mitigating circumstance!

People v. De Jesus
Facts:
This Case is an information filed with the court of first instance of Quezon City wherein Nilo De
Jesus together with Wilfredo Yalong were charged of Murder, One eter Doe alias e!ito was
also charged "ut has not "een "rought to trial, the two accused was con#icted and sentenced to
reclusion !er!etua$
The son of the deceased, %ernando De &os 'antos, is the only one eye witness$ (e made an
statement that in the afternoon of May )*, while ta+ing a na!, he was awa+ened "y the shout of a
small "oy informing that his father, %eliciano De &os 'antos, was engaging in a ,uarrel$ (e went
to the !lace and saw Yalong in the act of aiming a gun at his father$ (e shouted to his father to
run, "ut his father was fired "efore he could do so$ While his father was on his feet, a!!ellant De
Jesus gra""ed the gun from Yalong and fired at his father and after the shooting De Jesus and
Yalong "oth ran way$ %ernando went home to loo+ for his "rother, a !oliceman$ When they
returned to the crime scene, %ernando could no longer feel the !ulse of his father$ (is "rother
hunted the +illers while he himself went to the authorities to re!ort the incident and the !eo!le
"ehind the shooting$ Their father was "rought to the hos!ital "ut it was !ronounced dead on
arri#al$
-ccused Nilo De Jesus denied the im!utation$ (e narrated that it was Wilfredo Yalong who did
the firing, and that %ernando de &os 'antos was not there to witness the incident$ On the other
hand, Wilfredo Yalong .nter!osed 'elf Defense that when the #ictim ran towards him and tried
to sta" him, he !ulled out his gun from his waist and fired two shots at the #ictim$
What would instantly stri+e attention is the #ariance in the testimony of the lone eye witness on
one hand and the two a!!ellants on the other as to who fired the fatal shots$
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in con#icting Nilo De Jesus on crime of murder
Whether or not there is a cons!iracy "etween Nilo De /esus and Wilfredo Yalong in 0illing
%eliciano De &os 'antos$,
Whether or not Wilfredo Yalong "e free from criminal lia"ility "y in#o+ing self defense
Whether or not that the +illing was attended "y the ,ualifying circumstances of treachery
Held.
The Court %ind more con#incing the testimony of the a!!ellant that only Yalong fired the two
shots that hit the deceased, one fatally on the "reast$ De Jesus testimony Corro"orate Yalong1s
admission which it ma+es it relia"le and therefore con#incing$ The foregoing o"ser#ation !laces
the whole testimony of the witness in gra#e dou"t, -!!ellant De Jesus !ositi#ely stated that
%ernando was not at the scene and the court inclined to agree with him$
What is !lain from the credi"le e#idence on record that De Jesus had no !artici!ation on the
shooting$ Yalong admitted to "e the only one who fired the gun at the deceased twice$
%rom Yalong1s testimony, credi"ly corro"orated "y an im!artial witness, he acted to defend
himself "ecause the deceased tried to sta" him$ No e#idence was !resented to re"utt the
testimonial e#idence, with the deceased shown to "e the aggressor against Yalong, the
reasona"leness of the means used "y Yalong to re!el the aggression may howe#er, not "e
assessed in his fa#or$ The deceased was in a state of drun+enness so he was not as dangerous as
he would if he had "een so"er2 his aim !ro#ed faulty and easily e#aded as shown "y the fact that
Yalong was not hit "y the sta" attem!ts "lows directed against him, at "est the court grant
incom!lete self defense in his fa#or$
With res!ect to De Jesus, he fired no shot at the deceased$ (is co3accused owned sole authorshi!
of the shooting$ The resence of "oth a!!ellants at the store where the shooting too+ !lace was
not !re3arranged and !urely coincidental$ .f there was !re#ious agreement in +ill or harm the
deceased, a!!ellant would not ha#e chosen the store to !er!etrate the heinous offense$ .f De
Jesus was in cons!iracy with him, De Jesus should ha#e also armed himself with wea!on$
The lia"ility of De Jesus on ground of Cons!iracy has therefore not "een esta"lished "eyond
dou"t, as it should "e as the guilt itself$
The court do not agree with the finding of the trial court that the shooting of the deceased was
attended with the ,ualifying circumstances of treachery$ To constitute treachery the means
ado!ted in +illing the #ictim must "e consciously and deli"erately chosen to insure its e4ecution
without any ris+ to thee offender arising from the defense which the #ictim might ma+e$
.n the a"sence of treachery as ,ualifying circumstances the crime committed is only homicide
and not murder as charged$
Wherefore the /udgment of con#iction as to a!!ellant Nilo de Jesus is re#ersed and the latter is
here"y ac,uitted$
With res!ect to a!!ellant Wilfred Yalong, the /udgment is modified$ (e is here"y found guilty of
homicide and sentenced to suffer the !enalty of four years of correccional to eight years of
!rision mayor$
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! plaintiff-appellee, vs. "ILF#EDO
FE#N$NDE% y &$LIN$O! accused-appellant.
D E ' I I O N
D$(IDE! J#.! C.J.:
5nder automatic re#iew is the decision
6*7
of the 8egional Trial Court of asig, 9ranch ):;, in
Criminal Case No$ ***;<=3(, finding accused3a!!ellant Wilfredo %ernandez y Malinao, alias
-lfredo %ernandez y Malinao >hereafter W.&%8?DO@, guilty of ra!e and sentencing him to
suffer the e4treme !enalty of death$
The information
6)7
which charged W.&%8?DO with ra!e was filed with the 8egional Trial Court
of asig, 9ranch ):;$ .t readsA
On or a"out Decem"er )B, *CC: in Taguig, Metro Manila and within the /urisdiction of this
(onora"le Court, the said accused, with lewd design and "y means of force and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously ha#e se4ual intercourse with one Melissande
asasala y 9ohol, a minor, fifteen years of age, against her will and consent$
5!on arraignment, W.&%8?DO entered a !lea of not guilty$
-t the trial, the !rosecution first !resented the #ictim, Melissande asasala who was already
se#enteen years old at that time$ 'he testified that her mother Dionisia had "een li#ing together
with W.&%8?DO since she was nine >C@ years old$ 'he, her mother, W.&%8?DO >whom she
re#erently addressed as Da!aE@ and her three si"lings all li#ed together in her mother1s house in
9ahayang ag3asa, ."ayong Ti!as, Taguig$ (er youngest sister was "orn out of the union of her
mother and W.&%8?DO$
6<7
Melissande descri"ed their house as made of !lywood with a mezzanine$ The mezzanine was
!artitioned into two rooms$ 'he shared a room with her younger sister while the o!!osite room
was occu!ied "y her older "rother$ (er mother and W.&%8?DO occu!ied the room at the
ground floor$
6=7
.n the afternoon of )F Decem"er *CC:, she and her younger sister were the only ones left
home$ W.&%8?DO then arri#ed from wor+ with some com!anions and "egan a drin+ing s!ree
which ended at around GABB !$m$ When his guests left, W.&%8?DO in,uired from Melissande
