus disqualifications under Sec. 40(a) of the Local
years after serving sentence. interpretandi. Government Code, it is presumed to have knowledge
This is as good a time as any to clarify that those Probation is not a right of an accused but a mere of our ruling in Baclayon v. Mutia on the effect of
who have not served their sentence by reason of the privilege, an act of grace and clemency or immunity probation on the disqualification from holding public
grant of probation which, we reiterate, should not be conferred by the state, which is granted to a office. That it chose not to include probationers within
equated with service of sentence, should not likewise deserving defendant who thereby escapes the the purview of the provision is a clear expression of
be disqualified from running for a local elective office extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the the legislative will not to disqualify probationers.
because the two (2)-year period of ineligibility under offense of which he was convicted. Thus, the On this score, we agree with Moreno that the
Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code does not Probation Law lays out rather stringent standards Probation Law should be construed as an exception
even begin to run. regarding who are qualified for probation. For to the Local Government Code. While the Local
Government Code is a later law which sets forth the SO ORDERED. offense. Petitioner was thereupon sentenced to
qualifications and disqualifications of local elective imprisonment of six [6] months and one [1] day to two
officials, the Probation Law is a special legislation (People vs Silvino Chatto March 18, 1983) [2] years and four [4] months, to pay a fine of
which applies only to probationers. It is a canon of P1,000.00, and to pay the costs, with subsidiary
statutory construction that a later statute, general in Republic of the Philippines imprisonment in case of insolvency.
its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special SUPREME COURT On October 13, 1981, petitioner applied for
statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions Manila probation. Respondent judge forthwith directed the
of such earlier statute. SECOND DIVISION probation officer of the City of Manila to conduct a
In construing Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government G.R. No. L-63400 March 18, 1983 post sentence investigation on said application and to
Code in a way that broadens the scope of the EDUARDO TOLENTINO y SAMONTE, petitioner, file said report thereon within 60 days. After
disqualification to include Moreno, the Comelec vs. HON. AMANTE Q. ALCONCEL, Judge, Circuit conducting such investigation, the probation officer
committed an egregious error which we here correct. Criminal Court, Sixth Judicial District, Manila, submitted its report, recommending that petitioner be
We rule that Moreno was not disqualified to run for respondent. placed on a two-year probation upon the claim that
Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, ESCOLIN, J.: the latter was already on his way to reformation and
Samar in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay Challenged in this petition for certiorari is the order that a prison cell would turn him into a hardened
and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. of respondent Judge Amante Q. Alconcel of the criminal.
Finally, we note that Moreno was the incumbent Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, in CCC VI-84[81], Such recommendation notwithstanding, the
Punong Barangay at the time of his conviction of the denying petitioner's application for probation under respondent judge issued the challenged order of
crime of Arbitrary Detention. He claims to have P.D. 968. March 9, 1982, denying petitioner's application on the
obtained a fresh mandate from the people of Petitioner was charged before the Circuit Criminal ground that it will depreciate the seriousness of the
Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, Court of Manila with violation of Section 4, Article II of offense committed. 1
2002 elections. This situation calls to mind the Rep. Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the On March 23, 1982, petitioner moved for
2
poignant words of Mr. Justice now Chief Justice Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Upon arraignment on reconsideration of the March 9 order, but the same
Artemio Panganiban in Frivaldo v. Comelec where September 4, 1981, petitioner entered a plea of not was denied. The petitioner's "Ex-Parte Motion for
he said that “it would be far better to err in favor of guilty. Hearing on the case for Probation and for Deferment
popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but On October 8, 1981, after the prosecution had of Execution of Judgment" 3 was likewise denied.
little understood legalisms.” presented part of its evidence, petitioner manifested Hence, the instant recourse. Petitioner's theme is that
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The his desire to change his plea of not guilty to that of respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion
Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc guilty to the lesser offense of possession of Indian in holding that "probation will depreciate the
dated June 1, 2005 and the Resolution of its First Hemp [marijuana], under Section 8 of Article II of Rep. seriousness of the offense committed."
Division dated November 15, 2002, as well as all Act No. 6425. We find these contentions devoid of merit. Section
other actions and orders issued pursuant thereto, are As no objection was interposed by the fiscal, the 5 of P.D. 968 provides, to wit:
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Commission on court allowed petitioner to withdraw his former plea of SEC. 5. Post Sentence Investigation.— No person
Elections is directed to proceed in accordance with guilty and to enter a plea of guilty to said lessor shall be placed on probation except upon prior
this Decision. No pronouncement as to costs. investigation by the probation officer and a
determination by the court that the ends of justice admission renders a hearing on the application for IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby
and the best interest of the public as well as that of probation an unnecessary surplusage and an Idle dismissed. Respondent judge is hereby directed to
the defendant will be served thereby. ceremony. effect execution of judgment in CCC No. VI-84 [81]
It is evident from the foregoing that the potentiality Probation is a mere privilege and its grant rests without further delay.
5
of the offender to reform is not the sole, much less solely upon the discretion of the court. As aptly SO ORDERED.
6
the primordial factor, that should be considered in noted in U.S. vs. Durken, this discretion is to be Republic of the Philippines
the grant or denial of an application for probation. exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society SUPREME COURT
Equal regard to the demands of justice and public and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. Manila
interest must be observed. Thus, Section 8 of P.D. Proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country has FIRST DIVISION
968 lays down the criteria for the placing of an remained a serious threat to the well-being of the G.R. No. L-61958 April 28, 1983
offender on probation, as follows: people. It has necessitated an all-out intensified PLUTARCO YUSI and DAISY YUSI, petitioners,
Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on campaign on the part of the law-enforcers against vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE LETICIA P.
Probation.—In determining whether an offender users as well as pushers thereof. If only to emphasize MORALES, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
may be placed on probation, the court shall the gravity of the drug menace, the Batasan NUEVA ECIJA, respondent.
consider all information, relative to the character, Pambansa has seen fit to increase the penalty for GUTIERREZ, JR., J:
antecedents, environment, mental and physical violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act 6425. May persons who apply for the benefits of the
condition of the offender and available institutional Thus, while under Rep. Act 6425, as amended by Probation Law withdraw their application during the
and community resources. Probation shall be P.D. 44, possession or use of marijuana was period for filing an appeal and ask that their appeal
denied if the court finds that: punishable by imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to from the judgment of conviction be given due course?
a) ... 2 years and 4 months and a fine ranging from The petitioners are spouses who were convicted for
b) ... P600.00 to P6,000.00-the penalty imposed upon estafa in Criminal Case No. 2260 in a decision of the
c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the petitioner herein-possession and use thereof is now respondent court dated May 20, 1982. The court
offense committed. punishable by imprisonment ranging from 6 years and sentenced the petitioners "... to suffer an
"The conclusion of respondent judge that "probation 1 day to 12 years and fine ranging from P6,000.00 to indeterminate sentence of FOUR (4) MONTHS of
7
will depreciate the seriousness of the offense P12,000.00 under B.P. Blg. 179. arresto mayor as minimum to ONE (1) YEAR and SIX
committed" is based principally on the admission by The observation of the Solicitor General on this (6) MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum, to
the petitioner himself, as reflected in the report of the increase of penalty is apropos: pay P5,400.00 to Naty V. Pagdanganan for the value
probation officer, that he [petitioner] was actually The implication is clear. The penalties were of the piano, and to pay the costs of the suit."
caught in the act of selling marijuana cigarettes. increased to take it out of the range of On June 22, 1982, when the decision dated May
Petitioner did not deny or dispute the veracity of the probationable offenses. Thus, the State has spoken 20, 1982 was promulgated, the petitioners appeared
fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto of selling and considers that this is one case where probation in court without their counsel of record. The
marijuana cigarettes. He merely attempted to justify will depreciate the offense committed, and will not respondent court appointed a certain Cesar Villar who
his criminal act by explaining in his motion for serve the ends of justice and the best interest of the happened to be in court to act as petitioners' counsel
reconsideration that "he did it only to make some community, particularly, the innocent and gullible de oficio during the promulgation. On that occasion,
4
money for the family during Christmas. Such young. 8 the petitioners through their counsel de oficio
manifested that "... they are going to avail of the the petitioners' counsel of record, and on behalf of the We rule that it is not. We find the strict and
benefits of the Probation Law and prayed that they be petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the unyielding application of the "waiver rule" under the
released under the same bond." (Annex "B", Reno p. July 6, 1982 order. On July 24, 1982, the petitioners Probation Law unwarranted.
14) The court immediately granted the petitioners' filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. Under the factual circumstances of the instant case,
prayer "... with a condition that the accused will submit (Annexes "G" and "H", Rollo, pp. 21-24). the respondent court in granting the application for
within this day a certification from the bonding On August 19, 1982, the respondent court issued probation and denying the prayer to withdraw, failed
company that it is willing to accommodate the an order denying both the motion for reconsideration to take into account the fact that the petitioners'
accused under the same bond for a period of five (5) and the supplemental motion for reconsideration counsel of record was not present when the
days beginning today." (Annex "J", Rollo, p. 28). petitioners applied for probation. True, they were
On June 23, 1982, the petitioners filed with the Hence, this petition was filed to set aside the above represented by a counsel de oficio appointed by the
respondent court an application for probation under orders. court on the spot but the counsel de oficio was not
Presidential Decree No. 968 as amended by In a resolution dated October 11, 1982, we fully acquainted with their case. He could not have
Presidential Decree No. 1257 (Annex "C", Rollo, P. considered the People of the Philippines impleaded considered fully the strength of a possible appeal
15). and required the Solicitor General to comment on the when he advised them about the effects of the
Acting on the petitioners' application for probation, petition. application for probation. More so when we consider
the respondent court on the same day, June 23, Upon the filing of the Solicitor General's comments, the thin line that divides a criminal case for estafa and
1982, issued an Order directing the probation officer which we treated internally as an anwer, and a civil case for collection of a debt.
of Cabanatuan City to conduct an investigation on the dispensing with the filing of briefs or memoranda, we And this fact surfaced when, on June 28, 1982 after
application for probation and to submit his report on resolved to declare the case submitted for decision. the petitioner discussed their case with a brother-in-
the matter within sixty (60) days from receipt in The only issue is whether or not the petitioners whose law, Judge Eladio C. Sequi of the Municipal Court of
accordance with Sections 5 and 7 of Presidential application for probation was granted after conviction Carranglaan, Nueva Ecija, the petitioners filed their
Decree No. 968 as amended. (Annex "A", Rollo, P. of the crime of estafa may still withdraw such notice of appeal upon the Judge's advice. It must be
18). application for probation and within the reglementary noted that the notice of appeal was filed just seven (7)
On June 28, 1982, or seven (7) days from the date period appeal the judgment of conviction. days after the promulgation of the decision.
of promulgation of the decision and within the In not giving due course to the petitioners' notice of Considering that the application for probation is an
reglementary period to file an appeal, the petitioners appeal the respondent court relied on paragraph 3, admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the
filed with the respondent court their Notice of Appeal Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968 crime which led to the judgment of conviction and that
(Annex "E ", Rollo, p. 19). (ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, the application for probation is considered a waiver
On July 6, 1982, the respondent court issued an APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE, AND FOR upon his part to file an appeal, it is in the best
Order denying the notice of appeal on the ground that OTHER PURPOSES) as amended which considers interests of justice that the court should take the
the petitioners waived their right to appeal the an application for probation of a convicted accused to necessary steps to insure that the accused has been
decision when they filed their application for probation be a waiver of his right to appeal or an automatic fully apprised of the full import of his application
(Annex " F ", Rollo, p. 20). withdrawal of a pending appeal. before the court acts on it.
On July 16, 1982, Atty. Antero Torres filed with the And now, the question before us is whether or not In the case at bar, the respondent court hastily
court an appearance as counsel in collaboration with such a waiver or withdrawal is irrevocable. granted the manifestation and application for
probation on June 22, 1982, the same day that the Charles R. Galsheen, 'See What Condition Your FLORENTINA L. BACLAYON, petitioner,
decision was promulgated and approved the formal Condition Are In,' Federal Probation, XXXV (June vs. HON. PACITO G. MUTIA, as Presiding Judge of
application the following day without taking steps to 1971)', it should, therefore, be liberally construed in the Municipal Court of Plaridel, Misamis
be informed that the petitioners were aware of the full favor of the accused (herein petitioners). Having Occidental and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
import of their application. opted to discontinue with the application for respondents.
Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 968 which probation in its initial stages and prior to the TEEHANKEE,
established the Probation System was envisioned submission of a post sentence investigation report This is a petition to review by certiorari the order
among other things, "to provide an opportunity for the and within the period interposed an appeal from the dated December 21, 1981 of respondent Pacito G.
reformation of a penitent offender which might be less adverse decision, petitioners should be allowed to Mutia, 1 then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court
probable if he were to serve a prison sentence" withdraw their application for probation and pursue (now Municipal Trial Court) of Plaridel, Misamis
(Section 2(b), Presidential Decree No. 968). their right to appeal therefrom. Occidental, which imposed as a condition in granting
Under the facts of this case, the petitioners cannot The underlying philosophy of probation is indeed probation to petitioner Florentina L. Baclayon that she
be considered "penitent offenders." They appeared to one of liberality towards the accused. It is not served refrain from continuing with her teaching profession.
have improvidently filed their application for probation by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory Petitioner, a school teacher, was convicted of the
and should be allowed to withdraw it and to appeal provisions. Probation is a major step taken by our crime of Serious Oral Defamation by the then
the decision. Government towards the deterrence and minimizing Municipal Court of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, then
We agree with the Solicitor General when he of crime and the humanization of criminal justice. In presided by respondent Pacito G. Mutia for having
observes that: fine with the public policy behind probation, the right quarrelled with and uttered insulting and defamatory
xxx xxx xxx of appeal should not be irrevocably lost from the words against Remedios Estillore, principal of the
There can be no real reformation of a wrongdoer moment a convicted accused files an application for Plaridel Central School. Her conviction was affirmed
which is the reason for probation unless there is a probation. Appeal and probation spring from the same by the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate
willingness on his part to right the wrong he has policy considerations of justice, humanity, and Court) and the appellate court, taking into account the
committed. Probation is envisioned for the accused. compassion. aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect
He may or may not avail of its benefits. Although WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and due the offended party on account of her rank and
probation is founded on consent, waiver and/or mandamus is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated age and the fact that the crime was committed in the
contract, public policy requires that interpretational June 23, 1982, July 6, 1982 and August 19, 1982 of office of the complainant in the public school building
objectives set forth in Section 2 of Presidential the respondent court are nullified and set aside. The of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental where public
Decree No. 968 be given full effect. Probation respondent court is directed to give due course to the authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
cannot therefore be forced or compelled on a petitioners' notice of appeal. duties during office hours, increased the penalty
convict. To permit this would only serve to invite its SO ORDERED. imposed by respondent judge and sentenced
violation. Instead, a greater emphasis should be Republic of the Philippines petitioner to one year, 8 months, 21 days of arresto
exerted in securing the probationer's effective SUPREME COURT mayor in its maximum period to 2 years and 4 months
participation in society's major social institution. Manila of prision correccional in its minimum period.
