G.R. No. 235016.  September 8, 2020.

*
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
NESTOR BENDECIO y VIEJO alias “TAN,” accused-
appellant.

Criminal Law; Murder; Elements of.—Article 248 of the RPC

defines and penalizes murder, thus: Article 248. Murder.—Any
person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity; x  x  x  x It requires the following elements: (1) a
person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or
infanticide.
Same; Attempted Felonies; Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) states that there is an attempt to commit a felony when the
offender directly commences its commission by overt acts but was

_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

 
 

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

unable to perform all the acts of execution which should have

produced the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his or her own spontaneous desistance.—Article 6 of the RPC
states that there is an attempt to commit a felony when the
offender directly commences its commission by overt acts but was
unable to perform all the acts of execution which should have
produced the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his or her own spontaneous desistance. In Palaganas v.
People, 501 SCRA 533 (2006), the Court held that attempted
murder or attempted homicide is committed when the accused
intended to kill the victim, as manifested by the use of a deadly
weapon in the assault, and the wound/s sustained by the victim
was/were not fatal.
Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; There is
treachery when two (2) elements concur: (1) the employment of
means, methods, or manner of execution which would ensure the
offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of
the offended party; and (2) such means, method, or manner of
execution was deliberately or consciously chosen by the offender.—
There is treachery when two (2) elements concur: (1) the
employment of means, methods, or manner of execution which
would ensure the offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory
act on the part of the offended party; and (2) such means, method,
or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously chosen by
the offender. The essence of treachery consists of the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unguarded and unsuspecting victim
without any ounce of provocation on his or her part. The case
records undeniably prove that Gerry was the intended victim of
the shooting. When Gerry went home and tried to close the front
door, he noticed appellant standing right outside the doorway.
Suddenly, appellant drew a gun, aimed at him, and fired.
Appellant, however, missed hitting Gerry and ended up injuring
Princess and killing Jonabel. The qualifying circumstance of
treachery attended the attempted killing of Gerry. In People v.
Amora, 742 SCRA 669 (2014), the Court held that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery does not require that the perpetrator
attack his or her victim from behind. Even a frontal attack could
be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. This is the
case for Gerry. As shown, appellant commenced the commission of
murder by suddenly firing his gun towards Gerry who was then
unarmed and was not in a position to

 
 
 609

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 609

People vs. Bendecio

defend himself. Gerry, however, did not die as a result

because appellant simply missed.
Same; Aberratio Ictus; Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus,
as embodied in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of
law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
therefrom.—As for Jonabel’s death, what happened to this seven
(7)-year-old was a clear case of aberratio ictus or mistake in the
blow. Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article
4 of the RPC, criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed
in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom. Thus, while it may not have been appellant’s
intention to shoot Jonabel, this fact alone will not exculpate him
of his criminal liability. Jonabel’s death was unquestionably the
natural and direct consequence of appellant’s felonious deadly
assault against Gerry. Notably, the qualifying circumstance of
treachery attended Jonabel’s killing. As pointed out by Justice
Mario V. Lopez during the deliberation, although appellant did
not intend to kill Jonabel, treachery may still be appreciated in
aberratio ictus, pursuant to the Court’s ruling in People v. Flora,
334 SCRA 262 (2002). There, the accused fired his gun at his
target, but missed, and hit two (2) other persons. The Court
appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance and convicted
the accused for murder and attempted murder because even if the
death and injury of the two (2) other persons resulted from
accused’s poor aim, accused’s act of suddenly firing upon his
victims rendered the latter helpless to defend themselves. This is
applicable here. Just because Jonabel was not the intended victim
does not make appellant’s sudden attack any less treacherous.
Same; Same; When the credibility of witnesses is put in issue,
the Supreme Court (SC) will generally not disturb the trial court’s
factual findings thereon, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals (CA), as in this case.—When the credibility of witnesses is
put in issue, the Court will generally not disturb the trial court’s
factual findings thereon, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, as in this case. Indeed, the trial court was in a better
position to decide the question of credibility as it heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and the
manner by which they testified during the trial. Notably,
appellant offered no evidence, other than his bare allegations, to
show that Gerry’s level of

 
 