where her mother was$ 'he re!lied that her mother was at a meeting in the multi3!ur!ose
hall$ 'he !roceeded to clear the used utensils$ W.&%8?DO thereafter called her and told her to
watch the tele#ision show$ 'he declined and continued her chore in the +itchen$ W.&%8?DO
called her anew$ (e as+ed a"out her studies$ 'he re!lied that she was doing fine$ (e further
in,uired as to what course she was !lanning to ta+e$ -t this !oint, Melissande no longer
answered him$ 'he tearfully narrated that W.&%8?DO was already holding her waist and she
was trying to a#oid him$ (e then left her and !roceeded to the master1s "edroom$ (er sister,
who was in the same room, went out and called her to say that W.&%8?DO was as+ing for her$
6;7
Melissande entered the "edroom and was told "y W.&%8?DO to lie down o#er his chest$ (e
laid her on the "ed and as+ed if she wanted to go away with him at a faraway !lace where they
could "oth "e ha!!y$ 'uddenly, he heard a noise$ (e immediately !ushed the girl away$ (e
thought Melissande1s mother had arri#ed$ Melissande went "ac+ to the +itchen to finish her
chore$ When W.&%8?DO realized that her mother was not yet home, he followed her to the
+itchen and held her shoulders$ (e then told her to lea#e the dishes and follow
him$ W.&%8?DO "rought her to a long "ench where he sat down$ W.&%8?DO re,uested her
to accommodate him (pagbigyan ko raw po siya)$ 'he understood the statement as an e4!ression
of his attraction to her$ 9ut she felt afraid$
6:7
W.&%8?DO as+ed her to go to his room, "ut she refused$ .nstead, he told her to go to the
"athroom and actually !ushed her there$ .nside, he sat on her thighs$ 'he "egged, Papa, I
dont like, "ut he threatened her with a foot3long +nife and as+ed her if she wanted him to +ill
her$ (e e#en declared that he was in the urge to +ill$ 'he mo#ed to the corner and "egged him
once more not to !roceed$ .nstead, he told her to o"ey what he wished and she reluctantly
o"liged$ W.&%8?DO dragged her "ac+ to and roughly !ushed her down (Ibinalibag niya
ako) the "ench$ (e thereafter attem!ted to o!en her shorts$ When he failed, he went out of the
house "ut immediately returned inside the house$ (e then turned off the lights and dragged the
girl$ 9ut, he merely switched on the light and went out again, after which, he !roceeded to the
"athroom$ 'he told him that she was going to slee!$ W.&%8?DO, instead, told her to go u! and
he followed her$
6G7
.n her mezzanine "edroom, Melissande !leaded, DI dont want.E 5nheeding, W.&%8?DO
remo#ed her dress and underwear and laid her down$ (e remo#ed his !ants and "rief and
!ositioned himself on to! of her$ 'he shouted at him to sto! "ut he !unched her and ordered her
to "e ,uiet$ 'he could not as+ succor from her sister "ecause of his threats to +ill them "oth$ (e
+issed her and as he remained on to! of her, he heard her mother +noc+ing$ 9y that time he had
!enetrated her$ (e wanted to continue "ut instead, immediately got u!, went down and e4ited at
the "ac+ door$ (er mother was a"le to !ush the "edroom door o!en as she hurriedly dressed
u!$ (er mother entered the "edroom "ut Melissande ran out of the house and sought refuge in
the home of her older "rother ?fren Casamayor, who li#ed in 'an Joa,uin, another town$
6F7
Melissande re#ealed to ?fren that W.&%8?DO ra!ed her$ This angered ?fren "ut she dissuaded
him from going to her mother1s !lace$ 'he s!ent the night at ?fren1s home$ The following
afternoon, on an errand, she chanced u!on her neigh"or who informed her that her mother and
"rother No"ee Jun had "een loo+ing for her$ 'he told her neigh"or that she was staying with her
"rother ?fren$ That e#ening No"ee Jun #isited her at 'an Joa,uin$ 'he admitted to No"ee Jun
that she was ra!ed "y W.&%8?DO$ No"ee Jun raged and threatened to +ill W.&%8?DO$ (e
further in,uired if she had re!orted the matter to the !olice$ 'he in fact did go to the !olice
station accom!anied "y ?fren and her sister3in3law on <* Decem"er *CC:$
6C7
Octo"er *CCF, )3
;$C There, Melissande e4ecuted a sworn statement relating to her harrowing e4!erience$
6*B7
On <
January *CCG, she was !hysically e4amined at Cam! Crame and the doctor confirmed that she
was ra!ed (nagalaw nga raw po ako@$ The +nife used "y W.&%8?DO to threaten her was turned
o#er to the !olice "y her mother$
6**7
Melissande claimed that the incident "rought her shame$ .t was not the first time that
W.&%8?DO ra!ed her$ The first incident ha!!ened in *CC=, "ut she chose to suffer in silence
since he threatened to +ill her and her mother$ This time, howe#er, she mustered the courage to
file the ra!e charge against him$ 'he could no longer consider him as her father$ (er mother
se#ered her relationshi! with him and her relati#es disowned him as a mem"er of the
family$ 'he wished for him death as !enalty for the crime committed against her$
6*)7
Dionisia asasala, Melissande1s mother, testified that W.&%8?DO was her common3law
s!ouse$ 'ince *CFC, they had "een li#ing together in her house at ."ayong Ti!as, Taguig$ .n the
e#ening of )F Decem"er *CC:, she attended a meeting at the multi3!ur!ose hall and arri#ed at
their home at CABB !$m$ -s she +noc+ed on the door, she heard a thud from the mezzanine$ 'he
!eered through a small hole, a"out the size of a One eso coin, near the door$ 'he saw
W.&%8?DO going down the stairs from the mezzanine, na+ed waist down$ 'he immediately ran
towards the "ac+ door which could "e easily o!ened$ 'he went to their room where she saw
W.&%8?DO !retending to "e aslee!$ 'he dragged him out of the room and demanded to +now
what he did to Melissande$ (e did not answer and she !roceeded to the mezzanine "ut
Melissande was no longer there2 she had left$ 'he loo+ed for her son No"ee Jun, whom she
found in a neigh"or1s house$ 'he instructed him to loo+ for Melissande "ut she was nowhere to
"e found$
6*<7
The following afternoon, Dionisia learned that a neigh"or informed No"ee Jun that Melissande
was seen in 'an Joa,uin and sent word that she was staying with her older "rother, ?fren$ On <*
Decem"er *CC:, the !olice arrested W.&%8?DO at their home$ That same night Dionisia went
to the asig !olice station where she found Melissande$ Only then did she learn that
W.&%8?DO ra!ed Melissande and threatened her with a +nife$ They were referred to the
Taguig olice where she e4ecuted her sworn statement$
6*=7
The ra!e incident and se#eral other des!ica"le circumstances angered Dionisia, "etrayed her
trust for W.&%8?DO and destroyed her lo#e for him$ 'he then recalled that he dro#e her "lind
mother away from their home$ (e also had !re#iously hit Melissande that caused her head to
"leed$ 'he admitted that she was not a"le to do anything then against W.&%8?DO "ecause she,
too, was afraid of him$ (e had +illed a !erson and was /ust out on !arole$ 'he also confirmed
that he had the ha"it of carrying a +nife e#en when he slee!s$ 'he also !resented as documentary
e#idence W.&%8?DO1s Certificate of Discharge from rison,
6*;7
his Certificate of Discharge on
arole
6*:7
and Melissande1s 9irth Certificate$