Since 'probation is an island of technicalities FIRST DIVISION The sentence was promulgated on September 9,
surrounded by sea of discretion' (Carl H. Imlay & G.R. No. L-59298 April 30, 1984 1981. On the same date petitioner applied for
probation with respondent judge who referred the imposition of the said condition that petitioner should probation should be realistic, purposive and geared to
application to a Probation Officer. The Post-Sentence "refrain from continuing her teaching profession." The help the probationer develop into a law-abiding and
Investigation Report favorably recommended the petitioner submits that said condition is not only self-respecting individual Conditions should be
granting of petitioner's probation for a period of three detrimental and prejudicial to her rights but is also not interpreted with flexibility in their application and each
(3) years. in accordance with the purposes, objectives and case should be judged on its own merits — on the
On December 21, 1981, respondent Judge issued benefits of the probation law and prays that the said basis of the problems, needs and capacity of the
4
an order granting petitioner's probation, but modified condition be deleted from the order granting her probationer. The very liberality of the probation
the Probation Officer's recommendation by increasing probation. On petitioner's motion, the Court issued a should not be made a tool by trial courts to stipulate
the period of probation to five (5) years and by temporary restraining order enjoining respondent instead unrealistic terms.
imposing the following conditions: têñ.£îhqw⣠judge from enforcing the said questioned condition. Petitioner is a teacher and teaching is the only
(a) To present herself to the jprobation officer The Court finds merit in the petition. profession she knows and as such she possesses
designated to undertake her supervision at such The conditions which trial courts may impose on a special skills and qualifications. Thus, she was
place as may be specified in the order within probationer may be classified into general or designated as District Guidance Coordinator and
seventy- two hours from receipt of said order; mandatory and special or discretionary. The always designated as District-in-Charge whenever the
(b) To report to the Probation Office or any mandatory conditions, enumerated in Section 10 of District Supervisor is out of town. She is usually
specified place designated by the Probation Officer the Probation Law, require that the probationer should selected to represent her district in seminars,
at least once a month in person; (a) present himself to the probation officer designated meetings and conferences. She also excelled in her
(c) To reside at the premise approved by the to undertake his supervision at such place as may be study of Child Study and Development. It also
Probation Officer and not change her residence specified in the order within 72 hours from receipt of appears that she is an outstanding member of the
without prior written approval; said order, and (b) report to the probation officer at Misamis Occidental Girl Scout Council, having served
(d) To permit the Probation Officer to visit her least once a month at such time and place as as Physical Education & Girl Scout Field Advisor of
house and place of work or an authorized Social specified by said officer. Special or discretionary the District, Adviser of the District Girl Scout Leaders
Worker; conditions are those additional conditions, listed in the Association, Adviser of the Distinct Federated Girl
(e) To refrain from drinking intoxicating liquor to same Section 10 of the Probation Law, which the Scout Barangay Troop Committee, acts as resource
excess; courts may additionally impose on the probationer person in District and Division Level Girl Scout
(f) To pay the cost; towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of encampments and re-elected Board Member of the
(g) To satisfy any other condition related to the prison. The enumeration, however, is not inclusive. Misamis Occidental Girl Scout Council. To order the
2
rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly Probation statutes are liberal in character and petitioner to refrain from teaching would deprive the
restrictive of her liberty or incompatible with her enable courts to designate practically any term it students and the school in general the benefits that
freedom of conscience; and chooses as long as the probationer's constitutional may be derived from her training and expertise. While
3
(h) To refrain from continuing her teaching rights are not jeopardized. There are innumerable it is true that probation is a mere privilege and its
profession. conditions which may be relevant to the rehabilitation grant rests solely upon the discretion of the court, this
Petitioner's plea for deletion of the last condition of the probationer when viewed in their specific discretion is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of
was rejected by respondent judge. Hence, the petition individual context. It should, however, be borne in organized society and only incidentally for the benefit
5
at bar alleging grave abuse of discretion in the mind that the special or discretionary conditions of of the accused. Equal regard to the demands of
6
justice and public interest must be observed. In this that petitioner refrain from continuing with her she arrived, respondent began undressing her.
case, teaching has been the lifetime and only calling teaching profession be deleted. The temporary Thereafter, he inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina.
and profession of petitioner. The law requires that she restraining order is hereby made permanent. No Pointing a knife at the latter’s neck, respondent
devote herself to a lawful calling and occupation costs. warned her not to tell anyone about the incident.
during probation. Yet, to prohibit her from engaging in In 1996, AAA’s younger sister, BBB, went through
teaching would practically prevent her from complying the same ordeal in respondent’s hands. On April 2,
with the terms of the probation. (People vs Cabatingan July 19, 1984) 1996, BBB was washing the dishes at home when
Respondents contend that petitioner's final respondent arrived drunk and ordered her to undress.
conviction carries with it the accessory penalties in INTERMEDIATE SENTENCE LAW: Thereafter, he took off his clothes and dragged her
addition to the principal penalty of imprisonment; and EN BANC inside a room. She cried and pleaded with her father
since petitioner was sentenced to arresto mayor in its G.R. No. 166617 to stop but he warned her not to refuse him otherwise
maximum period to prision correccional in its PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner he would kill her, her mother and her siblings.
minimum period, she must likewise suffer the Versus AGUSTIN ABELLERA, Respondent Respondent then positioned himself on top of her,
accessory penalties of suspension from public office DECISION sucked her breasts, inserted his fingers, then his
and from the right to follow a profession or calling, CORONA, J.: penis, into her. After the dastardly act, he told her to
and that of perpetual special disqualification from the The subject of this petition for review is the decision take a bath and go to sleep.
right of suffrage. This cannot apply to petitioner, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. On October 7, 1996, respondent sent BBB’s brother
however, because she was granted probation. The 00097 affirming respondent Agustin Abellera y on an errand. After the boy left, he undressed her and
imposition of her sentence of imprisonment was Camana’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court forced her to lie down. She begged respondent not to
thereby suspended and necessarily, the imposition of (RTC), Branch 275 of Las Piñas City, for statutory repeat what he had done to her in the past but the
the accessory penalties was likewise thereby rape, two counts of simple rape and attempted rape latter took no heed. Instead, he again threatened to
suspended. committed against his minor daughters AAA and BBB. kill her if she refused. She kicked respondent in the
An order placing defendant on "probation" is not a The antecedent facts follow. groin which forced him to stand up in pain.
"sentence" but is rather in effect a suspension of the In 1986, then seven-year-old AAA was at home On the same day, BBB reported the incident to
7
imposition of sentence. It is not a final judgment but attending to the laundry when respondent arrived barangay officials. Respondent was arrested and
is rather an "interlocutory judgment" in the nature of a drunk. When respondent tried to grab her, she brought to the Las Piñas police station where he was
conditional order placing the convicted defendant pushed him away but he was too strong for her. detained. Subsequently, the following Informations
under the supervision of the court for his reformation, Respondent undressed her, removed her underwear were filed against him:
to be followed by a final judgment of discharge, if the and forced himself on her. She felt excruciating pain. Criminal Case No. 97-0007 for statutory rape:
conditions of the probation are complied with, or by a Thereafter, respondent warned her not to tell anybody Sometime in 1986, in the Municipality of Las Piñas
final judgment of sentence if the conditions are what happened, otherwise he would kill her. and within the jurisdiction of the Court, the
8
violated. On August 4, 1992, AAA, then already 14 years old, [respondent], being the father of [AAA], then a
In view of all the foregoing, the Court grants the was with her youngest sister when respondent seven (7) year old minor, through moral
petition and hereby orders that paragraph (h) of the instructed her to go home immediately. The moment ascendancy and influence and by means of force
questioned order granting probation which requires and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
[had] carnal knowledge with [AAA] against her will the acts of execution which should have produced AGUSTIN ABELLERA Y CAMANA GUILTY beyond
and consent. the crime of rape by reason of some cause or reasonable doubt in the Informations as follows:
Criminal Case No. 97-0007-A for Violation of RA accident other than his own spontaneous a. of Rape in Criminal Case No. 96-0460 committed
7610 in relation to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal desistance, that is, because the complainant against his daughter [BBB] in 1996 for which he is
Code (RPC): vigorously resisted and she was able to run away. sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death under
On or about the 4th day of August 1992 in the Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended
[M]unicipality of Las Piñas and within the Thereafter, a joint trial ensued. by Republic Act No. 7659;
jurisdiction of this Court, the [respondent], being the Aside from AAA’s and BBB’s testimonies in court, b. of Statutory Rape in Criminal Case No. 97-0007
father of [AAA], then a fourteen (14) year old minor, the prosecution presented their birth certificates committed against his daughter [AAA] in 1986 for
through moral ascendancy and influence and by proving their relationship to respondent and which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, establishing their ages during the rape incidents. [Reclusion Perpetua];
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA] Respondent denied the accusations against him. In c. of Rape in Criminal Case No. 97-0007-A
against her will and consent. Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. 97-0007, 97-0007-A and committed against his daughter [AAA in 1992] for
Criminal Case No. 96-0460 for rape: 96-0460, he insisted it was impossible for him to which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty
On or before the 2nd day of April 1996, in the commit the crimes since his wife was always at home. [Reclusion Perpetua]; and;
Municipality of Las Piñas and within the jurisdiction In Crim. Case No. 96-0461, he claimed that, on d. of Attempted Rape in Criminal Case No. 96-0461
of this Court, the [respondent], being the father of October 7, 1996, he was in his neighbor’s house committed against his daughter [BBB] in 1996 for
[BBB], a 14 year-old minor, through moral fixing a karaoke appliance. He later on “joined a which he is sentenced to a prision term of fifteen
ascendancy and influence and by means of force drinking spree” there. According to respondent, his (15) years of Reclusion Temporal; and to pay [AAA]
and intimidation, willfully and unlawfully, and daughters filed the cases only because they were and [BBB] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
feloniously have carnal knowledge with said minor angry at him for not sending them to school. damages; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; and
against her will and consent. Respondent’s neighbor, Allan Alvero, corroborated P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and costs.
Criminal Case No. 96-0461 for attempted rape: respondent’s testimony saying he was in his house on This case was first brought to us on automatic
On or about the 7th day of October 1996, in the October 7, 1996. review. However, following People v. Mateo, we
Municipality of Las Piñas and within the jurisdiction AAA’s and BBB’s mother, youngest sister and aunt transferred it to the CA. There, respondent assigned
of this court, the [respondent], being the father of 14 also testified in respondent’s defense. According to the following errors to the trial court: (1) giving full
year-old [BBB] through moral ascendancy and them, the whole family attended AAA’s graduation on credence to the testimonies of the complainants; (2)
influence, and by means of force and intimidation April 2, 1996 and, on October 7, 1996, BBB was not rejecting his testimony, his wife’s and youngest
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commenced the home but studying in Cabanatuan City. daughter’s and (3) convicting him.
commission of rape directly by overt acts by pulling After trial, the court a quo found respondent guilty In a decision dated January 21, 2005, the CA
[BBB] inside the bedroom of their house, forcibly of the charges. The dispositive portion of its decision affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision
removing her panty, lying her down and placing read: convicting respondent. The CA ruled:
himself on top of her[,] removing his shorts with the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment The trial court correctly imposed upon [respondent]
manifest intent of having carnal knowledge with her is hereby rendered finding the [respondent] the penalty corresponding to each case, save in
against her will but the accused did not perform all Crim. Case No. 96-0461 where [respondent] was
charged with attempted rape of then [14-year old case, or the total amount of P225,000.00. For the Respondent’s guilt was clear beyond the shadow of
BBB], i.e., by use of force and intimidation. For said simple rape committed against [BBB] in Crim. Case a doubt.
crime, the trial court sentenced him to a prison term 96-0460, the sum of P50,000.00 each as civil In Crim. Case No. 97-0007 (statutory rape), AAA
of fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal. indemnity and as moral damages; and for the testified:
Under paragraph 1, Article 335, of the Revised attempted rape against her in Crim. Case No. 96- q: What happened during that year 1986 if you
Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of rape is 0461, the amount of P25,000.00 representing the remember?
reclusion perpetua. According to Article 57… the civil indemnity and the like sum as moral damages a: It was nighttime[.] I do not remember the [exact]
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed --- are imposed [respectively] upon [respondent]. time, our father arrived and he was drunk.
by law for the consummated felony shall be WHEREFORE, the appealed Joint Decision of q: Where were you then?
imposed upon the principals in an attempt to conviction is AFFIRMED, finding [respondent] a: I was at our house, sir.
commit a felony. Following the graduated scale in AGUSTIN ABELLERA y CAMANA guilty of rape as q: What happened when your father arrived on that
Article 71…the penalty imposable upon separately charged in the four (4) Informations. particular time?
[respondent] in the attempted rape is prision mayor. However, in Crim. Case No. 96-0461, the penalty is a: I was fixing our laundry when he grabbed me.
Absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum MODIFIED in that he is sentenced to suffer the q: What did you do when your father grabbed you
term of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken indeterminate penalty of [t]wo (2) [y]ears and [f]our while fixing your clothes?
from the medium period of prision mayor or from 8 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to a: I resisted, sir.
years and 1 day to 10 years; while the minimum [e]ight (8) [y]ears and [o]ne day of prision mayor, as q: What did your father do when you resisted?
term is one degree lower than prision mayor, i.e., maximum. The civil liabilities of [respondent] are… a: He forced me to undress including my panty, sir.
prision correccional, from 6 months and 1 day to 6 MODIFIED, to the extent that he is hereby ordered q: Did he succeed in undressing you?
years. to pay the rape victims, as follows: a: Yes, sir.
Moreover, the impositions by the trial court of the a) for the statutory rape against [AAA] in Crim. q: What happened after your father was able to
civil liabilities [need] clarification and modification. Case No. 97-0007, the sum of P75,000.00 as civil remove your dress and panty?
In line with the current jurisprudence, civil indemnity indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; a: He forcibly entered his penis, sir.
is imposed without need of proof other than the fact b) for the simple rape against [AAA] in Crim. Case In Crim. Case No. 97-0007-A (simple rape), AAA
of the commission of the offense. Moral damages No. 97-0007-A, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil stated:
should be awarded taking into account that [AAA] indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and q: Madam Witness, on the night of August 4, 1992,
and [BBB] were minors at the time of rape, and c) for the attempted rape against [BBB] in Crim. do you remember where were you then?
considering too[,] the immeasurable havoc on their Case No. 96-0461, the sum of P25,000.00 as civil a: Yes, sir.
female psyche as a result of the abominable indemnity and P25,000.00 as moral damages. xxx
crimes. SO ORDERED. q: What were you doing on that particular date and
For the rapes committed against [AAA] in Crim. Respondent now assails the CA decision. time?
Case Nos. 97-0007 and 97-0007-A, [respondent] After a careful study of this case, we affirm a: I just arrived from selling balut, sir.
shall be held to pay her P75,000.00 and respondent’s conviction for statutory rape, two counts q: Madam Witness, while you were inside your
P50,000.00, respectively, as civil indemnity and of simple rape and attempted rape. house during that particular date and time, do you
another P50,000.00 as moral damages in each remember what happened next, if any?
a: Yes, sir. a: On April 2[,] my father arrived drunk. a: I was at home, sir.
xxx
q: What happened next? q: What happened next after your father arrived q: What were you doing inside your house?
a: When we reached the house[,] I was shocked drunk? a: I was fixing our clothes.
because he suddenly entered my room and a: He asked me to undress myself, sir. q: When you were fixing your clothes, do you
undressed me. xxx remember if anything unusual…happened?
q: What did you do when your father undressed q: After you undressed yourself what did your father a: Yes, sir.
you? do? xxx
a: I told him not to do what he was thinking. a: He also undressed himself. q:…[W]here there other persons in the household?
q: What did your father do when you [told] him not xxx a: Only my brother but he was sent for an errand.
to do what he intended to do? q: Madam Witness, what did your father do when xxx
a: He told me, “I will kill you if you will not obey me.” removed his clothes? q: After your father asked your brother to leave the
q: What did you do when your father said [he will kill a: He brought me inside the room, sir. house, do you remember what happened next?
you]? xxx a: He forcibly removed my panty, sir.
a: I was crying and begging. (Witness started to q: What did you do when your father pulled you or q: What did you do when your father removed your
cry). drag you? panty?
xxx a: I was begging him not to do what he [intended] to a: He laid me down, sir.
q: What did your father do after that? do. xxx
a: [H]e removed my panty and he forcibly inserted xxx q: After your father pulled you down, what
his penis [into] my private parts. q: When you say he proceeded to [do] his intention, happened next?
q: Was he able to insert his penis to your private what do you mean by that? a: He [undressed] himself, sir.
parts? a: He put his body on top of me. q: How about you[,] what were you doing when your
a: Yes, sir. q: What happened when your father placed his father was undressing himself?
q: What did you do when your father inserted his body on top of you? a: I was begging to him not to repeat what he did to
penis to your vagina? a: He sucked my breast, sir. me in the past, sir.
a: I tried to resist and prevent him at the same q: What else did your father do to you? xxx
[time,] I was crying and begging him not to do [it]. a: He inserted his finger in my private parts, sir. q: What did your father tell you, if any?
q: What else happened after you resisted? q: What happened next when your father inserted a: “If you do not follow, I will kill you.”
a: He continued and forced his penis [into] my his finger into your organ? q: What did you do when your father [told you]
vagina until he succeeded. a: He likewise inserted his penis, sir. those words?