610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

intoxication impaired his ability to identify appellant or that

Princess had ulterior motive to testify against him.
Same; Denials; Alibi; Denial and alibi are inherently weak
defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that it was appellant who
committed the crime charged.—We have held time and again that
denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot
prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses that it was appellant who committed the
crime charged. Hence, as between a categorical testimony which
has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial on the other,
the former is generally held to prevail.
Same; Complex Crimes; Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) states that there is a complex crime when a single act
constitutes two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies.—Article 48
of the RPC states that there is a complex crime when a single act
constitutes two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies. Here,
appellant’s single act of firing his gun constituted the crime of
attempted murder, with respect to Gerry, and the crime of
murder, as regards Jonabel. Article 48 of the RPC likewise
provides that the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Here, the
most serious crime is murder. Hence, the imposable penalty is
that of murder in its maximum period. Under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death. Due to Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346), however, the
penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. More, in accordance
with A.M. No. 15-08-02, the qualification of “without eligibility for
parole” shall be used in order to emphasize that the accused
should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not
been for RA 9346.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
 
611

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 611

People vs. Bendecio

LAZARO-JAVIER,  J.:
 
The Case
 
This appeal assails the Decision1 dated August 17, 2017
of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 39046
affirming the verdict of conviction against appellant Nestor
Bendecio y Viejo alias “Tan” for the complex crime of
attempted murder with murder.
 
Antecedents
 
The Charge
 
Appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias “Tan” was
charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with
murder, viz.:

That on or about the 24th day of December 2011, in the

City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with
intent to kill armed with a handgun with treachery
suddenly attacked one GERRY MARASIGAN y CAMPIT,
when he did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously fire a shot with his revolver at the latter without
warning, which means was consciously adopted by the
accused to ensure impunity, thus commencing the
commission of the crime of murder, directly by overt acts
but nevertheless did not perform all the acts of execution
which should have produced the crime of murder by reason
 of cause or causes other than his own spontaneous
desistance, that is, the accused missed his aim and hit
instead another victim JONABELLE MARASIGAN a seven
(7)-year-old minor, born on November 1, 2004 whose
minority is equivalent to employ-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate

Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Pablito A. Perez,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-24.

 
 

612

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

ing treachery on the part of the herein accused, thereby

inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds which directly caused
her death, to the damage and prejudice of her surviving
heirs.
Contrary to law.2

 
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.3 Trial
ensued.
During the trial, Gerry Marasigan and Princess
Marasigan testified for the prosecution. On the other hand,
appellant was the lone witness for the defense.
 
Prosecution’s Version
 
Gerry Marasigan testified that on December 24, 2011,
around midnight, a friend invited him to a drinking spree
at the latter’s home. He obliged and joined the drinking
spree until his wife came to fetch him. On their way out, he
bumped into appellant whom he recognized as his mother’s
neighbor. Appellant asked him “Anong problema?” He
replied: “Kuya Nestor, asawa ko ‘to, hindi mo na ba ako
nakikilala?” Appellant rebuffed “Hindi, bastos ka eh.”
 He no longer paid attention to appellant and proceeded
to walk home with his wife. Back in their home, he was
closing the front door when he noticed appellant standing
right outside the doorway. He was a mere arm’s length
away from appellant when suddenly, the latter drew a gun,
aimed at him, and fired. But it was not he who got hit,
instead it was his seven (7)-year-old daughter Jonabel and
his sister Princess. Jonabel was fatally hit. He immediately
brought Jonabel to the hospital but she died the following
day.
He was not a friend, but a mere acquaintance of
appellant. They never had any prior altercation.4

_______________

2 Id., at p. 3.
3 Id., at p. 4.

 
 

613

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 613

People vs. Bendecio

Princess Marasigan, Gerry’s sister, testified that on

the day of the incident, she and her niece Jonabel were
inside Gerry’s house in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Around 11
o’clock in the evening, Gerry and his wife hurriedly went
inside their house. She stood up and, to her surprise, saw
appellant holding a gun and firing it in Gerry’s direction.
She clearly saw appellant with a gun in hand because of
the light by the front door.
When they heard the shot, she and her niece Jonabel hid
inside the bathroom. Only then did she realize that they
were both bleeding. Appellant only fired once, albeit the
single bullet pierced Jonabel’s chest before hitting her in
the leg.5 She filed a separate criminal case against
appellant for her injury.
 