6*G7
On the !art of the defense, W.&%8?DO was the sole witness$ (is testimony was "rief$ (e did
not ra!e Melissande$ (e wor+ed as a car!enter and would do re!airs in the house he shared with
Dionisia$ (e also denied that there was a hole anywhere near the main door$
6*F7
On re"uttal, the !rosecution !resented No"ee Jun Casamayor, Dionisia1s son and Melissande1s
"rother$ (e considered W.&%8?DO as his ste!father$ (e was a"le to confirm for himself what
ha!!ened to Melissande after accom!anying her to Cam! Crame for her medical e4amination$
(e identified the medico legal re!ort
6*C7
on the e4amination conducted on her$ (e further
e4!ressed wonder why W.&%8?DO could not reci!rocate the lo#e they ga#e him$ (e was
treated li+e a real father2 yet, he did not treat them as his own children$
6)B7
.n its decision of G Decem"er *CCF, the trial court con#icted W.&%8?DO and decreed as
followsA
W(?8?%O8?, in #iew of the foregoing, /udgment is here"y rendered finding -ccused,
W.&%8?DO %?8N-ND?H y M-N.&-O alias -&%8?DO %?8N-ND?H y M-&.N-O,
I5.&TY "eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of 8-?, aggra#ated "y the fact that the same
was committed "y the -ccused, who is the common3law s!ouse of the !arent of the #ictim, and
here"y sentences him to suffer the !enalty of D?-T(, as !ro#ided for under 8$-$ No$ G:;C2 to
!ay the ri#ate Com!lainant, Melissande asasala y 9ohol, the sum of %.%TY T(O5'-ND
?'O' >;B,BBB$BB@ "y way of indemnity2 T(.8TY T(O5'-ND ?'O' ><B,BBB$BB@ as
moral damages, !lus all the accessory !enalties !ro#ided "y law, without su"sidiary
im!risonment in case of insol#ency2 and to !ay the costs$
The trial court ga#e credence to the s!ontaneous and detailed testimony of Melissande on the
facts that she was ra!ed$ .t declared that Melissande1s failure to run3away during W.&%8?DO1s
attem!t to im!ose his lechery on her could not "e inter!reted as assent to the se4ual act as
insinuated "y the defense during cross3e4amination$ W.&%8?DO1s moral ascendancy, !hysical
dominance and influence o#er Melissande were too e#ident and a!!arent to "e ignored$ (is
tendency for #iolence, ha"it, tem!erament and !osition as DfatherE in the family were too much
for the girl$ 9esides, he was threatening her with a +nife$ Thus, des!ite her fee"le !rotests, this
second ra!e was li+ewise consummated$
(ence, this automatic re#iew, as earlier intimated, !ursuant to -rticle =G of the 8e#ised enal
Code, as amended "y 'ection )) of 8$-$ No$ G:;C$
.n his lone assignment of error, W.&%8?DO no longer ,uestions his con#iction$ .nstead, he
argues that the trial court erred in im!osing the death !enalty considering that while the
information alleged that the #ictim was *; years old at the time the ra!e was allegedly
committed, it failed to allege that the offender was the common3law s!ouse of the #ictim1s
natural mother$ The failure to allege these s!ecial ,ualifying circumstances mandated the
im!osition of the lesser !enalty of reclusion perpetua, not death$ Thus, the information merely
charged him with sim!le ra!e$ (e could not, therefore, "e con#icted of ,ualified ra!e which is
!unisha"le "y death$
W.&%8?DO further asserts that he was ne#er married to Dionisia$ Thus, he could not e#en "e
considered a ste!father of Melissande$
%or its !art, the Office of the 'olicitor Ieneral refutes W.&%8?DO1s latter argument "y
maintaining that the relationshi! "etween him and Dionisia was clearly esta"lished in the
testimonies of Melissande and Dionisia$ (e e#en failed to deny it when he testified in o!en court$
-nent the failure of the information to allege that he is the common3law s!ouse of the #ictim1s
natural mother or the ste!father of the #ictim, the Office of the 'olicitor Ieneral counters that
such omission does not warrant a modification of the !enalty im!osed u!on him$ -ccordingly,
W.&%8?DO e4ercised moral ascendancy as ste!father of Melissande2 and the ra!e was
committed with the aggra#ating circumstances of o"#ious ungratefulness and the use of a deadly
wea!on$ While these circumstances were not alleged in the information, nonetheless, they were
!ro#en during trial$ Thus, the trial court !ro!erly im!osed the death !enalty$
%inally, the Office of the 'olicitor Ieneral see+s an increase in the award of ci#il indemnity
to G;,BBB and moral damages to ;B,BBB, in conformity with current /uris!rudence$
.n his 8e!ly 9rief, W.&%8?DO additionally contends that there was no finding "y the trial court
of the aggra#ating circumstance of o"#ious ungratefulness$ Neither was the use of a deadly
wea!on !ro#en$ %urther, the -!!ellee1s 9rief made no mention of a +nife in the counter3
statement of facts2 instead, it alleged that Melissande no longer resisted the ra!e su!!osedly due
to W.&%8?DO1s !unch$
.t is fundamental that in the re#iew of ra!e cases we are guided "y the following !rinci!lesA >*@
an accusation for ra!e can "e made with facility for it is difficult to !ro#e "ut more difficult for
the !erson accused, though innocent, to dis!ro#e it2 >)@ in #iew of the intrinsic nature of the
crime where two !ersons are in#ol#ed, the testimony of the com!lainant must "e scrutinized with
e4treme caution2 and ><@ the e#idence for the !rosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
it cannot "e allowed to draw strength from the wea+ness of the e#idence for the defense$
6)*7
The !aramount issue in ra!e cases is the credi"ility of the witnesses and the determination
thereof lies with the trial courts which ha#e the o!!ortunity to o"ser#e the de!ortment of the
witnesses$ -s a general rule, we do not distur" the /udgment of the trial court on the credi"ility of
the witnesses, unless there e4ists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has "een
ignored or misconstrued$ (ence, the trial court1s finding on the matter is accorded the highest
degree of res!ect and will not "e distur"ed on a!!eal$
6))7
.n the instant case, we gi#e credence to the trial court1s finding that Melissande was se4ually
ra#ished "y W.&%8?DO$ We a!!ro#e the trial court1s a!!reciation of Melissande1s forthright
testimony$ 'he was unwa#ering in her answers concerning the circumstances of the ra!e e#en in
the grueling cross3e4amination$ Well3settled is the !rinci!le that when a woman declares that
she has "een ra!ed she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has "een ra!ed, and
where her testimony !asses the test of credi"ility, the accused can "e con#icted on the "asis
thereof$
6)<7
%or, in most cases the only e#idence that can "e offered to esta"lish the guilt of the
accused is the com!lainant1s testimony$ 'uch is the nature of the crime of ra!e$
The use of force and intimidation are also undis!uted$
6)=7
W.&%8?DO1s act of threatening the
girl, who was *; years old at the time of the incident, with a foot3long +nife a"solutely constitute
intimidation$ The intimidation was heightened "y a !re#ious se4ual molestation, threats and
!re#ious acts of #iolence on her and her family "y W.&%8?DO$ .ndeed, such intimidation