In Crim. Case No. 96-0460 (simple rape), BBB In Crim. Case No. 96-0461 (attempted rape), BBB a: Because I did not want the same thing to happen
narrated: said: to me again[,] I kicked him.
q: Madam Witness, at about 8 o’clock in the q: Madam Witness, on October 7, 1996, at about 7 xxx
evening of April 2, 1996, do you remember where o’ clock in the evening, do you remember where q: What did he do when you kicked him?
were you then? xxx were you then? a: He stood up, sir.
AAA’s and BBB’s testimonies in the trial court were overwhelming evidence pointing to respondent as the On damages, we see no error in the CA’s award of
telling. There is no question respondent indeed sole perpetrator of the crimes. civil indemnity and moral damages in Crim. Case
committed the crimes charged. His contention that the Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a Nos. 97-0007 and 97-0007-A. However, in Crim.
lower courts erred in giving full credence to his woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) Case No. 96-0460, since the death penalty was
daughters’ testimonies deserves no merit. by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is originally imposed on respondent, the award of civil
Testimonies of victims of tender age are credible, deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and (3) indemnity should be increased to P75,000 and moral
more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify when the woman is under 12 years of age. The third damages to P75,000. Exemplary damages of
against their offender. Their revelations that they were instance is “statutory rape” or carnal knowledge of a P30,000 must also be awarded in these cases to
raped, coupled with their willingness to undergo public woman below 12 years old. deter others with perverse tendencies from sexually
trial where they could be compelled to describe the On the applicable penalties, we affirm the abusing young girls of their own flesh and blood.
details of the assault on their dignity by their own imposition of reclusion perpetua in Crim. Case Nos. Moreover, in the light of recent jurisprudence, the
father, cannot be easily dismissed as concoctions. It 97-0007 and 97-0007-A (for simple rape). In Crim. award of civil indemnity in Crim. Case No. 96-0461
would be the height of moral and psychological Case No. 96-0460, however, the penalty of reclusion should be increased to P30,000. Exemplary damages
depravity if they were to fabricate sordid tales of perpetua without eligibility for parole should instead of P10,000 are likewise in order.
sexual defloration (which could put him behind bars be imposed pursuant to RA 9346 which prohibits the WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of
for the rest of his life) if they were not true. imposition of the death penalty. Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00097 is hereby
Respondent’s alibi that he could not have In Crim. Case No. 96-0461, we agree with the CA AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Court finds
committed the crimes in the presence of his wife was that the proper penalty for attempted rape is the respondent Agustin Abellera y Camana GUILTY of:
utterly lame. It was disproven by the categorical and penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by (1)statutory rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0007 for
positive identification by his daughters that he was law for the consummated felony. which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
their rapist. Besides, there is no rule that rape can In the scale of penalties in Article 71 of the RPC, reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA
only be committed in seclusion. the penalty two degrees lower than death is reclusion P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral
Respondent’s contention that he was allegedly in temporal. However, with the abolition of the death damages and P30,000 as exemplary damages;
his neighbor’s house during the October 7, 1996 rape penalty by RA 9346, the highest remaining penalty is (2)simple rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0007-A for
incident was likewise untenable. For this defense of reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the penalty lower which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
alibi to prosper, respondent should have proven that by two degrees than reclusion perpetua is prision reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA
he was in some place where it was physically mayor, from which the maximum penalty for P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral
impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during attempted rape shall now be taken. As the CA damages and P30,000 as exemplary damages;
the commission of the crimes. In this case, even correctly imposed, “absent any modifying (3)simple rape in Crim. Case No. 96-0460 for which
assuming that respondent was in his neighbor’s circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
place, he was nevertheless still near his house and penalty shall be taken from the medium period of perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to
his daughters. prision mayor or from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years; pay BBB P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as
Similarly, not even the testimonies of respondent’s while the minimum term is one degree lower than moral damages and P30,000 as exemplary
wife and youngest daughter sufficed to negate the prision mayor, i.e., prision correccional, from 6 damages;
months and 1 day to 6 years.”
(4)attempted rape in Crim. Case No. 96-0461 for beyond reasonable doubt xxx of the crime of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WILL NOT ISSUE IF
which he is sentenced to suffer the minimum Carnapping aggravated and qualified by the DETENTION IS BY VIRTUE OF VALID JUDGMENT
penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision frustrated killing of Ciriaco Rosales and [he is] The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of
correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor hereby sentenced to undergo an imprisonment term illegal confinement, detention or deprivation of liberty.
as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay BBB of THIRTY (30) YEARS; It was devised as a speedy and effective remedy to
P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral xxxxxxxxx relieve persons from unlawful restraint. More
damages and P10,000 as exemplary damages. In Q-92-38560, Samuel Barredo is hereby found specifically, it is a remedy to obtain immediate relief
SO ORDERED. GUILTY as principal beyond reasonable doubt of for those who may have been illegally confined or
Republic of the Philippines the crime of violation of P.D. 1866 and he is hereby imprisoned without sufficient cause and thus deliver
SUPREME COURT sentenced to an imprisonment term of EIGHTEEN them from unlawful custody. It is therefore a writ of
Manila (18) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion inquiry intended to test the circumstances under
FIRST DIVISION Temporal. which a person is detained.
G.R. No. 168728 xxxxxxxxx The writ may not be availed of when the person in
SAMUEL BARREDO, Petitioner, -v e r s u s- SO ORDERED. custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a
HON. VICENTE VINARAO, respondent No appeal was made, hence, the decision became valid judgment. However, the writ may be allowed as
DECISION final and executory. a post-conviction remedy when the proceedings
CORONA, J.: Petitioner was committed to the custody of the leading to the conviction were attended by any of the
This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of Quezon City Jail (as detention prisoner) on March 15, following exceptional circumstances:
habeas corpus.Petitioner Samuel Barredo y Golani 1993. After conviction, he was transferred to and (1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional right
prays for his release from the maximum security confined at the maximum security compound of the resulting in the restraint of a person;
compound of the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City on July 23, 1994 (2)the court had no jurisdiction to impose the
City on the ground that he has already served the where he is now still detained. sentence or
sentence imposed on him in Criminal Case Nos. Q- According to petitioner, as of August 2, 2004, he (3)the imposed penalty was excessive, thus voiding
92-38559 and Q-92-38560. already served a total of 18 years. He claims that, on the sentence as to such excess
Criminal Case No. Q-92-38559 was for carnapping October 9, 2001, the Board of Pardons and Parole The rule is that if a person alleged to be restrained
while Criminal Case No. Q-92-38560 was for illegal passed a resolution recommending the commutation of his liberty is in custody of an officer under process
possession of firearms. Both cases were filed in the of his sentence to a period of from 15 to 20 years. He issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch further points out that, based on the Bureau of or order of a court of record the writ of habeas corpus
103. Corrections revised computation table for determining will not be allowed. Thus, Section 4, Rule 102 of the
The cases were tried jointly. After trial, the court the time to be credited prisoners for good conduct Rules of Court provides:
rendered a joint decision finding petitioner guilty of while serving sentence, he should only serve 14 Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge
both charges. Relevant parts of the dispositive portion years, 9 months and 18 days. Thus, this petition. authorized. If it appears that the person alleged to
read: Is petitioner entitled to the writ of habeas corpus? be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in No. officer under process issued by a court or judge or
Q-92-38559 finding Samuel Barredo, xxx GUILTY by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record,
and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue minimum term not less than the minimum term minimum penalty in the carnapping case, he has not
the process, render the judgment, or make the prescribed by the same law. Therefore, the proper yet served the minimum penalty in the illegal
order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the imposable penalty is imprisonment not for 30 years possession of firearms case. Consequently, petitioner
jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the but for an indeterminate sentence of 17 years and 4 is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas
person shall not be discharged by reason of any months as minimum to 30 years as maximum. corpus. Neither is he eligible for parole because only
informality or defect in the process, judgment, or REDUCTION OF PENALTY UNDER AMENDATORY prisoners who have served the minimum penalty
order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY imposed on them may be released on parole on such
authorize the discharge of a person charged with or Petitioner is likewise entitled to a reduction of the terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the
convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a penalty imposed upon him in the illegal possession of Board of Pardons and Parole.
person suffering imprisonment under lawful firearms case in view of the passage of RA 8294. The Petitioners claim that the Board of Pardons and
judgment. (emphasis supplied) law reduced the penalty for simple illegal possession Parole passed a resolution recommending the
Petitioner was detained pursuant to a final of firearms to prision correccional in its maximum commutation of his sentence does not justify the
judgment of the Quezon City RTC convicting him for period and a fine of not less than P15,000. Being issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Commutation
the crimes of carnapping and illegal possession of favorable to petitioner, RA 8294 should be applied of sentence is a prerogative of the Chief Executive.
firearms. He is therefore not entitled to the writ of retroactively to benefit him. Further applying the Hence, even if petitioners claim were true, the
habeas corpus. Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper imposable recommendation of the Bureau of Pardons and Parole
SENTENCE IS VOID INSOFAR AS IT FAILED TO penalty is imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 1 was just that, a mere recommendation. Until and
IMPOSE AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE day as minimum to 6 years as maximum. unless approved by the President, there is no
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, PETITIONER HAS NOT YET SERVED THE commutation to speak of.
however, the trial court erred in imposing a straight PENALTIES IMPOSED ON HIM Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.
penalty of imprisonment for 30 years in the Petitioner has to serve the penalties imposed on Costs against petitioner.
carnapping case. The sentence imposed by the trial him successively in the order of their severity. Hence, SO ORDERED.
court deprived petitioner of the benefits of the he has to first serve the more severe penalty, i.e., that
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Hence, it was void imposed in the carnapping case: imprisonment for 17
insofar as it failed to impose an indeterminate years and 4 months as minimum to 30 years as
sentence. maximum. Only after he has served this will he
Since the crime was committed by means of commence serving the less severe penalty imposed
violence against or intimidation of persons, the in the illegal possession of firearms case:
imposable penalty under the Anti-Carnapping Act of imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 1 day as
1972 was imprisonment for not less than 17 years minimum to 6 years as maximum.
and 4 months and not more than 30 years. Per the certification issued by the Bureau of
Furthermore, pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Corrections, as of April 3, 2007, petitioner has served
Law, the court should have imposed an indeterminate a total of 18 years, 4 months and 26 days, inclusive of
sentence with a maximum term not exceeding the his good conduct time allowance and preventive
maximum fixed by the special penal law and a imprisonment. Thus, while he has already served the
Republic of the Philippines accused pursuant to their conspiracy and with the death penalty was suspended, then the crime
SUPREME COURT intent to kill, opened fire at them hitting S/G was committed.
Manila ROGER TARROQUIN and S/G TITO HOMERES, In addition, all the accused are jointly and severally
THIRD DIVISION thereby inflicting upon them serious and mortal ordered to pay the heirs of deceased Roger
G.R. No. 173797 August 31, 2007 wounds which were the immediate cause of their Tarroquin and Tito Henares P50,000.00 each,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, death and thereafter, accused took, robbed and respectively.Further, all the accused are jointly and
-versus- EMMANUEL ROCHA alias Nopoy and carried away the said two (2) duffle bags containing severally ordered to indemnify the Bank of the
RUEL RAMOS alias Aweng, Accused- Appellants P1.5 million pesos, Philippine Currency, and the 12 Philippine Islands the sum of P1,600,000.With
RESOLUTION gauge shotgun with SN 1048245 worth P11,000.00 costs against the accused.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: issued to S/G Roger Tarroquin and the cal. 38 Trumpeta, Cenita and accused-appellants appealed
On 12 May 1994, an Information was filed against revolver with SN 23238 worth P6,500.00 issued to to this Court. On 13 September 1999, however,
herein accused-appellants Emmanuel Rocha y Yeban S/G Tito Henares and owned by Eaglestar Security Trumpeta filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal,
alias Nopoy (Rocha) and Ruel Ramos y Alcober alias Services, Incorporated to the damage and prejudice which was granted by this Court on 11 October 1999.
Aweng (Ramos), along with Romeo Trumpeta y of the offended parties in the amount On 29 May 2001, Cenita filed his own Urgent Motion
Aguaviva (Trumpeta), in the Regional Trial Court aforementioned and to the heirs of the said victims. to Withdraw Appeal, which was granted by this Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 215.Another accused, On 6 February 1996, the RTC promulgated its on 15 August 2001.