Defense’s Version
 
 Appellant testified that he was in Samat, Samar on the
date of the alleged shooting incident. He only knew Gerry
because his sister’s paupahan was next to Gerry’s house.
He did not know of any reason why Gerry would implicate
him in the purported shooting incident involving his
daughter.6
 
The Trial Court’s Ruling
 
By Decision dated July 19, 2016, the Regional Trial
Court-Branch 207, Muntinlupa City found appellant guilty
of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide,
viz.:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Nestor Bendecio

y Viejo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime
of attempted murder with homicide and is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prisión mayor in
its maximum as the minimum period to

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 4-5.

5 Id., at pp. 6-7.
6 Id., at pp. 7-8.

 
 
614

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

twenty years of reclusion temporal in its maximum as the

maximum period, and is ordered to pay the heirs of
Jonabelle Marasigan the amount of P75,000.00 as and for
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as and for moral damages,
P30,000.00 as and for temperate damages, and P75,000.00
as and for exemplary damages, all with 6% interest per
annum from the finality of this decision.7

 
 The trial court gave full credence to the positive
testimonies of Gerry and Princess who testified in a
straightforward, candid, and convincing manner, leaving
no room for doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of the
crime. Thus, the trial court rejected appellant’s self-
serving, nay, uncorroborated defenses of denial and alibi.8
Appellant was guilty of a complex crime because his
single act of firing a gun at Gerry, though ending up killing
Jonabel, emanated from a single criminal intent.9 The trial
court appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance in
the attempted killing of Gerry’s, but not as to the killing of
Jonabel.
 
The Court of Appeals’ Proceedings
 
In his appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for
convicting him of the complex crime of attempted murder
with homicide based on the supposedly doubtful
testimonies of Gerry and Princess. The trial court should
not have given full weight and credence to Gerry’s positive
identification of him since Gerry admitted in open court
that he joined a drinking session prior to the shooting
incident. Thus, Gerry’s inebriation diminished his ability to
clearly identify the man armed with a gun standing by his
doorstep that night. As regards Princess, her blood
relationship with Gerry cast serious doubt on her
credibility.10

_______________

7 Id., at p. 113.
8 CA Rollo, p. 53.
9 Id., at p. 54.
10 Rollo, p. 9.

 
 

615

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 615

People vs. Bendecio
 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) defended the verdict of conviction. The OSG
maintained that the trial court’s conclusion on the
credibility of the witnesses deserved great respect. The
defense lacked evidence to support the allegation that
Gerry’s level of intoxication impaired his capacity to
identify his assailant; intoxication, by itself, does not
necessarily prevent a witness from making a positive
identification of the perpetrator of the crime. Too, it was
immaterial that Princess was Gerry’s relative. More so
because her testimony was not inherently improbable nor
was it shown that she was improperly impelled to falsely
incriminate appellant.11
 
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
 
Under its assailed Decision dated August 17, 2017, the
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is

DENIED. The Decision dated 19 July 2016 of the Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 207 in Crim. Case
No. 12-305 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that
accused-appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo is hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
attempted murder with murder and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is further
ordered to pay the heirs of Jonabel Marasigan P75,000.00
each as civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, with
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
time of finality of this decision until fully paid to be imposed
on said civil indemnity and all awarded damages.
SO ORDERED.12

_______________

11 Id., at pp. 9-10.

12 Id., at p. 20.

 
 
616
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Bendecio

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s factual

findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses
since appellant offered no evidence, other than his bare
allegations, to show that Gerry’s level of intoxication
impaired his ability to identify appellant or that Princess
had ulterior motive to falsely testify against him.13
It affirmed the trial court’s factual finding that
appellant’s intended victim was Gerry though the bullet he
fired hit Princess and killed Jonabel instead.14 Since
appellant failed to perform all the acts of execution which
would have resulted in Gerry’s death, appellant was liable
for attempted murder, qualified as it was by treachery.15
Appellant’s poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus or
mistake in the blow — a circumstance that neither
exempted him from nor mitigated his criminal liability. On
the contrary, it rendered appellant liable for Jonabel’s
death under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). For
although it may not have been appellant’s intention to
shoot Jonabel, it is clear that Jonabel’s death was the
natural and direct consequence of appellant’s felonious
assault against Gerry.16
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the killing of
Jonabel amounted to murder, not homicide. For Jonabel
was a hapless victim who had no opportunity to defend
herself or retaliate.17
In accordance with People v. Jugueta,18 the Court of
Appeals increased the award of temperate damages to
P50,000.19

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 14-15.