!roduced fear in Melissande1s mind$ Moreo#er, W.&%8?DO1s su"se,uent acts of re,uiring her
to undress, lie down and s!read her legs to satisfy his lust notwithstanding her refusal and
struggles to a#ert the ra!e clearly esta"lish force$
6);7
.ndeed, no woman would o!enly admit that she was ra!ed and conse,uently su"/ect herself to an
e4amination of her !ri#ate !arts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a !u"lic trial and
disgrace herself with the narrati#e details of how she was ra!ed, if she was not in fact ra!ed$
6):7
This ruling es!ecially holds true where the com!lainant is a minor whose testimony deser#es
full credence$
6)G7
-s to W.&%8?DO1s sole defense of denial, the same is unsu"stantiated$ Moreo#er, he failed to
ascri"e any ill3moti#e why Melissande would falsely accuse him of such a serious crime$ Where
there is no e#idence to show a dou"tful reason or im!ro!er moti#e why a !rosecution witness
should testify against the accused or falsely im!licate him in a crime, the said testimony is
trustworthy$
6)F7
9esides, we ha#e time and time again ruled that mere denial cannot !re#ail o#er
the !ositi#e testimony of the witness$
6)C7
While we affirm the trial court1s /udgment of con#iction, we do not agree with the trial court1s
im!osition of the death !enalty on the "asis of the relationshi! "etween W.&%8?DO and
Melissande s!ecifically descri"ed in -rticle <<; of the 8e#ised enal Code, as amended "y 8$-$
No$ G:;C, under which he was charged, viz:
The death !enalty shall "e im!osed if the crime is committed with any of the following attendant
circumstancesA
*. !en t!e victi" is under eig!teen (#$) years o% age and t!e o%%ender is a !arent, ascendant,
ste!3!arent, guardian, relati#e "y consanguinity or affinity within the third ci#il degree or t!e
co""on&law spouse o% t!e parent o% t!e victi"$ 6.talics su!!lied$7
The information clearly indicates that there is no allegation therein that W.&%8?DO is the
common3law s!ouse of the #ictim1s mother$ .n other words, the actual relationshi! e4isting
"etween the offender and the offended !arty was not alleged$ We ha#e "een steadfast in our
!ronouncements that the circumstances under the amendatory !ro#isions of 'ection ** of 8$ -$
No$ G:;C, the e4istence of which would mandate the im!osition of the death !enalty, are in the
nature of s!ecial ,ualifying circumstances which must "e alleged in the information and if not so
alleged cannot "e !ro#en as such$
6<B7
Where any of said s!ecial ,ualifying circumstance is !ro#en
alone without the concurrent allegation thereof in the information, the constitutional and
statutory right of the accused to "e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him is #iolated$
6<*7
(a#ing "een charged in the information with sim!le ra!e only, and no other modifying
circumstance ha#ing "een !ro#en, the !enalty that should "e im!osed on W.&%8?DO !ursuant
to -rticle :< of the 8e#ised enal Code would "e reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the !enalties
!rescri"ed "y -rticle <<; of the 8e#ised enal Code, as amended "y 8$-$ No$ G:;C$
The other issues raised need not "e discussed e4ce!t the award of moral damages which the trial
court im!osed in the amount of Thirty Thousand esos ><B,BBB@$ The same is increased to %ifty
Thousand esos >;B,BBB@ in accordance with current /uris!rudence$
"HE#EFO#E, the decision of G Decem"er *CCF of the 8egional Trial Court of asig City,
9ranch ):;, in Criminal Case No$ ***;<=3( finding W.&%8?DO %?8N-ND?H y M-&.N-O,
alias -&%8?DO %?8N-ND?H y M-&.N-O, guilty of ra!e is here"y -%%.8M?D, with the
modifications that he is declared guilty of sim!le ra!e only and sentenced to suffer the !enalty
of reclusion perpetua, and that the award of moral damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand
esos ><B,BBB@ is increased to %ifty Thousand esos >;B,BBB@$
).#. No. *++,*- Octo.er /! ,0**
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! -!!ellee,
#s$
NOEL T. $LE! -!!ellant$
D ? C . ' . O N
DEL '$TILLO! J.:
- father ought to disci!line his children for committing a misdeed$ (owe#er, he may not em!loy
sadistic "eatings and inflict fatal in/uries under the guise of disci!lining them$
This a!!eal see+s the re#ersal of the Decem"er =, )BB: Decision
*
of the Court of -!!eals >C-@
in C-3I$8$ C83($C$ No$ B*:)G that affirmed the -ugust <, )BB; Joint Decision
)
of the 8egional
Trial Court >8TC@, 9ranch :< of Cala"anga, Camarines 'ur in Criminal Case Nos$ 8TC1B<3GF)
and 8TC1B<3GFC, con#icting a!!ellant Noel T$ 'ales >a!!ellant@ of the crimes of !arricide and
slight !hysical in/uries, res!ecti#ely$ The .nformation
<
for !arricide contained the following
allegationsA
That on or a"out the )Bth day of 'e!tem"er, )BB), at around or !ast FABB o1cloc+ in the e#ening
at 9rgy$ 'an Jicente, Tinam"ac, Camarines 'ur, hili!!ines, and within the /urisdiction of this
(onora"le Court, the a"o#e3named accused with e#ident !remeditation and 6in7 a fit of anger,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously hit 6se#eral7 times, the different !arts of
the "ody of his legitimate eldest son, Noemar 'ales, a C3year old minor, with a 6!iece of7 wood,
measuring more or less one meter in length and one 6and7 a half inches in diameter, 6there"y7
inflicting u!on the latter mortal wounds, which cause6d7 the death of the said #ictim, to the
damage and !re/udice of the latter1s heirs in such amount as may "e !ro#en in court$
-CT' CONT8-8Y TO &-W$
=
On the other hand, the .nformation
;
in Criminal Case No$ 8TC1B<3GFC alleges that a!!ellant
inflicted slight !hysical in/uries in the following mannerA
That on or a"out the )Bth day of 'e!tem"er, )BB), at around or !ast FABB o1cloc+ in the e#ening,
at 9rgy$ 'an Jicente, Tinam"ac, Camarines 'ur, hili!!ines, and within the /urisdiction of this
(onora"le Court, the a"o#e3named 6accused7 assault6ed7 and hit with a !iece of wood, one Noel
'ales, Jr$, an F3year old minor, his second legitimate son, there"y inflicting u!on him !hysical
in/uries which ha#e re,uired medical attendance for a !eriod of fi#e >;@ days to the damage and
!re/udice of the #ictim1s heirs in such amount as may "e !ro#en in court$
-CT' CONT8-8Y TO &-W$
:
When arraigned on -!ril **, )BB< and July *, )BB<, a!!ellant !leaded not guilty for the charges
of !arricide
G
and slight !hysical in/uries
F
res!ecti#ely$ The cases were then consolidated u!on
manifestation of the !rosecution which was not o"/ected to "y the defense$
C
During the !re3trial
conference, the !arties agreed to sti!ulate that a!!ellant is the father of the #ictims, Noemar
'ales >Noemar@ and Noel 'ales, Jr$ >Junior@2 that at the time of the incident, a!!ellant1s family
was li#ing in the con/ugal home located in 9arangay 'an Jicente, Tinam"ac, Camarines 'ur2
and, that a!!ellant #oluntarily surrendered to the !olice$
*B
Thereafter, trial ensued$
The Version of the Prosecution
On 'e!tem"er *C, )BB), "rothers Noemar and Junior, then nine and eight years old, res!ecti#ely,
left their home to attend the flu#ial !rocession of Our &ady of eKafrancia without the