Eustaquio Cenita y Omas-As (Cenita), was impleaded Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-93-49474 finding On 25 August 2004, pursuant to the Decision of this
in the Amended Information.The Amended Trumpeta, Cenita and herein accused-appellants Court in People v. Mateo, we transferred the case to
Information alleged a crime committed as follows: Rocha and Ramos guilty of the crime of Robbery with the Court of Appeals.
th
That on or about the 28 day of September, 1993, Homicide, and imposing upon them the penalty of On 31 March 2006, the Court of Appeals
in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named reclusion perpetua.The RTC disposed of the case as promulgated its Decision in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No.
accused, conspiring and confederating with several follows: 01765 affirming with clarification the Decision of the
others, whose true identities, whereabouts and WHEREFORE, the accused ROMEO TRUMPETA RTC, thus:
personal circumstances have not as yet been y AGUAVIVA, EMMANUEL RIOCHA y YEBAN, Wherefore, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED
ascertained and mutually helping one another, all RUEL RAMOS y ALCOBER and EUSTAQUIO with CLARIFICATION. Appellants Emmanuel
armed with high power (sic) guns, with intent to CENITA y OMAS-AS, are found GUILTY of the Rocha @ Nopoy and Ruel Ramos @ Aweng are
gain and by means of violence and intimidation crime of Robbery With Homicide as charged, the found guilty as co-principals in the crime of Robbery
against person (sic), did then and there, wilfully, prosecution having proven their guilt beyond with Homicide and each is hereby sentenced to
unlawfully and feloniously rob the Bank of the reasonable doubt.In accordance with Article 294 of suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.Each one of
Philippine Islands (BPI) represented by ALEX the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 1 thereof, all of them is ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount
BABASA, JR. in the following manner, to wit: on the the above-named accused are sentenced to suffer of [Fifty Thousand Pesos] (P50,000.00) each to the
date and place aforementioned, while Alex Babasa, the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the heirs of Roger Tarroquin and Tito Homeres.All
Jr. was placing the money contained in two (2) accessory penalties attendant thereto. They could other aspects of the appealed Decision are
duffle bags inside the vault of the armored van, with have been sentenced to death but for the fact that MAINTAINED.
the two (2) security guards on the watch, the said
On 18 April 2006, accused-appellants Rocha and 9. In U.S. v. Laguna [17 Phil. 533 (1910)], this possible avenues to determine his guilt or
Ramos, through the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), Honorable Court first enunciated the rationale innocence must be accorded an accused, and no
appealed the Decision of the Court of Appeals to this behind the Courts power of automatic review.The care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be
Court. High Court ratiocinated: undone.A prior determination by the court of
On 13 September 2006, this Court required the The requirement that the Supreme Court pass upon Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would
parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. a case in which capital punishment has been minimize the possibility of an error in judgment.If
On 14 November 2006, accused-appellant Rocha, imposed by the sentence of the trial court is one the court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of
having been detained for more than seventeen years, having for its object simply and solely the protection death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it
filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, stating that he of the accused. Having received the highest penalty could then render judgment imposing the
intends to apply for parole.He also manifested that his which the law imposes, he is entitled under that law corresponding penalty as the circumstances so
co-accused on this case, Romeo Trumpeta and to have the sentence and all the facts and warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate
Estaquio Cenita, had already withdrawn their appeal. circumstances upon which it is founded placed the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court
On 14 February 2007, plaintiff-appellee People of before the highest tribunal of the land to the end for its final disposition.
the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a that its justice and legality may be clearly and 11. Appellants motion to withdraw appeal,
Comment opposing accused-appellant Rochas conclusively determined.Such procedure is therefore, contravenes this Honorable Courts power
Motion to Withdraw Appeal. merciful.It gives a second chance of life.Neither the to automatically review a decision imposing the
On 28 February 2007, accused-appellant Ramos courts nor the accused can waive it. It is a positive penalty of reclusion perpetua or life
followed suit and filed his own Manifestation with provision of the law that brooks no interference and imprisonment.Neither appellant nor this Honorable
Motion to Withdraw Appeal.He likewise manifested tolerates no evasions.(emphasis supplied) Court can waive by mere motion to withdraw
that he had already served fourteen years in prison 10. No less than this Honorable Court recognizes appeal, the Courts power to review the instant
and that all his other co-accused had already the value of human life that it provided an case.
withdrawn their appeal, and applied for executive intermediate appeal or review in favor of the 12.Based on the above disquisition, the review by
clemency to avail himself of parole. accused.In People vs. Mateo, this Honorable Court this Honorable court of appellants conviction is
We are therefore determining herein whether or not held: mandatory and the withdrawal of his appeal can not
the Motions to Withdraw Appeal of accused- While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory be granted as it will contravene the applicable rules
appellants Rocha and Ramos should be granted. review by the Supreme Court of cases where the and jurisprudence.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
According to the plaintiff-appellee, penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life Plaintiff-appellee also claims that accused-appellant
8. It is well-settled that in cases where the penalty imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however has it Rochas motion is actually a scheme to evade the
imposed is reclusion perpetua, appeal in criminal proscribed an intermediate review.If only to ensure supreme penalty of reclusion perpetua and that it is
cases to this Honorable Court is a matter of right.A utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, obviously merely an afterthought designed to trifle not
review of the trial courts judgment of conviction is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, only with our procedural law, but more importantly,
automatic and does not depend on the whims of the the court now deems it wise and compelling to our judicial system.Plaintiff-appellee continues that if
convicted felon.It is mandatory and leaves the provide in these cases a review by the Court of indeed, appellant Emmanuel Rocha was acting in
reviewing court without any option. Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme good faith, he should have withdrawn his appeal at
Court.Where life and liberty are at stake, all the first opportunity.Instead, he waited for the
intermediate review of the RTC Decision to be first penalty cases were reviewed by this Court on review and judgment within five (5) days after the
resolved and after an unfavorable decision thereon automatic review.Thus, the erstwhile Rule 122, fifteenth (15) day following the promulgation of the
that he now decides to withdraw his appeal. Sections 3 and 10, provided as follows: judgment or notice of denial of a motion for new trial
We resolve to grant the Motions of accused- SEC.3.How appeal taken. or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be
appellants Rocha and Ramos. (a)The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing
The confusion in the case at bar seems to stem Court of Appeals incasesdecidedby theRegional thereof by the stenographic reporter.
from the effects of the Decision of this Court in TrialCourt in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, After the promulgation of Mateo on 7 June 2004,
People v. Mateo. In Mateo, as quoted by plaintiff- shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the this Court promptly caused the amendment of the
appellee, it was stated that [w]hile the Fundamental court which rendered the judgment or final order foregoing provisions, but retained the distinction of
Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme appealed fromand byserving acopy thereof uponthe requiring a notice of appeal for reclusion perpetua and
Court of cases where the penalty imposed is adverse party. life imprisonment cases and automatically reviewing
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, (b)The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases death penalty cases. Thus, Rule 122, Sections 3 and
nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise 10, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC (which took
review.A closer study of Mateo, however, reveals that of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for effect on 15 October 2004), now provides:
the inclusion in the foregoing statement of cases review under Rule 42. SEC.3.How appeal taken.
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua and (c)The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where (a)The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the
life imprisonment was only for the purpose of the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court is Court of Appeals incasesdecidedby theRegional
including these cases within the ambit of the reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a TrialCourt in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
intermediate review of the Court of Appeals: [this] lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court
Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in committed on the same occasion or which arose which rendered the judgment or final order
these cases [cases where the penalty imposed is out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the appealed fromand byserving acopy thereof uponthe
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death] review more serious offense for which the penalty of death, adverse party.
by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, (b)The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
the Supreme Court. shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
We had not intended to pronounce in Mateo that with paragraph (a) of this section. of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion (d)No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where review under Rule 42.
perpetua or life imprisonment are subject to the the death penalty is imposed by the Regional Trial (c)The appeal in cases where the penalty imposed
mandatory review of this Court.In Mateo, these cases Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed by by the Regional Trial Court is reclusion perpetua, or
were grouped together with death penalty cases the Supreme Court as provided in section 10 of this life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is
because, prior to Mateo, it was this Court which had Rule. imposed but for offenses committed on the same
jurisdiction to directly review reclusion perpetua, life xxxx occasion or which arose out of the same
imprisonment and death penalty cases alike.The SEC. 10. Transmission of records in case of death occurrence that gave rise to the more serious
mode of review, however, was different.Reclusion penalty. In all cases where the death penalty is offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua and life imprisonment cases were brought imposed by the trial court, the records shall be perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be
before this Court via a notice of appeal, while death forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic
by notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
(a) of this Rule. appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court without the consent of the judge concerned.
(d)No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where may provide, final judgments and orders of lower 4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
the Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty. courts in: a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeals automatically review the x x x cralawx x xx x x 5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
Judgment provided in section 10 of this Rule. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
xxxx is reclusion perpetua or higher practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
SEC. 10. Transmission of records in case of death For a clear understanding of this provision, the full to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
penalty. In all cases where the death penalty is text thereof provides: assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
imposed by the trial court, the records shall be Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
forwarded to the Court of Appeals for automatic following powers: the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
review and judgment within twenty days but not 1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
earlier than fifteen days from the promulgation of ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, increase, modify substantive rights. Rules of
the judgment or notice of denial of a motion for new and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by
forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing 2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on the Supreme Court.
thereof by the stenographic reporter. appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court 6. Appoint all officials and employees of the
Neither does the Constitution require a mandatory may provide, final judgments and orders of lower Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
review by this Court of cases where the penalty courts in: In this provision, only paragraphs (1) and (2) speak
imposed is reclusion perpetua or life a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of jurisdiction over cases.However, this Constitutional
imprisonment.The constitutional provision quoted in of any treaty, international or executive agreement, provision does not enumerate cases involving
Mateo merely gives this Court jurisdiction over such law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, mandatory review.Indeed, it would almost be silly to
cases: instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. claim that this Court is mandatorily required to review
Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
direct appellate review over all criminal cases in assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in in issue. Instead, the significance of the enumeration
which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion relation thereto. of this Courts jurisdiction in paragraphs (1) and (2) is
perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower that while Section 2 of the same Article VIII of the
offenses committed on the same occasion or court is in issue. Constitution gives to Congress the power to define,
arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various
the more serious offense for which the penalty of is reclusion perpetua or higher. courts, it denies to Congress the power to deprive this
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is e. All cases in which only an error or question of Court of jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section
imposed).The practice finds justification in the 1987 law is involved. 5.
Constitution 3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to Since the case of accused-appellants is not subject
Article VIII, Section 5.The Supreme Court shall other stations as public interest may require. Such to the mandatory review of this Court, the rule that
have the following powers: neither the accused nor the courts can waive a
mandatory review is not applicable.Consequently, conviction by the trial court.Any application therefor, Plaintiff-appellee claims that the present Motion to
accused-appellants separate motions to withdraw if one is made, should not be acted upon or the Withdraw Appeal is actually a scheme to evade the
appeal may be validly granted. process toward its grant should not be begun penalty of reclusion perpetua and is meant to trifle
The granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, unless the appeal is withdrawn.Accordingly, the with our judicial system.Plaintiff-appellee, however,
however, is addressed to the sound discretion of the agencies or instrumentalities of the Government does not explain how the withdrawal of appeal can be
Court.After a case has been submitted to the court for concerned must require proof from the accused that used by accused-appellants for these purposes.It
decision, the appellant cannot, at his election, he has not appealed from his conviction or that he seems that plaintiff-appellee is expecting that the
withdraw the appeal.In People v. Casido, we denied has withdrawn his appeal.Such proof may be in the granting of the Motions to Withdraw Appeal would
the accused-appelants Urgent Motion to Withdraw form of a certification issued by the trial court or the nullify the Court of Appeals Decision, on the
Appeal therein: appellate court, as the case may be.The understanding that the Court of Appeals cannot enter
It is then clear that the conditional pardons acceptance of the pardon shall not operate as an judgments on cases remanded to them pursuant to
separately extended to the accused-appellants abandonment or waiver of the appeal, and the Mateo.Such conclusion, however, is applicable only
were issued during the pendency of their instant release of an accused by virtue of a pardon, where the death penalty is imposed.Rule 124, Section
appeal. commutation of sentence, or parole before the 13 of the Rules of Court, which was likewise amended
In the resolution of 31 January 1995 in People vs. withdrawal of an appeal shall render those in A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC pursuant to Mateo, provides:
Hinlo, this Court categorically declared the practice responsible therefor administratively Section 13.Certification or appeal of case to the
of processing applications for pardon or parole liable.Accordingly, those in custody of the accused Supreme Court. (a) Whenever the Court of Appeals
despite pending appeals to be in clear violation of must not solely rely on the pardon as a basis for the finds that the penalty of death should be imposed,
law. release of the accused from confinement. the court shall render judgment but refrain from
Earlier, in our resolution of 21 March 1991 in xxxx making an entry of judgment and forthwith certify
People vs. Sepada, this Court signified in no This rule shall fully bind pardons extended after 31 the case and elevate its entire record to the
uncertain terms the necessity of a final judgment January 1995 during the pendency of the grantees Supreme Court for review.
before parole or pardon could be extended. appeal.(Italics supplied) (b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser
Having observed that the pronouncements in the It follows then that the conditional pardons granted penalty for offenses committed on the same
aforementioned cases remained unheeded, either in this case to accused-appellants William Casido occasion or which arose out of the same
through deliberate disregard or erroneous and Franklin Alcorin are void for having been occurrence that gave rise to the more severe
applications of the obiter dictum in Monsanto vs. extended on 19 January 1996 during the pendency offense for which the penalty of death is imposed,
Factoran or the ruling in People vs. Crisola, this of their instant appeal. and the accused appeals, the appeal should be
Court, in its resolution of 4 December 1995 in In the case at bar, however, we see no reason to included in the case certified for review to the
People vs. Salle, explicitly declared: deny accused-appellants Motions to Withdraw Supreme Court.
We now declare that the conviction by final Appeal.There is no showing that accused-appellants (c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes
judgment limitation under Section 19, Article VII of had already applied for parole at the time of the filing reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser
the present Constitution prohibits the grant of of their Motions to Withdraw Appeal.On the contrary, penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing
pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused they stated in their motions that they merely intend to such penalty.The judgment may be appealed to the
during the pendency of his appeal from his apply for the same.
Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the that even prior to the enactment of Rep. Act No. appellants Motion to Withdraw Appeal.Plaintiff-
Court of Appeals. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to appellees allegation that the Motion was for the
Plaintiff-appellee must have likewise observed that reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole purpose of evading the penalty of reclusion perpetua
accused-appellants intend to apply not only for parole, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. and trifling with our judicial system is unsubstantiated,
but also for executive clemency.This is shown by the This Court cannot review, much less preempt, the as the Court of Appeals imposition of reclusion
Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Appeal of exercise of executive clemency under the pretext of perpetua, unlike an imposition of the death penalty,
accused-appellant Ramos, where he affirmed that he preventing the accused from evading the penalty of may be entered by said appellate court even without
intends to follow his co-accused who had already reclusion perpetua or from trifling with our judicial another review by this Court.Neither should we deny
applied for executive clemency to avail of parole. system.Clemency is not a function of the judiciary; it is the Motions just because of accused-appellants
It should be kept in mind that accused-appellants an executive function.Thus, it is the President, not the intention to apply for executive clemency, since the
could not avail themselves of parole if their appeal is judiciary, who should exercise caution and utmost granting of such executive clemency is within the
dismissed, unless they also apply for executive circumspection in the exercise of executive clemency prerogative of the Executive Department, and not of
clemency and ask for the commutation of their in order to prevent a derision of the criminal justice this Court.
reclusion perpetua sentences.Republic Act No. 4108, system.We cannot and shall not deny accused- IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the respective
as amended, otherwise known as the Indeterminate appellants Motions to Withdraw Appeal just because Motions to Withdraw Appeal of accused-appellants
Sentence Law, does not apply to persons convicted of of their intention of applying for executive Emmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos are GRANTED,
offenses punishable with death penalty or life clemency.With the Constitution bestowing upon the and theCourt of Appeals Decision dated 31 March
imprisonment.In several cases, we have considered Executive the power to grant clemency, it behooves 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01765 is hereby
the penalty of reclusion perpetua as synonymous to the Court to pass the ball to the President and let her deemed FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate determine the fate of accused-appellants. SO ORDERED.
Sentence Law, and ruled that said law does not apply In sum, the mandatory review by this Court is only
to persons convicted of offenses punishable with the required for cases where the penalty imposed is
said penalty.As further discussed by Associate death.Where the penalty imposed is reclusion
Justice Dante Tinga in his Concurring Opinion in perpetua or life imprisonment, a review of the trial
People v. Tubongbanua: court decision is conducted only when the accused
Parole is extended only to those convicted of files a notice of appeal.Neither the Decision of this
divisible penalties.Reclusion perpetua is an Court in Mateo nor the abolition of the death penalty
indivisible penalty, with no minimum or maximum has changed this.As the penalty imposed by the trial
period.Under section 5 of the Indeterminate court and the Court of Appeals in the case at bar is
Sentence Law, it is after any prisoner shall have reclusion perpetua, the review by this Court is not
served the minimum penalty imposed on him, that mandatory and, therefore, the accused-appellants can
the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider validly withdraw their appeal.
whether such prisoner may be granted The granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal is
parole.There being no minimum penalty imposable addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.In the
on those convicted to reclusion perpetua, it follows case at bar, we see no reason to deny accused-
Republic of the Philippines MAG-INGAT sa mga lasing na pasahero. Sila'y convicting accused-appellant Conrado Glino of
SUPREME COURT mapanganib. Ang kausapin o sabihan lamang sila murder and attempted murder for the senseless killing
Manila na umupo nang maayos ay maaari mong ikasawi. of Domingo Boji and the stabbing of his wife, Virginia
THIRD DIVISION Ganito ang sinapit ng isa sa dalawang biktima sa Boji.