14 Id., at pp. 12-13.
15 Id., at p. 13.
16 Id.

17 Id., at p. 12.
18 783 Phil. 806, 846; 788 SCRA 331, 358 (2016).
19 Rollo, p. 20.

 
  

617

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 617

People vs. Bendecio

The Present Petition

 
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court
and prays anew for his acquittal.
In compliance with Resolution dated January 19, 2018 of
the Court, the OSG20 and appellant21 manifested that in lieu
of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective
briefs submitted before the Court of Appeals.
 
Issue
 
Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting appellant of
the complex crime of attempted murder with murder?
 
Ruling
 
Appellant was charged with the complex crime of
murder and attempted murder.
Article 248 of the RPC defines and penalizes murder,
thus:

Article  248.  Murder.—Any person who, not falling

within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall
be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior

strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

x x x x

 
It requires the following elements: (1) a person was
killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was
attended by any

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 32-33.

21 Id., at pp. 45-46.

 
 

618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of

the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.22
On the other hand, Article 6 of the RPC23 states that
there is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender
directly commences its commission by overt acts but was
unable to perform all the acts of execution which should
have produced the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his or her own spontaneous desistance.
In Palaganas v. People,24 the Court held that attempted
murder or attempted homicide is committed when the
accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by the
use of a deadly weapon in the assault, and the wound/s
sustained by the victim was/were not fatal.
Here, records bear the detailed narrations of Gerry and
Princess about the shooting incident. Appellant fired at
Gerry but instead of hitting the latter, the bullet hit
Jonabel in the chest and thereafter, Princess in the leg.
Jonabel died as a result.
Although appellant, with intent to kill, fired his gun at
Gerry, appellant was not able to consummate the killing for
reasons other than his own desistance — he simply missed
and ended up wounding Princess and killing Jonabel.
The Court reckons with the third element of the crime of
murder, i.e., the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the
RPC.

_______________
 22 People v. Adriano, 764 Phil. 144, 154; 763 SCRA 70, 81 (2015).
23 Art.  6.  Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.—
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
xxxx
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than this own spontaneous desistance.
24 533 Phil. 169, 193; 501 SCRA 533, 555 (2006).

 
 

619

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 619

People vs. Bendecio

The Information alleged that treachery attended the

shooting of Gerry. There is treachery when two (2)
elements concur: (1) the employment of means, methods, or
manner of execution which would ensure the offender’s
safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the
offended party; and (2) such means, method, or manner of
execution was deliberately or consciously chosen by the
offender.25 The essence of treachery consists of the sudden
and unexpected attack on an unguarded and unsuspecting
victim without any ounce of provocation on his or her part.26
The case records undeniably prove that Gerry was the
intended victim of the shooting. When Gerry went home
and tried to close the front door, he noticed appellant
standing right outside the doorway. Suddenly, appellant
drew a gun, aimed at him, and fired. Appellant, however,
missed hitting Gerry and ended up injuring Princess and
killing Jonabel.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the
attempted killing of Gerry. In People v. Amora,27 the
Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
does not require that the perpetrator attack his or her
victim from behind. Even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim
who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
This is the case for Gerry. As shown, appellant commenced
the commission of murder by suddenly firing his gun
towards Gerry who was then unarmed and was not in a
position to defend himself. Gerry, however, did not die as a
result because appellant simply missed.
Evidently, Gerry never saw that what started as a mere
accidental bumping that night in the house of a friend
would

_______________

25 People v. Flora, 389 Phil. 601, 615; 334 SCRA 262, 275-276 (2000).
26 People v. Jugueta,  supra note 18 at p. 819; p. 350, citing People v.
Fallorina, 468 Phil. 816; 424 SCRA 655 (2004).
27 748 Phil. 608, 612; 742 SCRA 667, 669 (2014).

 
 