!ermission of their !arents$ They did not return home that night$ When their mother, Maria &itan
'ales >Maria@, loo+ed for them the ne4t day, she found them in the near"y 9arangay of
Magsaysay$ -fraid of their father1s rage, Noemar and Junior initially refused to return home "ut
their mother !re#ailed u!on them$ When the two +ids reached home at around F o1cloc+ in the
e#ening of 'e!tem"er )B, )BB), a furious a!!ellant confronted them$ -!!ellant then whi!!ed
them with a stic+ which was later "ro+en so that he "rought his +ids outside their house$ With
Noemar1s and Junior1s hands and feet tied to a coconut tree, a!!ellant continued "eating them
with a thic+ !iece of wood$ During the "eating Maria stayed inside the house and did not do
anything as she feared for her life$
When the "eating finally sto!!ed, the three wal+ed "ac+ to the house with a!!ellant assisting
Noemar as the latter was staggering, while Junior fearfully followed$ Maria noticed a crac+ in
Noemar1s head and in/uries in his legs$ 'he also saw in/uries in the right !ortion of the head, the
left chee+, and legs of Junior$ 'hortly thereafter, Noemar colla!sed and lost consciousness$
Maria tried to re#i#e him and when Noemar remained motionless des!ite her efforts, she told
a!!ellant that their son was already dead$ (owe#er, a!!ellant refused to "elie#e her$ Maria then
told a!!ellant to call a ,uac+ doctor$ (e left and returned with one, who told them that they ha#e
to "ring Noemar to a hos!ital$ -!!ellant thus !roceeded to ta+e the unconscious Noemar to the
/unction and waited for a #ehicle to ta+e them to a hos!ital$ -s there was no #ehicle and "ecause
another ,uac+ doctor they met at the /unction told them that Noemar is already dead, a!!ellant
"rought his son "ac+ to their house$
Noemar1s wa+e lasted only for a night and he was immediately "uried the following day$ (is
"ody was ne#er e4amined "y a doctor$
The Version of the Defense
rior to the incident, Noemar and Junior had already left their residence on three se!arate
occasions without the !ermission of their !arents$ ?ach time, a!!ellant merely scolded them and
told them not to re!eat the misdeed since something untoward might ha!!en to them$ During
those times, Noemar and Junior were ne#er !hysically harmed "y their father$
(owe#er, Noemar and Junior again left their home without their !arents1 !ermission on
'e!tem"er *:, )BB) and failed to return for se#eral days$ Worse, a!!ellant recei#ed information
that his sons stole a !edica"$ -s they are "ro+e, a!!ellant had to "orrow money so that his wife
could search for Noemar and Junior$ When his sons finally arri#ed home at F o1cloc+ in the
e#ening of 'e!tem"er )B, )BB), a!!ellant scolded and hit them with a !iece of wood as thic+ as
his inde4 finger$ (e hit Noemar and Junior simultaneously since they were side "y side$ -fter
whi!!ing his sons in their "uttoc+s three times, he noticed that Noemar was chilling and
frothing$ When Noemar lost consciousness, a!!ellant decided to "ring him to a hos!ital in Naga
City "y waiting for a #ehicle at the crossroad which was se#en +ilometers away from their house$
-!!ellant held Noemar while on their way to the crossroad and o"ser#ed his difficulty in
"reathing$ The !u!ils of Noemar1s eyes were also mo#ing u! and down$ -!!ellant heard him say
that he wanted to slee! and saw him !ointing to his chest in !ain$ (owe#er, they waited in #ain
since a #ehicle ne#er came$ .t was then that Noemar died$ -!!ellant thus decided to /ust "ring
Noemar "ac+ to their house$
-!!ellant denied that his son died from his "eating since no !arent could +ill his or her child$ (e
claimed that Noemar died as a result of difficulty in "reathing$ .n fact, he ne#er com!lained of
the whi!!ing done to him$ 9esides, a!!ellant recalled that Noemar was "rought to a hos!ital
more than a year "efore 'e!tem"er )BB) and diagnosed with ha#ing a wea+ heart$
On the other hand, Maria testified that Noemar suffered from e!ile!sy$ Whene#er he suffers
from e!ile!tic seizures, Noemar froths and !asses out$ 9ut he would regain consciousness after
*; minutes$ (is seizures normally occur whene#er he gets hungry or when scolded$
The death of Noemar was re!orted to the !olice "y the "arangay ca!tain$
**
Thereafter, a!!ellant
surrendered #oluntarily$
*)
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
.n a Joint Decision,
*<
the trial court held that the e#idence !resented "y the !rosecution was
sufficient to !ro#e that a!!ellant was guilty of committing the crimes of !arricide and slight
!hysical in/uries in the manner descri"ed in the .nformations$ .n the crime of !arricide, the trial
court did not consider the aggra#ating circumstance of e#ident !remeditation against a!!ellant
since there is no !roof that he !lanned to +ill Noemar$ 9ut the trial court a!!reciated in his fa#or
the mitigating circumstances of #oluntary surrender and lac+ of intent to commit so gra#e a
wrong$ The dis!ositi#e !ortion of said Joint Decision readsA
W(?8?%O8?, in #iew of the foregoing, the !rosecution ha#ing !ro#en the guilt of Noel 'ales,
"eyond reasona"le dou"t, he is found guilty of !arricide in Crim$ Case No$ 8TC1B<3GF) and
sentenced to suffer the !enalty of reclusion !er!etua$ (e is li+ewise ordered to !ay the heirs of
Noemar 'ales, the amount of ;B,BBB$BB as ci#il indemnity2 ;B,BBB$BB as moral
damages2 );,BBB,BB as e4em!lary damages and to !ay the costs$
%urthermore, accused Noel 'ales is also found guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of
slight !hysical in/uries in Crim$ Case No$ 8TC1B<3GFC and sentenced to suffer the !enalty of
twenty >)B@ days of -rresto Menor in its medium !eriod$
-ccused Noel 'ales is li+ewise meted the accessory !enalties as !ro#ided under the 8e#ised
enal Code$ Considering that herein accused has undergone !re#enti#e im!risonment, he shall "e
credited in the ser#ice of his sentence with the time he has undergone !re#enti#e im!risonment
in accordance with and su"/ect to the conditions !ro#ided for in -rticle )C of the 8e#ised enal
Code$
'O O8D?8?D$
*=
-!!ellant filed a Notice of -!!eal
*;
which was gi#en due course in an Order
*:
dated 'e!tem"er
)*, )BB;$
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
(owe#er, the a!!ellate court denied the a!!eal and affirmed the ruling of the trial court$ The
dis!ositi#e !ortion of its Decision
*G
reads as followsA
"HE#EFO#E, !remises considered, the a!!eal is D?N.?D$ The assailed decision dated
-ugust <, )BB; in Criminal Case Nos$ 8TC1B<3GF) and 8TC1B<3GFC for arricide and 'light
hysical .n/uries, res!ecti#ely, is$FFI#&ED$
ursuant to 'ection #((c), )ule #*+ o% t!e )evised )ules o% ,ri"inal Procedure, a!!ellant may
a!!eal this case to the 'u!reme Court #ia a Notice of -!!eal filed "efore this Court$
O O#DE#ED$
*F
Issues
(ence, a!!ellant is now "efore this Court with the following two3fold issuesA
.
T(? CO58T - Q5O I8-J?&Y ?88?D .N %.ND.NI T(? -CC5'?D3-?&&-NT
I5.&TY 9?YOND 8?-'ON-9&? DO59T O% T(? C8.M?' C(-8I?D$
..
T(? CO58T - Q5O I8-J?&Y ?88?D .N NOT I.J.NI W?.I(T TO T(?