G.R. No. 173793 December 4, 2007 kasong ito. The Facts
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Ang kasalukuyang batas ay nagbabawal at On November 15, 1998, at around 7:20 p.m., in
vs. CONRADO M. GLINO, accused-appellant. nagpaparusa lamang sa pagmamaneho ng lasing. Moonwalk, Las Piñas City, husband and wife
DECISION Walang batas na nagbabawal sa taong lasing na Domingo and Virginia Boji hailed a passenger
REYES, R.T., J.: sumakay sa pampublikong sasakyan, o sa drayber jeepney bound for Alabang-Zapote Road. The couple
BEWARE of drunk passengers. They pose danger na payagan ang taong sa kilos ay lasing na sat on the two remaining vacant seats on opposing
to life and limb. Merely talking to them or telling them sumakay sa pampublikong sasakyan. rows of the jeepney. Virginia seated herself on the
to sit properly can be fatal, as what happened to one Ang pasaherong lasing o sino man na nasa vehicle's left side while Domingo occupied the vacant
of two victims in the case at bar. impluwensya ng alak o droga ay may dalang seat at the right row.7
The present law prohibits and punishes only drunk panganib sa ibang pasahero. Malamang na sila ay Moments later, the woman seated next to Virginia
1
driving. There is no law banning a drunk person from kumilos nang walang katwiran o manakit dahil sa alighted. Accused-appellant Conrado Glino took her
riding a public vehicle, or the latter's driver from kabawasan ng pagwawari o pagpipigil sa sarili. place. He was reeking of liquor. As the jeepney ran its
allowing a person who appears to be drunk to board a Maiiwasan ang walang kabuluhang pagkitil ng normal route, Virginia noticed accused-appellant
2
public conveyance. buhay at pagkapinsala, at ang mga namamasahe inching closer to her. His head eventually found its
A drunk passenger or one under the influence of ay mapangangalagaan laban sa panganib, kung way on Virginia's shoulder. Irked, Virginia sought
liquor or drug poses a veritable peril to the other ito'y mabibigyan ng karampatang lunas. accused-appellant's attention and asked him to sit
passengers. He is prone to react irrationally and Tungkulin ng hukuman, kung alam nito na ang properly, citing adequate space. Accused-appellant
violently, due to lack or diminution of self-control. isang gawa ay marapat supilin at hindi pa angrily replied, "Oh, kung ayaw mong may katabi,
Senseless loss of lives and physical harm can be ipinagbabawal ng batas, na ipagbigay-alam sa bumaba ka, at magtaxi ka!" Virginia decided to ignore
avoided, and the riding public duly protected, if the Pangulo, sa pamamagitan ng Kagawaran ng his snide remarks. She then turned her back on him.8
potential danger posed by drunk passengers can be Katarungan, ang mga dahilan na pinaniniwalaan ng Accused-appellant, however, persisted in violating
addressed properly. hukuman kung bakit ang nasabing gawa ay dapat Virginia's personal space, leaning on the latter's
It is the duty of the court, whenever it has maging layon ng pagsasabatas. Ipinapaubaya shoulders. It was at this point that Domingo decided
knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to namin sa kinauukulang maykapangyarihan kung to tell Glino to sit properly. Accused-appellant
repress and which is not punishable by law, to report ano ang dapat gawin. arrogantly retorted, "Anong pakialam mo?" Domingo
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Before the Court is an appeal under Rule 124, reasoned out that he is Virginia's husband. Domingo
4
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe Section 13(c) of the 2000 Rules on Criminal further said, "Kasi lalasing-lasing ka, hindi mo naman
that said act should be made the subject of Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, kaya!"9
legislation.3 We leave it to the authorities concerned from the Judgment5 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Marvin Baloes, who, it turned out, was Glino's
6
to do the needful as they see fit. affirming in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial equally drunk companion, cursed Domingo. Baloes
Court (RTC) in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, then provokingly asked the latter, "Anong gusto mo?"
Domingo replied, "Wala akong sinabing masama."10 they were able to pin Baloes and Glino to the ground. named accused, conspiring and confederating
After the heated verbal tussle, accused-appellant and They later turned the two suspects over to the police, together, acting in common accord and mutually
Baloes appeared to have calmed down, confining who arrived shortly thereafter.16 helping and aiding each other, with intent to kill,
11
themselves to whispering to one another. Subsequently, Virginia and Domingo were brought with treachery and evident premeditation, and
When the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, to the University of Perpetual Help, Rizal Medical without any justifiable cause, did then and there
Baloes turned to the driver and told him that he and Center in Las Piñas City. Domingo was, however, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
Glino were about to alight. As the jeepney ground to a pronounced dead after a few minutes. Domingo's and stab with bladed weapons one Virginia Boji y
17
halt, Baloes unexpectedly drew an improvised knife chest wound proved mortal. Revillas, suddenly and without warning, thereby
12
and stabbed Domingo in the chest. Accused- On November 18, 1998, accused-appellant Glino commencing the commission of murder directly by
18
appellant then unfolded a 29-inch Batangas knife and Baloes were indicted for murder for the death of overt acts but did not perform all the acts of
(balisong) and joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo. Domingo Boji and attempted murder19 for the stabbing execution which would produce the crime of murder
Surprised and shocked at the sudden attack, of Virginia Boji. The accusatory part of the Information as a consequence by reason of some cause or
Domingo failed to offer any form of resistance to the for murder reads: accident other than their own spontaneous
duo's vicious assault. In all, Domingo sustained nine Criminal Case No. 98-1310: desistance, that is, because the injury inflicted to
13
stab wounds throughout his body. That on or about the 15th day of November 1998, in Virginia Boji y Revillas was not sufficient to cause
Virginia tried vainly to shield Domingo from his the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the her death.
assailants. She tightly embraced Domingo. Virginia's jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- CONTRARY TO LAW.21
efforts, however, all went for naught as accused- named accused, conspiring and confederating On June 15, 1999, accused Marvin Baloes
appellant Glino and Baloes were unrelenting. When together and both of them mutually helping and succumbed to cardio-pulmonary arrest while on
the senseless assault ceased, Virginia found herself aiding each other, with intent to kill by means of detention.22 Consequently, his name was dropped
bloodied from incised wounds in her fingers.14 treachery and evident premeditation and without from the information. Pre-trial commenced with
The other passengers of the jeepney scampered for any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, respect only to accused-appellant Glino. Thereafter,
the nearest exit immediately after the first blow was unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab trial ensued.
struck. Some of them had to resort to jumping from with bladed weapons one Domingo Boji y Daza, The People's evidence, which essayed the
15
the vehicle's window to avoid harm's way. suddenly and without warning hitting him on the foregoing facts, was principally supplied by Enrique
Accused-appellant Glino and Baloes attempted to different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon Villaruel, Virginia Boji, SPO2 Wilfredo
flee the scene of the crime and ran towards Camella him serious and mortal stab wounds which directly Dalawangbayan and Alvin Cristobal.
Center. Baloes, however, fell down to the ground due caused his death. Villaruel testified that he was a co-passenger of the
20
to intoxication. Glino, unmindful of his companion, CONTRARY TO LAW. spouses Boji in the jeepney where the gruesome
was able to run a distance of 45 meters before he The indictment for attempted murder bears the stabbing incident took place. Villaruel was then on his
was apprehended by traffic enforcers Alvin Cristobal following accusation: way home to Anabu I, Cavite. He witnessed the crime
and Ruben Ramirez. The two traffic aides, who were Criminal Case No. 98-1311: as it unfolded. According to him, accused-appellant
the first to respond to the crime scene, caught sight of That on or about the 15th day of November 1998, in Glino and Baloes both stabbed Domingo; that
the slow-moving jeepney and of the passengers the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the accused-appellant was armed with a Batangas knife
jumping off it. With the help of a concerned motorist, jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- while Baloes used an improvised knife; that the
improvised knife was left on the floor of the jeepney clothes, later identified as Baloes, ran away from the Baloes stabbed the person in his body, started at
as accused-appellant and Baloes fled the scene of vehicle but fell to the ground shortly after. Another the chest, stomach and other parts of the body. He
the crime.23 man, accused-appellant Glino, was able to run for did not know how many times Baloes stabbed the
Virginia narrated that she distinctly saw Baloes stab more than five minutes before they caught up with victim. There was an argument between Baloes
30
Domingo in the chest area. Glino was blocking her him. He and Ramirez later executed a Pinagsamang and the wife of the victim prior to the stabbing
31
path, preventing her from giving aid to her husband. Sinumpaang Salaysay. incident. They had an argument for a short period
When Domingo was about to fall down from where he Upon the other hand, the trial court summed up of time which he did not know what it was about.
was seated, she embraced him. As she was holding accused-appellant's defense, anchored on plain They were at the vicinity near Uniwide when the
Domingo, a knife was thrusted into her, wounding her denial, in the following tenor: argument started. He would not know how long the
24
in the hands. The evidence for the defense consists mainly of the argument lasted and would not recall the
On cross-examination, she disclosed she did not lone testimony of accused Conrado Glino, who statements of the lady. He said they were having an
see who between accused-appellant and Baloes testified that he is the same accused in this case for argument because the lady seating beside Baloes
caused her wounds; that she saw accused-appellant murder. He did not know the other accused Marvin and after that lady was only a passenger away from
Glino stab her husband; that they met accused- Baloes prior to November 15, 1998 whom he knew him. Victim said to Baloes while pointing his finger
25
appellant and Baloes only in the jeepney. only at the UI for the first time. On November 15, "Tumigil ka dyan, susuntukin kita." Then Baloes
SPO2 Dalawangbayan testified that he was the 1998, at around 7:20 in the evening, he was inside suddenly drew a bladed weapon and stabbed him.
investigator assigned to handle the case involving the passenger jeepney which he boarded at Together with other passengers, they alighted from
accused-appellant and Baloes. The two suspects Equitable, Las Piñas City near Moonwalk to go the vehicle because he was afraid. He waited for
were turned over to him by traffic aides Cristobal and home at Imus, Cavite. He did not have any another passenger jeep so he could go home. He
Ramirez. Likewise turned over to him was a bladed companion. He rode on a passenger jeep bound to was not able to go home because he was arrested
weapon, a 12-inch improvised knife, confiscated from Zapote. He could not recall the number of people by the police. He could not estimate how many
26
the person of Baloes. inside the jeepney because the seats were all minutes lapsed after he was able to go down that
At the hospital, he found Domingo in critical occupied. He occupied the right side seat of the jeep when he was arrested as he had no wrist
condition. He later learned that the victim expired driver at the middle of the seat on the right side. watch, but that was for a short period of time.
shortly after his visit. Virginia suffered from incised Then he saw the victim was stabbed by accused Ramirez, the not so tall police officer, arrested them
27
wounds in her right hand. After concluding his Baloes. He knew the name of Baloes while they and they were brought to the UI after he and Baloes
investigation, he prepared a report.28 were detained at the UI. He did not know who was were immediately handcuffed using only 1
Cristobal narrated that he is a traffic aide assigned stabbed. The stabbing took place between the handcuff. Baloes hurriedly went down and ran away
at the Casimiro and BF Resort intersection in Las areas of Casimiro and Uniwide. The person after the incident, going back towards Moonwalk.
Piñas City. On the night in question, he noticed a stabbed died. He was there watching while the He was not arrested at the same place where
slow-moving passenger jeepney creeping onto the person was being stabbed by Baloes who was Baloes was arrested. He denied the testimony of
sidewalk. Moments later, the jeepney's passengers seated also at the right side inside the jeep but Mrs. Boji that he and Baloes had an argument
29
were jumping out of its windows. seated at the rear most portion of the jeep. The inside the jeepney they were riding regarding some
Suspecting a robbery, he and his partner Ramirez person stabbed seated at the left seat inside the space and requested that he move a bit which
immediately gave chase. A man with bloodied jeep and seating also at the rear portion of the jeep. caused the commotion resulting to this incident.
While they were having an argument, he was He admitted that among the passengers, only he Dalawangbayan to enter his statement in the
seated inside the jeep and he just looked at them. and Baloes were arrested by the police officers blotter. Before he was transferred to the city jail of
He denied having argued with Mrs. Boji and said because he was pointed to by the witness as the Las Piñas City, he was brought to the City
that none argued with him. He knows that Baloes assailant of Domingo Boji. Until the time of hearing, Prosecutor's Office for inquest (TSN, 22 September
died already (TSN, 1 September 2004). no one among the jeepney passengers were 2004).32
On cross-examination, he declared that his arrested for the death of Domingo and injury RTC and CA Dispositions
complete name is Conrado Montes Glino. Her inflicted to Virginia Boji. His co-accused, in this On November 22, 2004, the RTC handed down a
mother's name is Juliana Montes Glino. He denied case, Marvin Baloes is already dead. He has no judgment of conviction, disposing as follows:
knowing the middle name of co-accused Marvin, other co-accused except Baloes. He came to know WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused
Montes Baloes. Shown a copy of the Information her before she took the witness stand and positively Conrado M. Glino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
where it appeared that the middle name of Marvin identified him as the assailant. When he was of Murder and Attempted Murder and hereby
Baloes is also Montes, he agreed that the middle arrested by the police officers, he shouted why they sentenced as follows:
name is Montes. His place of residence is arrested him and the police said that he had to go 1. In Criminal Case No. 98-1310, to suffer the
Malagasan 1st, Imus, Cavite. Baloes did not tell him with them and just explain at the police precinct. He penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and its accessory
while they were under the custody of the police that did not resist when the police officers arrested him. penalty and indemnify the heirs of Domingo Boji y
he is also a resident of Malagasan 1st, Imus, He was forced to go with them because they Daza the sum of P50,000.00;
Cavite. He did not ask Baloes where he was from handcuffed him. He was waiting for a ride as he 2. Criminal Case No. 98-1311, to suffer an
while they were together at the UI. But he admitted would transfer to another jeepney in going home. It indeterminate prison term of 4 years and 2 months
that on November 15, 1998, at around 7:20 in the was PO Ramirez who arrested him. He did not file a of prision correccional medium as minimum, to 8
evening, he and Baloes were on board one and the case against Ramirez for arresting him without a years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as
same jeepney bound for Zapote; that while the jeep valid reason because he was at the detention cell maximum and to suffer the accessory penalty
was near Uniwide Metro Mall, there was an nor seek for help in filing a case against Ramirez provided for by law and pay Virginia Boji y Revillas
untoward incident that took place inside the jeep; because he did not know how as that was the first the sum of P101,549.00 actual damages and the
that in that incident, a certain Domingo Boji was time he had a case. He had plan to file the case sum of P100,000.00 moral damages;
stabbed to death. He did not know that Virginia Boji against Ramirez who brought him at the UI before 3. And to pay the costs in both cases.
was also stabbed and wounded. He would not PO1 Dalawangbayan. They were not investigated SO ORDERED.33
know how many the passengers were in that nor interrogated. He stayed at the UI for one week, Accused-appellant elevated his conviction to the
jeepney as he failed to count, but there were many then he was transferred at the Las Piñas City jail. CA by way of an intermediate review, conformably
passengers. Both seats at the back were occupied He told the police investigator, PO1 with the ruling in People v. Mateo.34 On May 26, 2006,
by passengers, but he did not notice if the seat in Dalawangbayan, that it was Baloes who stabbed the CA affirmed the RTC judgment in full. The fallo of
front of the jeepney was also occupied. There was and killed Domingo Boji but that was not included in the CA decision reads:
a commotion when Domingo was stabbed. He the incident. PO1 Dalawangbayan did not do WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
immediately alighted the vehicle because he was anything when he told him that he was not included decision dated November 22, 2004 of the Regional
afraid and waited for another jeepney to transfer to in the stabbing incident because the one who was Trial Court, Branch 275, Las Piñas City in Criminal
another bound to Zapote. talking only was Virginia Boji. He did not ask PO1
Cases Nos. 98-1310 and 98-1311 is hereby Accused-appellant makes capital of Virginia's Q: And then, what else happened after that, if you
AFFIRMED. identification of Baloes as the person who stabbed remember?