620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

carry on and end in a tragedy inside his own home. He

almost got killed while his young innocent child lost her
life. Things happened so sudden and fast, he never got the
chance to defend himself or his child or even to just run
away.
As for Jonabel’s death, what happened to this seven (7)-
year-old was a clear case of aberratio ictus or mistake in
the blow. Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied
in Article 4 of the RPC,28 criminal liability is imposed for
the acts committed in violation of law and for all the
natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Thus, while it may not have been appellant’s intention to
shoot Jonabel, this fact alone will not exculpate him of his
criminal liability. Jonabel’s death was unquestionably the
natural and direct consequence of appellant’s felonious
deadly assault against Gerry.29
Notably, the qualifying circumstance of treachery
attended Jonabel’s killing. As pointed out by Justice Mario
V. Lopez during the deliberation, although appellant did
not intend to kill Jonabel, treachery may still be
appreciated in aberratio ictus, pursuant to the Court’s
ruling in People v. Flora.30 There, the accused fired his
gun at his target, but missed, and hit two (2) other persons.
The Court appreciated treachery as a qualifying
circumstance and convicted the accused for murder and
attempted murder because even if the death and injury of
the two (2) other persons resulted from accused’s poor aim,
accused’s act of suddenly firing upon his victims rendered
the latter helpless to defend themselves. This is applicable
here. Just because Jonabel was not the intended victim
does not make appellant’s sudden attack any less
treacherous.

_______________

28 Art.  4.  Criminal liability.—Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
29 Supra note 22.
30 Supra note 25.

 
 

621

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 621

People vs. Bendecio

In another vein, appellant faults the Court of Appeals

for affirming the trial court’s factual findings on the
credibility of the testimonies of Gerry and Princess.
Appellant essentially argues that Gerry’s testimony should
not have been given weight and credence because he was
under the influence of alcohol when the purported shooting
incident took place and thus, he could not have positively
identified that appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Appellant also asserts that Princess, being Gerry’s sister, is
a biased witness whose testimony is unworthy of belief.
We are not persuaded.
When the credibility of witnesses is put in issue, the
Court will generally not disturb the trial court’s factual
findings thereon, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, as in this case. Indeed, the trial court was in a
better position to decide the question of credibility as it
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment and the manner by which they testified during
the trial.31
Notably, appellant offered no evidence, other than his
bare allegations, to show that Gerry’s level of intoxication
impaired his ability to identify appellant or that Princess
had ulterior motive to testify against him.
Against the testimonies of Gerry and Princess,
appellant’s denial and alibi must crumble. We have held
time and again that denial and alibi are inherently weak
defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that it
was appellant who committed the crime charged. Hence, as
between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth
on one hand, and a mere denial on the other, the former is
generally held to prevail.32

_______________

31 People v. Mabalo,  G.R. No. 238839, February 27, 2019, 894 SCRA
463; People v. Bay-od, G.R. No. 238176, January 14, 2019, 890 SCRA 377.
32 People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, January 7, 2019, 890 SCRA 127.

 
 

622

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

Article 48 of the RPC states that there is a complex

crime when a single act constitutes two (2) or more grave or
less grave felonies. Here, appellant’s single act of firing his
gun constituted the crime of attempted murder, with
respect to Gerry, and the crime of murder, as regards
Jonabel. Article 48 of the RPC likewise provides that the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. Here, the most
serious crime is murder. Hence, the imposable penalty is
that of murder in its maximum period. Under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. Due to Republic Act No. 934633 (RA
9346), however, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion
perpetua. More, in accordance with A.M. No. 15-08-02,34 the
qualification of “without eligibility for parole” shall be used
in order to emphasize that the accused should have been
sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for
RA 9346.

_______________

33 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the

Philippines.
Sec.  3.  Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by
reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
34 A.M. No. 15-08-02 clarifies:
x  x  x the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of
penalties and in the use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole”:
(1)  In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no
need to use the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify the
penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons
penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2)  When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the
death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346, the
qualification of “without eligibility for parole” shall be used in order to
emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the
death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.

 
 

623

VOL. 950, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 623

People vs. Bendecio

As for the monetary award, People v. Jugueta35 teaches

that civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary
damages must be awarded for each component of the
complex crime. Prevailing jurisprudence sets the award of
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in
murder cases where the imposable penalty is death but due
to the prohibition to impose the same, the actual penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua. An award of P50,000.00 as
temperate damages is likewise proper. With respect to the
crime of attempted murder, an award of P25,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages is fitting.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision dated August 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR No. 39046 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias “Tan” is
guilty of the COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER WITH
ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is further
ordered to pay Gerry Marasigan P25,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages and the heirs of Jonabel Marasigan
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
P50,000.000 as temperate damages. These amounts shall
earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of
this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta (CJ., Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and

Lopez, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.

_______________

35 People v. Jugueta, supra note 18 at p. 846; p. 380.

 
 

624

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bendecio

 
   It must be pointed out that since treachery had
qualified the crime to murder, the generic aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily
included in the former. (People vs. Manzano, 857 SCRA 322
[2018])

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.