T?'T.MON.?' O% T(? D?%?N'? W.TN?''?'$
*C
Our #uling
The a!!eal is without merit$
The Charge of arricide
-!!ellant admits "eating his sons on 'e!tem"er )B, )BB) as a disci!linary measure, "ut denies
"attering Noemar to death$ (e "elie#es that no father could +ill his own son$ -ccording to him,
Noemar had a wea+ heart that resulted in attac+s consisting of loss of consciousness and froth in
his mouth$ (e claims that Noemar was conscious as they tra#eled to the /unction where they
would ta+e a #ehicle in going to a hos!ital$ (owe#er, Noemar had difficulty in "reathing and
com!lained of chest !ain$ (e contends that it was at this moment that Noemar died, not during
his whi!!ing$ To su"stantiate his claim, a!!ellant !resented his wife, Maria, who testified that
Noemar indeed suffered seizures, "ut this was due to e!ile!sy$
The contentions of a!!ellant fail to !ersuade$ The im!osition of !arental disci!line on children of
tender years must always "e with the #iew of correcting their erroneous "eha#ior$ - !arent or
guardian must e4ercise restraint and caution in administering the !ro!er !unishment$ They must
not e4ceed the !arameters of their !arental duty to disci!line their minor children$ .t is incum"ent
u!on them to remain rational and refrain from "eing moti#ated "y anger in enforcing the
intended !unishment$ - de#iation will undou"tedly result in sadism$
rior to whi!!ing his sons, a!!ellant was already furious with them "ecause they left the family
dwelling without !ermission and that was already !receded "y three other similar incidents$ This
was further aggra#ated "y a re!ort that his sons stole a !edica" there"y !utting him in disgrace$
Moreo#er, they ha#e no money so much so that he still had to "orrow so that his wife could loo+
for the children and "ring them home$ %rom these, it is therefore clear that a!!ellant was
moti#ated not "y an honest desire to disci!line the children for their misdeeds "ut "y an e#il
intent of #enting his anger$ This can reasona"ly "e concluded from the in/uries of Noemar in his
head, face and legs$ .t was only when Noemar1s "ody sli!!ed from the coconut tree to which he
was tied and lost consciousness that a!!ellant sto!!ed the "eating$ (ad not Noemar lost
consciousness, a!!ellant would most li+ely not ha#e ceased from his sadistic act$ (is su"se,uent
attem!t to see+ medical attention for Noemar as an act of re!entance was ne#ertheless too late to
sa#e the child1s life$ .t "ears stressing that a decent and res!onsi"le !arent would ne#er su"/ect a
minor child to sadistic !unishment in the guise of disci!line$
-!!ellant attem!ts to e#ade criminal cul!a"ility "y arguing that he merely intended to disci!line
Noemar and not to +ill him$ (owe#er, the rele#ant !ortion of -rticle = of the 8e#ised enal
Code statesA
-rt$ =$ ,ri"inal liability$ L Criminal lia"ility shall "e incurredA
*$ 9y any !erson committing a felony >delito@ although the wrongful act done "e different from
that which he intended$
4 4 4 4
.n order that a !erson may "e criminally lia"le for a felony different from that which he intended
to commit, it is indis!ensi"le >a@ that a felony was committed and >"@ that the wrong done to the
aggrie#ed !erson "e the direct conse,uence of the crime committed "y the !er!etrator$
)B
(ere,
there is no dou"t a!!ellant in "eating his son Noemar and inflicting u!on him !hysical in/uries,
committed a felony$ -s a direct conse,uence of the "eating suffered "y the child, he e4!ired$
-!!ellant1s criminal lia"ility for the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear$
-!!ellant1s claim that it was Noemar1s heart ailment that caused his death deser#es no merit$
This declaration is self3ser#ing and uncorro"orated since it is not su"stantiated "y e#idence$
While Dr$ 'al#ador 9etito, a Munici!al (ealth Officer of Tinam"ac, Camarines 'ur issued a
death certificate indicating that Noemar died due to cardio3!ulmonary arrest, the same is not
sufficient to !ro#e that his death was due mainly to his !oor health$ .t is worth em!hasizing that
Noemar1s cada#er was ne#er e4amined$ -lso, e#en if a!!ellant !resented his wife, Maria, to lend
credence to his contention, the latter1s testimony did not hel! as same was e#en in conflict with
his testimony$ -!!ellant testified that Noemar suffered from a wea+ heart which resulted in his
death while Maria declared that Noemar was suffering from e!ile!sy$ .nterestingly, Maria1s
testimony was also unsu"stantiated "y e#idence$
Moreo#er, as will "e discussed "elow, all the elements of the crime of !arricide are !resent in
this case$
-ll the ?lements of arricide are !resent in the case at "ench$
We find no error in the ruling of the trial court, as affirmed "y the a!!ellate court, that a!!ellant
committed the crime of !arricide$
-rticle )=: of the 8e#ised enal Code defines !arricide as followsA
-rt$ )=:$ arricide$ L -ny !erson who shall +ill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his s!ouse, shall "e guilty of !arricide
and shall "e !unished "y the !enalty of reclusion perpetua to death$
Marricide is committed whenA >*@ a !erson is +illed2 >)@ the deceased is +illed "y the accused2 ><@
the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate s!ouse of accused$M
)*
.n the case at "ench, there is o#erwhelming e#idence to !ro#e the first element, that is, a !erson
was +illed$ Maria testified that her son Noemar did not regain consciousness after the se#ere
"eating he suffered from the hands of his father$ Thereafter, a ,uac+ doctor declared Noemar
dead$ -fterwards, as testified to "y Maria, they held a wa+e for Noemar the ne4t day and then
"uried him the day after$ Noemar1s Death Certificate
))
was also !resented in e#idence$
There is li+ewise no dou"t as to the e4istence of the second element that the a!!ellant +illed the
deceased$ 'ame is sufficiently esta"lished "y the !ositi#e testimonies of Maria and Junior$ Maria
testified that on 'e!tem"er )B, )BB), Noemar and his younger "rother, Junior, were whi!!ed "y
a!!ellant, their father, inside their house$ The whi!!ing continued e#en outside the house "ut this
time, the "rothers were tied side "y side to a coconut tree while a!!ellant deli#ered the lashes
indiscriminately$ %or his !art, Junior testified that Noemar, while tied to a tree, was "eaten "y
their father in the head$ 9ecause the sa#agery of the attac+ was too much for Noemar1s frail "ody
to endure, he lost consciousness and died from his in/uries immediately after the incident$
-s to the third element, a!!ellant himself admitted that the deceased is his child$ While
Noemar1s "irth certificate was not !resented, oral e#idence of filial relationshi! may "e
considered$
)<
-s earlier stated, a!!ellant sti!ulated to the fact that he is the father of Noemar
during the !re3trial conference and li+ewise made the same declaration while under oath$
)=
Maria
also testified that Noemar and Junior are her sons with a!!ellant, her hus"and$ These testimonies
are sufficient to esta"lish the relationshi! "etween a!!ellant and Noemar$
Clearly, all the elements of the crime of !arricide are o"taining in this case$
-!ere is .itigating ,ircu"stance o% /oluntary 'urrender but not 0ack o% Intention to ,o""it so
1rave a rong
The trial court correctly a!!reciated the mitigating circumstance of #oluntary surrender in fa#or
of a!!ellant since the e#idence shows that he went to the !olice station a day after the "arangay
ca!tain re!orted the death of Noemar$ The !resentation "y a!!ellant of himself to the !olice
officer on duty in a s!ontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent Mto sa#e the authorities
the trou"le and e4!ense that may "e incurred for his search and ca!tureM
);
which is the essence of
#oluntary surrender$
(owe#er, there was error in a!!reciating the mitigating circumstance of lac+ of intention to
commit so gra#e a wrong$ -!!ellant ado!ted means to ensure the success of the sa#age "attering