SO ORDERED.35 her husband, Domingo. According to him, the trial A: When we are already traveled a short distance,
Issues court gravely erred in rejecting his defense that he one of the passenger alighted, sitted (sic) on the left
Undaunted, accused-appellant interposed the was an innocent bystander. He insists he was not side.
present recourse. acquainted with Baloes. They met each other only Q: And, what happened next, after you are able to
On September 13, 2006, We resolved to require the when they were both tagged by the police as the take a sit inside the passenger jeepney. After one
parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, persons responsible for the melee. of the passenger alighted?
if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. We are unconvinced. The witnesses for the People A: After a while, another passenger alighted on the
In a Manifestation dated November 13, 2006, the were consistent in the identification of accused- right seat of the jeepney.
Office of the Solicitor General, for plaintiff-appellee, appellant as one of two assailants who mortally Q: What else happened after another passenger
opted to dispense with the filing of a supplemental stabbed Domingo. Villaruel, a key eyewitness for the alighted from the said jeepney?
brief. Accused-appellant, through the Public prosecution, testified thus: A: And then, that is the time that I noticed that the
Attorney's Office, hoists the same lone error he raised Q: Mr. Witness, at about seven-twenty in the two male persons moved closely to the woman,
before the appellate court, viz.: evening of November 15, 1998, do you remember who is sitted in front of me.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN where you were then? Q: And then, what happened next, after you noticed
RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION A: Yes, Sir. two men moved closely to a woman, in front of
DESPITE THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S Q: Where were you at that time? yours?
ADMISSION THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT A: I was at the corner of Angela Village in Alabang, A: One of the male passengers, who moved closely
DID NOT STAB HER HUSBAND AND THAT SHE Zapote Road waiting for a ride. to the woman, little bit lay down his head on the
DID NOT SEE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT Q: While you are waiting there, waiting for a ride at shoulder of the woman.
36
STABBED HER. the said place, do you remember what happened Q: And, what the woman do after this male
In his supplemental brief, accused-appellant next, if any? passenger lay down his head on the shoulder of the
contends that the identity of the assailant was not A: So when I was able to take a ride a jeepney in woman?
firmly established. The evidence, he argues, points to the road going to Baclaran, that is the time that I A: I saw that the woman is avoiding the male
Baloes, who died even before the trial began, as the witness the incident. passenger, and one of my seatmates on my right
perpetrator of Domingo's killing and Virginia's Q: And then, by the way, where were you going at side spoke and asked the male passenger to sit
stabbing. In the alternative, accused-appellant that time, Mr. Witness? properly.
submits that he is guilty of homicide and attempted A: I was on my way going on at Anabu I, Cavite. Q: And what did this male passenger do after the
homicide only, not murder and attempted murder, due Q: Mr. Witness, after you took a ride in a passenger man sitted before you told him to sit properly?
to the absence of the qualifying circumstance of jeepney going to on your way home, do you A: He answered and said "ANONG PAKIALAM
37
treachery. remember what happened next, if any? MO!"
Our Ruling A: When I boarded the jeepney, the jeepney has no Q: And what was the reaction of the man sitted
We first tackle the conviction for murder. vacancy, so I just hang-on at the back of the beside you, when the male passenger said
Positive Identification jeepney. "ANONG PAKIALAM MO!"?
A: And that, and he answered that because that Q: Madam Witness, at about seven-twenty in the Q: And how about on your left side, do you know
woman were you lying is my wife. evening of November 15, 1998, do you remember who was sitting?
Q: And what did the male passenger do after the where you were then? A: A lady also, Sir.
said man introduced himself as the husband of the A: Yes, Sir. Q: And what else happened after that?
female passenger? Q: Where were you at that time? A: And then, after a while, the lady on my right side
A: "NAGMURA PO." A: We were at Moonwalk. alighted.
Q: What else happened after the male passenger Q: You said we, who are your companions at that Q: And then, what happened next, after the lady
coursed him? time? sitting on your right side alighted from the jeepney?
A: And then the other male passenger who moved A: My husband, Sir. A: Suddenly, who is drunk get near to me.
closely to the woman told that "KASI, LALASING- Q: Who is your husband? Q: And how did you come to know that this man,
LASING KA HINDI MO NAMAN KAYA." A: Domingo Boji, Sir. who went near beside you, was drunk?
Q: And what else happened after that? Q: Why were you there at the said place during that A: Because he smells liquor.
A: The man sitted beside me thought that it was particular date and time with your husband? Q: And then what happened next after this man,
already okay, but it is not, because the two male A: We bought fish. you claimed drunk, seated beside you?
persons, who moved closely to the woman, were Q: And, after you bought fish, do you remember A: And then he leaned on my shoulder.
companions, were together and one of them asked what happened next, if any? Q: And what did you do after this man on your
to alight from the vehicle. A: And then after that my husband stopped a shoulder?
Q: And what happened next after one of the two jeepney bound to Alabang Zapote. A: I asked him to move away, considering that there
male persons, who moved closely to the woman, Q: What happened next, after your husband is still a space.
told to alight? stopped a passenger jeepney bound for Zapote? Q: And what was the reaction of this man?
A: Now, we thought that they are going to alight A: Then we boarded a jeepney, with one vacant A: He got mad at me and he said "OH, KUNG
from the vehicle but when they stood up, they seat on the right and one on the left. AYAW MONG MAY KATABI, BUMABA KA, AT
talked to one another and suddenly stabbed the Q: And where did you seat when you boarded a MAG-TAXI KA."
male passenger, sitted beside me. passenger jeepney? Q: And what did you do after this man got mad at
Q: Who among these two male passengers A: On the left side, Sir. you and ordered you to alight from the said
stabbed the man sitted beside you? Q: And how about your husband, where did he jeepney?
A: The one who stabbed is the one who pacified the seat? A: So I turned my back to him.
incident that happened before and the second A: On the right side, Sir. Q: And what happened next after you turned your
stabbed was made by the other male passenger. Q: And then, while you were then on board of the back to him?
Q: How many times did these two male passengers said passenger jeepney, at that time, do you A: And again he leaned on my shoulder.
stabbed the man, who was sitted beside you? remember what happened next, if any? Q: What happened next after this man leaned again
A: I cannot count but I know it is many times.38 A: While we are on board of the jeepney and the on your shoulder?
Villaruel's account of the incident dovetails jeepney is on motion, seated on my right side is a A: And he was accosted by my husband.
significantly with that of Virginia: lady. Q: How did your husband accosted this man?
A: My husband asked him to sit properly, and he them they are going to alight the vehicle I noticed seated, so I embraced, then another stab came in
said that I am his wife. that they suddenly stabbed my husband. And the hit my hands.39
Q: And what was the reaction of this man? two persons announced "HOLDAP ITO." And when As this Court has reiterated often enough, the
A: His companion got mad. I look to them, I saw that they stabbed my husband. matter of assigning values to the testimonies of
Q: Where was the companion of the drunk man Court Interpreter: witnesses is best left to the discretion of the trial
seated, who got angry? As the witness demonstrating while it seems that judge.40 In People v. Quijada,41 the Court aptly held:
A: Beside the man, who is drunk. she was stabbed on the downward thrust and the Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial
Q: And then what else happened? husband was stabbed on the chest. court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are
Court: Q: Who are these man, you are referring to, who accorded great weight and respect. For, the trial
This man, who was leaning on your shoulder, and stabbed your husband? court has the advantage of observing the witnesses
the man, who got mad, was seated side by side? A: The one who died already, Marvin. through the different indicators of truthfulness or
A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Who was this Marvin, the one seated beside you falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted
Q: What did this companion of the man, seated or the companion of the drunk man? assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or
beside you, tell you, if any? A: The other man, Sir. the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the
A: He answered my husband and asked "what do Q: Did you notice how many times Marvin stabbed forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance,
you want." your husband? the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the
Q: And what was the reply of your husband? A: When I look again, I noticed that only once sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat,
A: My husband answered "I did not say anything because the knife is still on the chest of my the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or
wrong." husband. lack of it, the scant or full realization of the
Q: What was the reply of this companion of the man Court: solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
seated beside you? Where was your husband seated in relation to your The doctrine was reiterated with greater firmness in
A: None, Sir. seat? the ponencia of now Chief Justice Reynato Puno in
Q: What else happened, while you were there on A: In front of me, Your Honor, on the other side. People v. Ave:42
board of the said passenger jeepney? Q: And what did you do when you saw Marvin x x x It is an established rule that when it comes to
A: While we are still on board on the jeepney stabbed your husband? credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally
approaching the place of Casimiro Village, and the A: None, Sir, I am just looking to nothing. do not overturn the findings of trial courts. The latter
jeepney moves slowly, the companion of this drunk Q: And after Marvin stabbed your husband, do you are in a best position to ascertain and measure the
man asked the driver to stop because they will remember what happened next, if any? sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their
alight. A: Because Conrado is blocking me, he is in front of actual observation of the witnesses' manner of
Q: And then what happened after that, after the me, it seems that they are gambling to a knife to testifying, demeanor, and behavior in court. x x x
companion of this drunk man ordered the driver to one another. Verily, compared to appellate magistrates who
stop? Q: And then, what else happened after that? merely deal and contend with the cold and inanimate
A: When this man asked his companion, the drunk A: And then, when I looked at them again, I saw pages of the transcript of stenographic notes and the
man, to alight from the vehicle, and I am seated, that my husband seems to fall from where he was original records brought before them, the trial judge
while I am looking down and I noticed, I looked to confronts the victim or his heirs, the accused and their
respective witnesses. He personally observes their The acts of accused-appellant Glino and Baloes employed to ensure the commission of the crime
conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding before, during and after the killing of Domingo are without the concomitant risk to the aggressor. The
to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and rule is well-settled in this jurisdiction that treachery
and defense counsel. Moreover, it is also the trial concurrence of sentiment. In her testimony before the may still be appreciated even though the victim was
judge who has the opportunity to pose clarificatory trial court, Virginia categorically narrated that while forewarned of danger to his person.52 What is decisive
questions to the parties. Elsewise stated, when a trial Baloes was stabbing Domingo, accused-appellant is that the attack was executed in a manner that the
judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, Glino was blocking her path, effectively preventing her victim was rendered defenseless and unable to
47
such findings, especially if affirmed by the CA, bear from rendering aid to her husband. Accused- retaliate.53
great weight, at times even finality, on the Court.43 We appellant later joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo Concededly, victim Domingo was caught unaware
48
see no cogent reason to depart from these settled with a Batangas knife. that an attack was forthcoming. Although he had a
doctrines. Lame Denial verbal exchange with accused-appellant and Baloes,
Conspiracy Too, we sustain the RTC and the CA's rejection of the assault was sudden, swift and unexpected. All of
Even assuming, for the nonce, that it was Marvin accused-appellant's defense founded on denial. Time the passengers inside the jeepney, including
Baloes who inflicted the fatal stab, accused-appellant and again, this Court has ruled that denial is the Domingo, thought all along that the tension had
cannot escape culpability. Their obvious conspiracy is weakest of all defenses. It easily crumbles in the face ceased and that Glino and Baloes were about to
borne by the records. There is conspiracy when two of positive identification by accused as the perpetrator alight. Domingo was overpowered by accused-
49
or more persons come to an agreement concerning of the crime. Here, no less than two eyewitnesses in appellant Glino and Baloes, who took turns in
the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Villaruel and victim Virginia positively and stabbing the hapless victim. By all indications,
Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct categorically named Glino as one of the Boji couple's Domingo was without opportunity to evade the knife
evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of assailants. Their identification of accused-appellant thrusts, defend himself, or retaliate. In sum, the
accused indicating a common understanding among was unwavering, made in a simple and finding of treachery stands on solid legal footing.
44
them with respect to the commission of the offense. straightforward manner. Corollarily, they had no ill No Attempted Murder But Less Serious Physical
50
It is not necessary to show that two or more persons motive to testify falsely against Glino. Upon the other Injuries
met together and entered into an explicit agreement hand, other than his bare denial, no corroborating We now proceed to calibrate accused-appellant's
setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the evidence was put forth to substantiate accused- liability for the incised wounds sustained by Virginia.
details by which an illegal objective is to be carried appellant's disparate account of the incident. Both the trial court and the appellate court found Glino
out. Proof that accused acted in concert, each of them Treachery liable for attempted murder. The RTC and the CA are
doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the Accused-appellant next argues that he should be in agreement that there was intent to kill Virginia as
45
victim will suffice to support a conviction. In made liable for homicide only. He claims treachery did well.
conspiracy, it matters not who among the accused not attend the killing of Domingo. An essential element of murder and homicide,
actually killed the victim. The act of one is the act of That treachery or alevosia was present is whether in their consummated, frustrated or
all; hence, it is not necessary that all the participants incontrovertible. The essence of this qualifying attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the
deliver the fatal blow. Tersely put, each of the circumstance is the sudden and unexpected attack by victim immediately before or simultaneously with the
accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime the assailant on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent
committed.46 latter of any real chance to defend himself.51 It is which the prosecution must prove by direct or
circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent to shield Domingo from accused-appellant's and means to weaken the defense, or of means or
is presumed from the commission of a felony by Baloes' knife thrusts. It bears stressing that Virginia persons to insure or afford impunity;
dolo.54 embraced Domingo while the assault upon him was at There being no averment of mitigating nor
55 63
In People v. Delim, the Court had occasion to its peak. Evidently, the wound was inflicted while she aggravating circumstance that attended the killing of
explain the rudiments of proving intent to kill in crimes was in that position. Domingo, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion
against persons. It may consist in: (1) the means used The wound required medical attendance, and perpetua, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the RPC.
by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location and rendered Virginia incapable of labor, for a period of On the other hand, Article 265 of the Revised Penal
59
number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the ten (10) to thirty (30) days. Clearly, accused- Code defines and penalizes less serious physical
conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or appellant Glino should be held liable for less serious injuries in the following manner:
immediately after the killing of the victim; (4) the physical injuries only, and not attempted murder. Article 265. Less serious physical injuries. – Any
circumstances under which the crime was committed; Although the indictment was for attempted murder, person who shall inflict upon another physical
and (5) the motives of accused. If the victim dies as a a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of less serious injuries not described in the preceding articles but
result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to physical injuries is tenable, considering that the latter which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor
56 60
kill is presumed. offense is necessarily included in the former. for ten days or more, or shall require medical
In the case under review, intent to kill Virginia is The essential ingredients of physical injuries attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of
betrayed by the conduct of accused-appellant and his constitute and form part of those constituting the less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the
61
co-assailant Baloes before, at the time of, and felony of murder. Simply put, an accused may be penalty of arresto mayor.
immediately after the commission of the crime. In her convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical Again, absent any appreciable mitigating or
testimony before the trial court, Virginia disclosed that injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, aggravating circumstance, the penalty of arresto
she was shocked and was initially unable to come to inasmuch as the infliction of physical injuries could mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) should be
Domingo's succor as the first blow was struck; that as lead to any of the latter offenses when carried out to imposed in its medium period (between 2 months and
Domingo was about to fall down from where he was its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential 1 day to 4 months).64
seated, she embraced him; that she tried to shield requisite of the crime of homicide or murder – intent to The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no
him from further attacks; that when the assault kill – is not required in a prosecution for physical application in both cases. The rule is well-entrenched
57 62
ceased, her finger was gushing with blood. injuries. in this jurisdiction that the law is not applicable when
If the assailants also intended to kill her, they could Penalties the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or
have easily stabbed her in any vital part of her body. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as life imprisonment. Likewise, the law does not apply to
They did not. The nature and location of her wound amended, penalizes murder in this wise: those whose maximum term of imprisonment is less
militates against the finding of their intent to kill. Article 248. Murder. – Any person who, not falling than one year.65
According to the physician who examined her within the provision of Article 246, shall kill another, Damages
immediately after the incident, Virginia suffered from shall be guilty of Murder and shall be punished by We have arrived at the award of damages. When
an incised wound measuring 2.5 centimeters by 0.2 reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of death results due to a crime, the heirs of the victim
58
centimeter in her fifth digit, right hand. the following attendant circumstances: are entitled to the following damages: (1) civil
Gleaned from the foregoing, it is crystal-clear that 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior indemnity; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3)
the wound on Virginia was inflicted during her attempt strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P101,549.00 as actual One night sometime in 1995, AAA was inside their
66
temperate damages. damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and house with the appellant, together with her younger
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. brothers and sisters, while BBB was out as she went
heirs of the murder victim without need of further In Criminal Case No. 98-1311, accused-appellant is to harvest coffee at Calakkad, Tabuk.Appellant then
67
proof. Under current jurisprudence, the award of likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of went inside the room where all of the children were
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto is in order. Less Serious Physical Injuries for wounding Virginia sleeping; approached the place where AAA was lying
We sustain the award of actual damages in the Boji and he is sentenced to suffer the straight penalty down; removed her panty; kissed her; brought out his
amount of P101,549.00. The heirs of the victim of four (4) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the male organ; placed his penis inside her vagina; then
Domingo were able to prove during the trial, with victim the sums of P10,000.00 as moral damages and made the push and pull movement, after which AAA
proper receipts, that they incurred the said expense. another P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. felt that there was liquid coming out of his penis.She
The trial court and the CA, however, blundered a bit SO ORDERED. was then in pain and her private part bled.She could
in awarding P100,000.00 as moral damages. Republic of the Philippines not offer resistance at that time because the appellant
Prevailing jurisprudence dictates that in murder, an SUPREME COURT threatened to kill her if she would report the
award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 Manila incident.Immediately after satisfying his lustful desire,
68
is sufficient. For the less serious physical injuries Republic of the Philippines appellant put on AAAs panty.Unsatisfied, he repeated
inflicted on Virginia Boji, moral damages in the sum of Supreme Court the incident several times, always when BBB was
69
P10,000.00 is warranted. THIRD DIVISION out.The last incident took place on May 27, 1997.
The heirs of the victim Domingo Boji are likewise G.R. No. 168650 October 26, 2007 AAA did not reveal her gruesome experience to
entitled to an additional award of P25,000.00 by way PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee anybody not even to her mother BBB, because of her
of exemplary damages since the People clearly -versus – JOSE TUAZON, Appellant fear that the appellant would make good his promise
70
established treachery in the prosecution for murder. DECISION of killing her if she would report the incident.
Exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 NACHURA, J.: Sometime in May 1997, AAAs grandmother CCC,
should also be awarded to Virginia Boji in the AAA is the daughter of BBB by her first marriage. invited her to sleep in the latters house but she was
71
separate conviction for less serious physical injuries. After the death of AAAs father, BBB contracted prevented by the appellant.The next day, CCC went
When a crime is committed with an aggravating marriage with the appellant, Jose Tuazon; they then to the house of the appellant and inquired why AAA
circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of lived together as husband and wife, together with the did not sleep at her house.Instead of answering CCC,
exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of formers children. AAA started crying.When CCC asked why, she
72
the New Civil Code. Instead of guarding his stepchildren/children answered that she was raped.It was then that she
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is against wrongful acts of strangers, the appellant revealed her ordeal at the hands of the appellant.
MODIFIED in that, in Criminal Case No. 98-1310, committed lustful acts against one of them, by CCC thereafter reported the matter to AAAs uncle
accused-appellant Conrado Glino is found GUILTY repeatedly abusing AAA.The first of this series of acts who, in turn, reported it to BBBs brothers. Together,
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder for the killing of was committed in 1995 while AAA was still in Grade they reported the incident to the Municipal Hall of
Domingo Boji and is hereby sentenced to reclusion V.She was at that time 11 years old, having been XXX, Isabela.
perpetua with its accessory penalties. He is ordered born on November 14, 1984 as shown in her On May 29, 1997, AAA submitted herself to medical
to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amounts of certificate of live birth. examination by Dr. Alpha Dulig (Dr. Dulig), Rural
Health Physician of XXX, Isabela, who subsequently force, intimidation and with lewd designs, did then PERPETUA for each count of rape and to pay the
issued a medical certificate, the pertinent portion of and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as
which reads: with and have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a damages for each offense and additional Seventy-
GENITALIA girl of 12 years of age, against her will and consent. five (sic) (P75,000.00) Pesos as civil damages or a
Pubic hairs:few(,) fine, short hair CONTRARY TO LAW. total of One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand
Labia Majora:reddish and swollen That on or about the year 1995, in in (sic) the (P25,000.00) Pesos for each count following
Labia Minora:reddish and swollen municipality of XXX, province of Isabela, prevailing jurisprudence, with all the necessary
Fourchete:healed laceration, not coaptated Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this penalties provided for by law, and to pay the costs.
Vestibules:reddish Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of SO ORDERED.
Hymen:absent force, intimidation and with lewd design, did then
Orifice:Accepts 2 finger (sic) withease (sic) and and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay The records of this case were originally forwarded
without with and have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a to this Court by the RTC in view of the notice of
pain girl below 12 years of age, against her will and appeal filed by the appellant. After the parties
Vagina: consent. submitted their respective briefs, conformably with our
Walls: reddish, CONTRARY TO LAW. Decision in People v. Mateo, we transferred this case
Rugosities: rough Appellant pleaded Not Guilty to both charges. and its records to the Court of Appeals (CA) in a
Uteros (sic):palpable; small Accordingly, joint trial ensued. Resolution dated August 30, 2004 for appropriate
Cervix:soft close, reddish For his part, appellant denied the charges imputed action and disposition.
Discharge:none against him.He testified that they were fabricated by In his Brief, appellant raised the following as errors
Thereafter, AAA and CCC executed their respective AAAs paternal grandmother, CCC, who was angry at of the RTC:
sworn statements before the XXX police. him because of his marriage to BBB. I.
Subsequently, AAA filed a complaint dated May 30, The defense likewise presented BBB who testified THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
th
1997, with the 12 Municipal Circuit Trial Court that she did not know of anyone who opposed her GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
(MCTC) of XXX, Province of Isabela. relationship with the accused but she did not answer UNBELIEVABLE AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY
After the requisite preliminary investigation, on when asked if her in-laws opposed such OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, AAA.
January 28, 1998, two separate Informations for rape marriage.She likewise testified that she did not have II
were filed against the appellant before the Regional personal knowledge that the appellant abused her THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A
Trial Court of Roxas (RTC).The cases were docketed daughter AAA. REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING
as Criminal Cases Nos. 23-829 and 23-830.The After trial, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision dated ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF
respective accusatory portions of the foregoing December 6, 2000, finding the appellant guilty of the RAPE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.23-829.
informations are as follows: offenses charged.The fallo reads: III
th
That on or about the 27 day of May, 1997, in the WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
municipality of XXX, province of Isabela, any iota of doubt, of the offenses as charged in FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this both informations above-quoted, the court hereby APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23(-)830
Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of sentences the accused to RECLUSION
HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE Sometime in 1995 Q:After you have feel (sic) that there was a liquid
DOUBT. (Criminal Case No. 23-830) coming out from his penis, what else happened?
On April 21, 2005, the CA rendered the assailed Q:If that is the case tell all what happened to you A:After he finished, sir, he put on my panty.
Decision: that first night? 2nd Incident of Rape
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is A: That night he went to our room, he make (sic) May 27, 1997
hereby DENIED.The assailed decision of the me naked then he raped me, sir. (Criminal Case No. 23-829)
Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela Q:Did he kiss you? Q:On May 27, 1997, will you describe how he raped
dated December 6, 2000 is hereby AFFIRMED. A:Yes, sir. you for the last time?What did he do?
SO ORDERED. Q:When he kissed you, did he bring (sic) his male A:He went again in our room where we were lying
Hence, the present appeal. organ? down, then he made me naked, and told me that if I
The Court stresses that conviction or acquittal in a A: Yes, sir. will report the matter he will kill me, sir.
rape case more often than not depends almost xxxx Q:After removing your clothes, and you were
entirely on the credibility of the complainants Q:When he brought out his penis, what did he do? already naked, what did he do?
testimony because of the very nature of this crime.It is A:He had sexual intercourse with me, sir. A:He abused me again, sir.
usually the victim who alone can testify as to its Q:Did he place his penis into your vagina? Q:How did he abuse you?
occurrence.In rape cases, the accused may be A:Yes, sir. A:When I was already naked he had sexual
convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the Q:Will you tell the Court if his penis penetrated in intercourse with me, sir.
victim, provided that such testimony is credible, your private parts? Q:Did he go on top of you after he made you
natural, convincing and consistent with human nature A:Yes, sir. naked?
and the normal course of things.The credibility given Q: After the insertion of his penis into your vagina, A:Yes, sir.
by the trial court to the rape victim is an important what did he do? Q:Did he kiss you before he place (sic) his penis
aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on A:He told me that whenever I will report the matter inside your vagina?
because of its unique opportunity to observe the he would kill me, sir. A:Yes, sir.
witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and Q:When his penis was inside your vagina, did you Q:Did he kiss your breast?
attitude during direct and cross-examination by ever feel any liquid coming out from his penis? A:No, sir.
counsel.Absent any showing that the trial judge Atty. Lamorena: Objection, Your Honor. Q:When his penis entered into your private parts,
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts A:There was, sir. did you feel anything?
and circumstances of weight which would affect the xxxx A:There was, sir.
result of the case, his assessment of credibility Q:Did you notice if he made the push and pull Q:Did you still feel pain while according to you you
deserves the appellate courts highest respect. movement? had so many sexual intercourse with him?
We agree with the conclusion of the RTC, as A:Yes, sir. A:Yes, sir, I felt pain because it was long time ago
affirmed by the CA, that the testimony of AAA was Q:And did he kiss you while he was making that already.We went to Dagupan to earn for a living
direct, unequivocal and consistent, and thus deserves movement? there for harvesting palay then Jose Tuazon came
full faith and credit.She testified: A:Yes, sir. and fetched me, sir.
1st Incident of Rape
Q:And you did not protest when he placed his penis Moreover, the testimony of AAA was corroborated who were with them inside the room were even
inside your vagina? by Dr. Duligs medical report and testimony that when younger than her.They did not have the slightest idea
A:No, sir, because he told me that he will kill me, she conducted the medical examination on the person of what was happening nor even had a suspicion that
sir. of AAA, her orifice accepted two fingers with ease and appellant was committing a crime against their sister
Q:And did he make the same movement as he without pain which means that there had been because of their innocence brought about by their
made before? multiple penetration on the vaginal orifice.She young age.
A:Yes, sir. likewise claimed that there was no more hymen at the Second, appellant claims that the evidence for the
Q:Did he go on top of you? time she conducted the examination.She further prosecution failed to show that the room where the
A:Yes, sir. testified that the labia minora in AAAs vagina were rape was committed was properly illuminated
Q:Did he spread your legs? still swollen which means that she was sexually considering that the incident took place at
A:Yes, sir. abused one or two days prior to the examination.The nighttime.Otherwise, it would have been impossible
Q:He did not put pillow under your buttocks? Court held that when the testimony of a rape victim is for AAA to properly identify the assailant.
A:No, sir. consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis During rape incidents, the offender and the victim
xxxx exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential are as close to each other as is physically possible.In
Q:How about Jose Tuazon whenever he commits requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been truth, a man and a woman cannot be physically closer
or makes sexual intercourse with you, did he also established. to each other than during a sexual act.Moreover, per
remove his clothes? We now come to the specific defenses set forth by testimony of AAA, while appellant was performing the
A:He removed only his brief, sir. appellant in his brief in his attempt to seek the lustful act, he threatened to kill her.As such, she
Q:Can you tell the Honorable Court how long did reversal of his conviction. heard the voice of her assailant.Identification of an
Jose Tuazon make that sexual intercourse with First, he avers that rape could not have been accused by his voice has also been accepted
you? committed inside a room where AAA and her younger particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the
A:A little bit long, sir. brothers and sisters were sleeping, otherwise, it witnesses have known the malefactor personally for
Q:Around three (3) minutes or five (5) minutes? would have aroused their attention. so long and so intimately.Considering that appellant
A:Around five (5) minutes, sir. We do not agree. and AAA lived together in one house, and the former
The above testimony of AAA says We have held in a number of cases that lust is no repeatedly abused her, she is undoubtedly familiar
everything.Jurisprudence has recognized the inbred respecter of time and place.Rape can be committed not only with his physical features but also with his
modesty of a Filipina, especially a young child, who even in places where people congregate, in parks voice.Not surprisingly therefore, she readily and
would be unwilling to allow examination of her private along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house positively identified appellant in court during the trial
parts, suffer the humiliation of a public trial, endure where there are other occupants, in the same room as the man who raped her.
the ordeal of recounting the details of an assault on where other members of the family are also sleeping, Third, appellant questions the act of AAA in
her dignity unless her purpose is to bring the and even in places which to many, would appear belatedly reporting the incident.He goes on by saying
perpetrator to the bar of justice and avenge her unlikely and high risk venues for its that the period from 1995 until 1997 is so long such
honor.Testimonies of rape victims who are young and commission.Besides, there is no rule that rape can be that she had the chance to report it as there were
immature demand full credence. committed only in seclusion.This is especially true in times when appellant was not by her side.He likewise
the present case as the brothers and sisters of AAA questions the failure of AAA to report the incident to
her mother.He avers that it is contrary to human rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape
experience that an adolescent could actually keep to assailant.Because of AAAs youthfulness, coupled pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
herself such a traumatic experience for a long time. with the fact that the assailant is her stepfather, it was amended by Section 11, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659
The Court has acknowledged in several cases that easy for her to believe that appellant would make which provides:
the hesitance of the victim in reporting the crime to good his threat to kill her should she resist. Article 335.When and how rape is committed. Rape
the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a Lastly, in his attempt to impute ill motive on the part is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
fabricated charge.This is especially true where the of AAA, appellant claims that the case was filed due woman under any of the following circumstances:
delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled to the malicious instruction of her grandmother CCC 1. By using force or intimidation;
by the threats of bodily harm made by a person who who strongly opposed his marriage to BBB. 2. xxx
exercises moral ascendancy over the victim.Neither It is unnatural for a parent (or grandparent) to use 3. When the woman is under 12 years of age or is
can appellant find refuge in AAAs failure to promptly her offspring as an instrument of malice, especially if demented.
report the sexual assault to her relatives especially it will subject a daughter (or granddaughter) to The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
her mother.This applies with greater force in the embarrassment and even stigma.It is highly perpetua.
present case where the offended party was barely 11 inconceivable that a mother (grandmother) would Moreover, appellant shall not be eligible for parole
years old at the time of the first rape incident and willfully and deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.Section
more or less 13 years old at the time of the last her young daughter (granddaughter) and put into her 2 thereof provides that the law shall not apply to
incident, and was therefore susceptible to intimidation lips the lewd description of a carnal act to justify a persons convicted of offenses punished with death
and threats to physical harm. personal grudge or anger against the appellant.This penalty or life imprisonment.Although the law makes
Fourth, appellant insists that he should be acquitted Court cannot give weight to the bare assertion of no reference to persons convicted to suffer the
because the prosecution failed to prove that he appellant without sufficient evidence to prove the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as the appellant
employed force in fulfilling his lustful act and because same. herein, the Court has consistently held that the
of the admission made by AAA that she did not resist In view of the foregoing, we find appellants defense Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise does not apply
the sexual assault. of denial to be unavailing in the face of the positive to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape and credible testimony of the prosecution As to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who witnesses.His guilt has been proved beyond same.The RTC awarded P50,000.00 as damages and
submits against her will to the rapists lust because of reasonable doubt. P75,000.00 as civil damages.This Court affirms the
fear for her life or personal safety.The force, violence The trial court correctly convicted appellant of award of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral
or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending statutory rape for the crime committed in 1995 and damages instead of damages, and reduces the
not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties simple rape for that committed on May amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each count
but also on their relationship with each other.A 27,1997.Private complainant was born on November as civil indemnity instead of civil damages.This is
woman of such young age like AAAcan only cower in 14, 1984.She was, accordingly, eleven years old in pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in the
fear and yield into submission.Rape is nothing more 1995 when the first incident of rape took cases of People v. Bascugin, People v. Tolentino,
than a conscious process of intimidation by which a place.However, in 1997, she was already more than People v.Espinosa, and People v. Rote.Furthermore,
man keeps a woman in a state of fear and 12 years old, thus appellant is liable for simple as held in People v. Malones, this is not the first time
humiliation.Thus, it is not impossible for a victim of rape.Appellant was, therefore, correctly meted the that a child has been snatched from the cradle of
innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnapped P50,000.00 and for the release of Ador.Apparently
appetite.To curb this disturbing trend, appellant for ransom one Libertador F. Vidal @ Ador, while failing in the negotiation, appellants group forcibly
should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages the latter was in the aforesaid place and was abducted Ador and took him to a mountain.
which is pegged at P25,000.00 for each count of rape. forcibly taken away to Sitio Tuoyan, Barangay After a week, or on April 4, 1992, heeding the
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Balao, Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro where the earlier instruction of the bandits, Marilou Vidal,
Appeals dated April 21, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. said accused with intent to kill, with treachery and Adors wife, with Rodrigo Alcantara and Lando
00002, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.The evident premeditation and abuse of superior Mendoza, delivered the ransom money to
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of strength, killed the said victim Libertador F. Vidal appellants group at a far place in Brgy.