of his sons$ (e tied their wrists to a coconut tree to !re#ent their esca!e while they were "attered
with a stic+ to inflict as much !ain as !ossi"le$ Noemar suffered in/uries in his face, head and
legs that immediately caused his death$ MThe mitigating circumstance of lac+ of intent to commit
so gra#e a wrong as that actually !er!etrated cannot "e a!!reciated where the acts em!loyed "y
the accused were reasona"ly sufficient to !roduce and did actually !roduce the death of the
#ictim$M
):
The -ward of Damages and enalty for arricide
We find !ro!er the trial court1s award to the heirs of Noemar of the sums of ;B,BBB$BB as ci#il
indemnity, and;B,BBB$BB as moral damages$ (owe#er, the award of e4em!lary damages
of );,BBB$BB should "e increased to<B,BBB$BB in accordance with !re#ailing
/uris!rudence$
)G
M.n addition, and in conformity with current !olicy, we also im!ose on all the
monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of :N from the date of finality of this
Decision until fully !aid$M
)F
-s regards the !enalty, !arricide is !unisha"le "y reclusion perpetua to death$ The trial court
im!osed the !enalty of reclusion perpetua when it considered the !resence of the mitigating
circumstances of #oluntary surrender and lac+ of intent to commit so gra#e a wrong$ (owe#er,
e#en if we earlier ruled that the trial court erred in considering the mitigating circumstance of
lac+ of intent to commit so gra#e a wrong, we maintain the !enalty im!osed$ This is "ecause the
e4clusion of said mitigating circumstance does not result to a different !enalty since the !resence
of only one mitigating circumstance, which is, #oluntary surrender, with no aggra#ating
circumstance, is sufficient for the im!osition of reclusion perpetua as the !ro!er !rison term$
-rticle :< of the 8e#ised enal Code !ro#ides in !art as followsA
-rt$ :<$ 8ules for the a!!lication of indi#isi"le !enalties$ 3 4 4 4
.n all cases in which the law !rescri"es a !enalty com!osed of two indi#isi"le !enalties, the
following rules shall "e o"ser#ed in the a!!lication thereofA
4 4 4 4
<$ When the commission of the act is attended "y some mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggra#ating circumstance, the lesser !enalty shall "e a!!lied$
4 4 4 4
The crime of !arricide is !unisha"le "y the indi#isi"le !enalties of reclusion perpetua to death$
With one mitigating circumstance, which is #oluntary surrender, and no aggra#ating
circumstance, the im!osition of the lesser !enalty of reclusion perpetua and not the !enalty of
death on a!!ellant was thus !ro!er$
)C
-!e ,!arge o% 'lig!t P!ysical In2uries
The #ictim himself, Junior testified that he, together with his "rother Noemar, were "eaten "y
their father, herein a!!ellant, while they were tied to a coconut tree$ (e recalled to ha#e "een hit
on his right eye and right leg and to ha#e "een e4amined "y a !hysician thereafter$
<B
Maria
corro"orated her son1s testimony$
<*
Junior1s testimony was li+ewise su!!orted "y Dr$ 5rsolino rima#era, Jr$ >Dr$ rima#era@ of
Tinam"ac Community (os!ital who e4amined him for !hysical in/uries$ (e issued a Medical
Certificate for his findings and testified on the same$ (is findings were >*@ muscular contusions
with hematoma on the right side of Junior1s face /ust "elow the eye and on "oth legs, which
could ha#e "een caused "y hitting said area with a hard o"/ect such as a wooden stic+ and, >)@
a"rasions of "rownish color circling "oth wrist with crust formation which could ha#e "een
sustained "y the !atient due to struggling while his hands were tied$ When as+ed how long does
he thin+ the in/uries would heal, Dr$ rima#era answered one to two wee+s$
<)
9ut if a!!lied with
medication, the in/uries would heal in a wee+$
<<
We gi#e full faith and credence to the categorical and !ositi#e testimony of Junior that he was
"eaten "y his father and that "y reason thereof he sustained in/uries$ (is testimony deser#es
credence es!ecially since the same is corro"orated "y the testimony of his mother, Maria, and
su!!orted "y medical e4amination$ We thus find that the 8TC correctly held a!!ellant guilty of
the crime of slight !hysical in/uries$#awp!il
Penalty %or 'lig!t P!ysical In2uries
We li+ewise affirm the !enalty im!osed "y the 8TC$ Dr$ rima#era testified that the in/uries
sustained "y Junior should heal in one wee+ u!on medication$ (ence, the trial court correctly
meted u!on a!!ellant the !enalty under !aragra!h *, -rticle ):: of the 8e#ised enal Code
which !ro#idesA
-8T$ )::$ 'lig!t P!ysical In2uries and "altreat"ent. 3 The crime of slight !hysical in/uries
shall "e !unishedA
*$ 9y arresto "enor when the offender has inflicted !hysical in/uries which shall inca!acitate the
offended !arty for la"or from one to nine days or shall re,uire medical attendance during the
same !eriod$
4 4 4 4
There "eing no mitigating or aggra#ating circumstance !resent in the commission of the crime,
the !enalty shall "e in its medium !eriod$ The 8TC was thus correct in im!osing u!on a!!ellant
the !enalty of twenty >)B@ days ofarresto "enor in its medium !eriod$
W(?8?%O8?, the a!!eal is D?N.?D$ The Decision of the Court of -!!eals in C-3I$8$ C83
($C$ No$ B*:)G that affirmed the Joint Decision of the 8egional Trial Court, 9ranch :< of
Cala"anga, Camarines 'ur in Criminal Case Nos$ 8TC1B<3GF) and 8TC1B<3GFC, con#icting
Noel T$ 'ales of the crimes of !arricide and slight !hysical in/uries is -%%.8M?D with
MOD.%.C-T.ON' that the award of e4em!lary damages is increased to <B,BBB$BB$ .n addition,
an interest of :N is im!osed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Decision until
fully !aid$
'O O8D?8?D$
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! plaintiff-appellee, vs. NETO# 1$1O# and ON2
1$1O#!
3
accused-appellants.
D E ' I I O N
#E)$L$DO! J.:
- manOs anguished cries for hel! at around <ABB oOcloc+ in the afternoon of Octo"er )),
*CFC awa+ened !rosecution witness %elicidad Duhaylungsod who was aslee! at her home$ 'he
instincti#ely !eered out of the window and from there, at an a!!ro4imate distance of twenty
meters, she #i#idly witnessed a ghastly incident$ -ccused3a!!ellants Nestor 9a"or and his wife,
'ony 9a"or, "oth armed with "olos, were chasing a fleeing and "loodied ?#angelino
Camias$ Then, to DuhaylungsodOs horror, 'ony 9a"or lunged with her wea!on at the ha!less
Camias and hac+ed him three times on different !arts of the "ody$ Nestor 9a"or then deli#ered
the fatal "low "y sta""ing Camias on the chest with his wea!on$ The three were all neigh"ors of
%elicidad Duhaylungsod in 8izal, alawan and were +nown to her$
6*7
-!!ellants were ta+en into the custody of the law on the same day$ The information that
initiated Criminal Case No$ F<=F on No#em"er *<, *CFC in the 8egional Trial Court, 9ranch G=,
ofalawan charged a!!ellants with the crime of murder as confederates thereof, and with further
allegations of the attendant aggra#ating circumstances of e#ident !remeditation and treachery$
6)7
-t their arraignment on March *<, *CCB, "oth a!!ellants, with assistance of counsel
de o%icio, registered negati#e !leas$
6<7
The !rosecution anchored its case mainly u!on %elicidad
DuhaylungsodOs testimony, whereas the defense had as witnesses the accused s!ouses themsel#es
and their young daughter, Jonalyn 9a"or$
-!!ellants contended at the trial that the fatal e#ent was the result of the #ictimOs attem!t to
ra#ish 'ony 9a"or at their residence in 4arangay 9unog, 8izal$ 'ony and Jonalyn testified that
on the day and time in ,uestion, the #ictim arri#ed at their house and as+ed for 5tuba,5 a local
ty!e of coconut wine$ 'ony, who was then attending to her new"orn "a"y, re!lied that their
su!!ly thereof had all "een consumed$ 'he then a#ailed of the occasion to !ress Camias to settle
his un!aid de"t to them$ Without warning, Camias cre!t toward 'ony and "egan to assault her
se4ually$ -!!ellant managed to e4tricate herself from the clutches of Camias after "iting him on