Reclusion Perpetua for each count of rape without resulting to his untimely death. Kurtinganan, Sta. Cruz, Occ. Mindoro.When they
eligibility for parole.He is likewise ordered to pay CONTRARY TO LAW. asked the whereabouts of Ador, the appellant said
private complainant P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; Only appellant Solangon was arrested while the that Ador would be home the following
P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as rest of the accused remain at large.During night.However, appellants group did not honor their
exemplary damages. arraignment, Solangon pleaded not guilty. promise.Since then, Adors relatives had never seen
SO ORDERED. The facts of the case as summarized by the Court him alive.
Republic of the Philippines of Appeals are as follows: On July 9, 1999, at about 3:00 p.m., appellant
SUPREME COURT During the 1992 local elections, Libertador F. Vidal was arrested by the PNP Mobile Group, Mamburao,
Manila alias Ador was a mayoralty candidate for the Occ. Mindoro while inside a bus going to San Jose,
EN BANC municipality of Sta. Cruz, Occ. Mindoro.On March Occ. Mindoro.According to prosecution witness
G.R. No. 172693 November 21, 2007 26, 1992, he was in the company of his sister Eden SPO2 Nelson Soquilon, he first met appellant on
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee Vidal and other candidates for board members in July 26, 1999 at the police barracks in Mamburao,
- Versus- the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.They were on their Occ. Mindoro.There, appellant was investigated by
RICARDO SOLANGON, Appellant way home aboard four (4) vehicles from a P/Insp. Edilberto Ama.P/Insp. Ama instructed
DECISION campaign trail at Sitio Calamintao, Alakaac, Sta. Soquilon and 13 other policemen to accompany
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Cruz, Occ. Mindoro.When they reached Balao river, appellant to a remote place where Adors skeleton
On February 7, 2000, an Information was filed they were blocked by seven (7) armed men, could be found, as earlier pointed by appellant.At
against appellant Ricardo Solangon, Apolonio Haniel including appellant alias Ka Ramil, who introduced the mountainous area of Brgy. Balao, Abra de Ilog,
and other John Does, the accusatory portion of which themselves allegedly as members of New Peoples Occ. Mindoro, at which the policemen were
reads as follows: Army (NPA).The latter ordered the campaigners to unaware of the exact whereabouts of Ador,
That on or about March 26, 1992 at around 4:30 alight from their vehicles down to the river and appellant dug about two (2) feet.A cadaver,
oclock in the afternoon, more or less, in Sitio commanded them to fall in line.While the alleged including maong jacket and shorts believed to be
Calamintao, Barangay Alacaak, Sta. Cruz, rebels aimed their guns at Adors group, one Ka that of Ador were found and retrieved.
Occidental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the Emil asked who is Ador Vidal?When Ador identified Thereafter, Adors relatives requested Dr. Edison
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- himself, appellant immediately tied his hands Tan, Municipal Health Officer of Mamburao, Occ.
named accused, in band, conspiring, confederating behind his back with a nylon rope.The appellants Mindoro to arrange the skeleton.Adors relatives
and mutually helping one another, did then and group then demanded campaign permit fee of were certain that the remains belonged to Ador,
after recognizing his forehead, chin and lower P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as him as it was made during custodial investigation and
dentures.The exact cause of death could not be exemplary damages and costs of the suit. under duress.
determined.On July 28, 1999, the relatives of the With the findings of guilt on Ricardo Solangon The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the
victim brought the latters skeleton to the house of and the imposition of sentence upon him, the trial court that appellant committed the complex crime
Eden Vidal.On July 30, 1999, Adors body was Motion for Reconsideration filed by him, thru Public of kidnapping for ransom with murder with the
finally laid to rest. Attorneys Office which seeks to reconsider the modification that appellant could not be considered a
Appellants defense is alibi.He also denied being Order of this Court dated June 17, 2004 denying his political offender.The appellate court held that the
a member of the NPA.He claims that on March 26, release on recognizance is hereby DENIED for kidnapping of Libertador, a mere mayoralty candidate,
1992, he was in Sitio Langka, Abra de Ilog, Occ. being moot and academic. without evidence to indicate public uprising or taking
Mindoro planting coconut trees; that in the years Since Ricardo Solangon has been classified or arms against the government, and without any
1992 and 1993, he was just farming in their place recognized as political offender under the Oslo evidence of removing allegiance therefrom, does not
and sometimes went to his sister who previously Agreement entered into between the Negotiating constitute rebellion.It found that the kidnapping was
stayed in San Jose then transferred to Sablayan; Panel of the Government of the Republic of the done for the purpose of coercing the victim and his
that he is tagalog but his wife belongs to the Philippines (GNP) and the Negotiating Panel of the relatives to pay campaign money.It also noted that the
minority; that on July 9, 1999 at about 3:00 p.m., as National Democratic Front of the Philippines acts of killing and burying the victim were incidental
he was on board a bus from Abra de Ilog, at Stop (NDFP), the Court opines that the executive branch and could have been used only as means to compel
Over restaurant in Brgy. 9, Mamburao, Occ. of the government that should now grant him a the payment of the ransom money and to avoid the
Mindoro, some soldiers boarded the bus with their pardon or executive clemency in compliance with discovery of the crime.The appellate court likewise
long firearms pointed to him; that he was surprised its commitment toward Peace Progress. held that DNA examination was no longer necessary
as he just wanted to go to Sablayan to borrow palay In view of the imposition of the death penalty as the relatives of the victim had identified the same
seedlings; and that he was suddenly arrested and upon Ricardo Solangon @ Ka Ramil, let the original as Libertadors; and that appellants act of voluntarily
brought to the barracks. folio of this case, together with the evidence, oral leading the police in retrieving the victims body was
On August 31, 2004, the Regional Trial Court of and documentary, be forthwith elevated to the not a confession but a strong indicium of guilt.
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 44, rendered Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review. Hence, this petition.
a Decision finding appellant guilty of the complex SO ORDERED. The abduction and killing of Libertador happened on
crime of kidnapping with murder.The dispositive Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals March 26, 1992 or prior to the date of effectivity of
portion of the Decision reads: contending that, granting arguendo that he Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659 or The Death Penalty
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the guilt of the participated in the abduction of Libertador, such act Law on December 31, 1993.As held in People v.
accused, Ricardo Solangon, in the commission of will not constitute the crime of kidnapping because it Ramos:
offense in the information, has been established is absorbed in the crime of rebellion penalized under Prior to 31 December 1993, the date of effectivity of
with proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is hereby Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code.He alleged that RA No. 7659, the rule was that where the
imposes upon him the mandatory penalty of death, the skeletal remains were not properly identified as kidnapped victim was subsequently killed by his
and ordered him to pay the heirs of Libertador Vidal Libertadors for failure of the prosecution to subject the abductor, the crime committed would either be a
the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, skeletal remains to DNA or dental analysis.He also complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art.
alleged that his confession could not be used against 48 of The Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate
crimes of kidnapping and murder.Thus, where the found that the crime committed was the complex produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of crime of kidnapping with murder. Circumstantial evidence is of a nature identically the
killing him, and he was in fact killed by his abductor, We do not agree.We find that two separate crimes same with direct evidence.It is equally direct evidence
the crime committed was the complex crime of of kidnapping for ransom and murder were of minor facts of such a nature that the mind is led
kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of The committed. intuitively or by a conscious process of reasoning to
Revised Penal Code, as the kidnapping of the The present case falls under paragraph (b) of the the conviction that from them some other fact may be
victim was a necessary means of committing the foregoing rule that where the victim was kidnapped inferred.No greater degree of certainty is required
murder. On the other hand, where the victim was not for the purpose of killing him but was when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is
kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2) direct.In either case, what is required is that there be
subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was
separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed. committed and that the accused committed the crime.
committed. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the records clearly show the The evidence is replete with details to prove that
Thus, the applicable rule when the abduction and elements of kidnapping, to wit:On March 26, 1992, appellant and his at-large co-accused were
killing happened before December 31, 1993, as in the appellant together with six (6) other armed men responsible for the abduction and death of the
present case, is: abducted Libertador for the purpose of extorting victim.These are:
a)Where the accused kidnapped the victim for the ransom money.They blocked Libertadors convoy and a)On March 26, 1992, appellant together with six
purpose of killing him, and he was in fact killed by demanded payment of campaign fee.However, when (6) other armed men, introducing themselves to be
his abductor, the crime committed was the complex the payment was not forthcoming right away, they members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), blocked
crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of hogtied Libertador and brought him to the the convoy of the victim and demanded payment of
the Revised Penal Code, as kidnapping of the mountains.On April 4, 1992, Libertadors relatives paid a campaign fee of P50,000.00;
victim was a necessary means of committing the the ransom money of P50,000.00 to appellants group b)When the amount was not produced right away,
murder. at Brgy. Kurtingan, Sta. Cruz, Occidental Mindoro, but they hogtied the victim with a nylon rope and
b)Where the victim was kidnapped not for the the latter reneged on its promise to release Libertador brought him to the mountains;
purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as and killed him instead. c)Despite payment of the ransom money, the victim
an afterthought, two (2) separate crimes of As regards the crime of murder, it is true that there was not released and was never seen alive again;
kidnapping and murder were committed. is no direct evidence of the actual killing of the d)After his arrest, appellant disclosed to the
The trial court found that the kidnapping was victim.Nevertheless, direct evidence of the authorities the place where they buried the victim at
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from commission of the crime is not the only matrix Brgy. Balao, Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro, and
the victim.Similarly, the Court of Appeals noted that whereby the trial court may draw its conclusions and thereat they recovered the skeleton of Libertador
the obvious purpose of Libertadors abduction was to findings of guilt.It is settled that conviction may be from a shallow grave; and
coerce him to pay campaign money and that the acts based on circumstantial evidence provided that the e)The victims relatives were certain that the
of killing and burying him were incidental and could following requisites must concur: (a) there is more remains belonged to Libertador.
have been used only as a means absolutely to than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the While the combination of said circumstances is
compel the payment of the ransom money, and to inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the insufficient to establish the qualifying circumstance of
avoid the discovery of the crime.However, both courts combination of all the circumstances is such as to treachery, considering the absence of eyewitness to
the actual killing of the victim; however, it is enough to the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed predicated on the fact that the victims suffered serious
sustain the guilt of appellant for the crime of murder on appellant, without eligibility for parole. anxiety and fright when they were kidnapped.
qualified by abuse of superior strength, which was On the other hand, as the crime was committed Thus, for the crime of kidnapping for ransom,
alleged in the information and proved during trial.This prior to the amendment of Article 248 of the Revised appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
qualifying circumstance is present where there is Penal Code by R.A. No. 7659, the appropriate penalty reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
proof of gross physical disparity between the for Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum pursuant to R.A. No. 9346 and to pay the heirs of
protagonists or when the force used by the assailant period, to death.Under Article 64 (1) of the Revised Libertador Vidal the amounts of P50,000.00 as actual
is out of proportion to the means available to the Penal Code, in cases in which the penalties damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
victim. prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be P50,000.00 as moral damages; and for the crime of
In the case at bar, there was superiority not only in a single divisible penalty or composed of three murder, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
strength but in number as well.The lone victim was different penalties, and there are neither aggravating reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim
unarmed and was hogtied by seven (7) armed men nor mitigating circumstances that attended the the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
who demonstrably abused their excessive force which commission of the crime, the penalty prescribed by P50,000.00 as moral damages in line with prevailing
was out of proportion to the defenses available to the law in its medium period shall be imposed, which in jurisprudence.
deceased. this case is reclusion perpetua.The Indeterminate WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Evident premeditation cannot be considered in the Sentence Law is not applicable when the penalty Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with
instant case.The careful selection of an ideal site actually imposed is reclusion perpetua. modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
wherein to block the convoy of vehicles may have Actual damages may be awarded representing the of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 44, finding
been premeditated so that the kidnapping of the amount of ransom paid.In People v. Morales and appellant guilty of the complex crime of kidnapping
victim would be carried out successfully; but the same People v. Ejandra, the Court awarded actual with murder is MODIFIED.Appellant Ricardo
cannot be said as regards the killing.It is not enough damages representing the amounts of the ransom Solangon is hereby found GUILTY beyond
that evident premeditation is suspected or surmised, paid.In the instant case, the heirs of the victim are reasonable doubt of two separate crimes of
but criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious entitled to the award of P50,000.00 as actual kidnapping for ransom and murder.
outward acts evincing determination to commit the damages, which is equivalent to the amount of the For the crime of kidnapping for ransom, appellant is
crime.In order to be considered an aggravation of the ransom paid.The heirs of the victim are also entitled sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
offense, the circumstance must not merely be to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.In without eligibility for parole pursuant to R.A. No. 9346
premeditation; it must be evident premeditation. People v. Yambot, the Court awarded civil indemnity and to pay the heirs of Libertador Vidal the amounts
The penalty for kidnapping for the purpose of of P50,000.00 after finding the accused guilty of the of P50,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person crime of kidnapping for ransom aside from ordering indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the return of the amount of the ransom.In addition, the For the crime of murder, appellant is sentenced to
death.However, the imposition of the death penalty heirs of the victim are also entitled to an award of suffer the indeterminate penalty of reclusion perpetua
has been prohibited in view of the passage of R.A. moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.In and to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of
No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the People v. Baldogo and People v. Garcia, the Court P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
Death Penalty in the Philippines.Thus, in lieu thereof, affirmed the awards of moral damages in the amounts moral damages.
of P100,000.00 and P200,000.00, respectively, SO ORDERED.