the hand and fleeing from him$
6=7
'ony 9a"orOs actuations enraged the #ictim who then unsheathed his "olo and ran after
a!!ellant$ - hac+ing "low "y Camias hit and wounded 'ony on the u!!er right hand /ust as the
latter was a"out to ma+e good her esca!e$ -t this !oint, Nestor 9a"or arri#ed and saw his wife
"leeding from her wound and shouting for hel!$ 9efore he could attend to her, he was attac+ed
"y Camias, causing him to li+ewise ma+e a dash for safety with the ram!aging Camias closely
"ehind him$ Thereafter, and this would "e a!!ellantsO #ersion of the second stage of the fight,
Nestor was a"le to get hold of a "olo from a near"y cart and he then stood his ground$ -fter
!arrying a "low from the #ictim, he retaliated with a sta""ing "low of his own which hit the
#ictim on the chest$ The latter then fell to the ground from that "low which a!!arently was a fatal
one$
6;7
Nestor 9a"or asserted to the end that he had deli#ered /ust one sta""ing thrust on the #ictim$ (e
had sim!ly acted in defense of himself and of his family and, therefore, the slaying of Camias
was /ustified under the circumstances$ (is wife and co3accused, on the other hand, with
corro"oration from Nestor and Jonalyn 9a"or, insisted that she ne#er laid a hand on the
#ictim$ 'he could not herself ha#e attac+ed the deceased considering that she was already
wounded and wea+ from loss of "lood$ -ll three of them, Nestor, 'ony and Jonalyn, li+ewise
#ehemently !rotested that the !rosecution witness, %elicidad Duhaylungsod, was nowhere at the
scene of the crime when it was committed$
Ne#ertheless, the trial court declared itself fully satisfied that the !rosecution had duly
esta"lished, "eyond the shadow of a dou"t, the guilt of a!!ellants through the firm testimony of
Duhaylungsod and the documentary e#idence adduced, !articularly the auto!sy re!ort on the
cause of death of Camias which showed a total of ten sta" and hac+ing wounds on different !arts
of his "ody$
6:7
-!!ellants were accordingly meted the !enalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered
to !ay the heirs of the #ictim the amount of FB,BBB$BB "y way3of actual, e4em!lary and moral
damages, as well as the costs$
6G7
*$ .n a re!rise of their !osition at the trial, a!!ellants maintain in this a!!eal that the +illing of
the #ictim, ?#angelino Camias, was /ustified on account of their ha#ing res!ecti#ely acted in
self3defense and in defense of a relati#e$ 5nfortunately for them, the e#idence on record
contrarily and indu"ita"ly !oint to their guild in the offense charged$ .t is elementary that self3
defense re,uires unlawful aggression on the !art of the #ictim, reasona"le necessity of the means
em!loyed "y the accused to !re#ent or re!el it, and lac+ of sufficient !ro#ocation on the !art of
the !erson defending himself$ The first two re,uisites, unlawful aggression and reasona"le
necessity of the means em!loyed to re!el it, are li+ewise re,uired in the /ustifying circumstance
of defense of a relati#e, with the third element "eing that if the !ro#ocation was gi#en "y the
!erson attac+ed, the one ma+ing a defense had no !art therein$
6F7
-n accused relying on said /ustifying circumstances must !ro#e the same "y means of sufficient,
satisfactory, and con#incing e#idence$
6C7
-s the "urden of !roof rests u!on him to esta"lish the
same, he must necessarily rely on the strength of his own e#idence and not u!on the wea+ness of
that of the !rosecution$
6*B7
-nd, where the !rosecution e#idence, as in the !resent a!!eal, renders
e4tremely dou"tful the #eracity of the defense #ersion, said defenses cannot "e granted any
e#identiary weight$
.n the case at "ar, the forthright declarations of !rosecution witness %elicidad Duhaylungsod
"efore the trial court cou!led with !roof of the num"er of wounds that the #ictim sustained, sets
at naught the fee"le reliance of a!!ellants on the /ustifying circumstances of self3defense and
defense of relati#e$ True, there may initially ha#e "een unlawful aggression "y the #ictim when
he attem!ted to ra!e 'ony 9a"or and, failing therein, he #ented his ire on a sur!rised Nestor
9a"or "y attac+ing the latter$ (owe#er, the se,uence of !ro#en e#ents which trans!ired
thereafter effecti#ely negates the !resence or a!!lica"ility of this fundamental element and of the
other element of reasona"le means to !re#ent or re!el that aggression at the second stage of the
fray$
.t clearly a!!ears from the e#idence that after the s!ouses had turned the tide against the
deceased, with the latter already wounded and defensi#ely scram"ling away from the house of
the 9a"ors, "oth a!!ellants still !ursued Camias$ -s soon as 'ony 9a"or caught u! with him
near the residence of %elicidad Duhaylungsod, she hac+ed the #ictim thrice, after which Nestor
9a"or sta""ed him on the chest$ This was e4actly the scene which %elicidad Duhaylungsod
witnessed$ .t is therefore a!!arent that the deceased was then no longer the aggressor "ut that he
was actually attem!ting to esca!e from further harm at the hands of the s!ouses$
.t was thus indis!uta"le that the unlawful aggression which the deceased had commenced in
a!!ellantOs house had long ceased$ Conse,uently, and on the same factual "asis, the element of
reasona"le necessity of the means em!loyed to re!el the aggression could no longer "e
a!!reciated$ The rule is that when an unlawful aggression no longer e4ists, the one ma+ing the
defense has no more right to +ill or e#en wound the former aggressor$
6**7
The theory of self3
defense is "ased on the necessity on the !art of the !erson attac+ed to !re#ent or re!el the
unlawful aggression, and when the danger or ris+ to him has disa!!eared, there should "e a
corres!onding cessation of hostilities on the !art of the !erson defending himself or of a relati#e
ma+ing that defense$
6*)7
Moreo#er, the num"er of the wounds sustained "y the deceased negates the assertion of said
/usfifying circumstances "y a!!ellants$
6*<7
The auto!sy re!ort re#eals that ?#angelino Camias had
sustained all of ten wounds and one e#en resulted incom!letely se#ering his right arm$
6*=7
The
numerous wounds also "ear out the testimony of Duhaylungsod, to whom no ill moti#e has "een
attri"uted "y the defense, that 'ony 9a"or further hac+ed the wounded #ictim thrice and that,
thereafter, Nestor 9a"or sta""ed him on the chest$ 'ony 9a"orOs !retense that she had no hand at
all in the slaying of the #ictim is soundly refuted "y the !ositi#e and credi"le identification and
attestation made "y Duhaylungsod regarding her direct !artici!ation$
6*;7
Cons!iracy and treachery could further "e deduced from the e#idence on record$ Duhaylungsod
recalled that as the #ictim was #eering away from the s!ouses who were closely ad#ancing on
him, he fell forward to a +neeling !osition, !resuma"ly "ecause of his wea+ened condition$ -t
this !oint, 'ony 9a"or deli#ered three hac+ing "lows on the deceased, inflicting wounds on the
latter, and Nestor 9a"or followed suit shortly after 'ony shouted in Jisayan "y way of
e4hortation, M%inish him offPM
The acts of "oth a!!ellants, collecti#ely and indi#idually, clearly demonstrate and !oint to a
cons!iracy "ecause of a common !ur!ose, concert of action, and community of interest$
6*:7
The
cou!le e#idently and concurrently had in mind the termination of the #ictimOs life$ %urther, from
all indications, the mode of attac+ ado!ted "y them ensured the accom!lishment of their criminal
o"/ecti#e without ris+ to themsel#es as the deceased was "y then defenseless and had e#en
turned away with his "ac+ towards the s!ouses$ Treachery should inelucta"ly characterize the
mode of such +illing, thus con#erting the crime to murder$
6*G7
%rom the undenia"le facts of this case, it needs no citation of /uris!rudence to show that the
aggra#ating circumstance of e#ident !remeditation can in no wise "e considered here, and that
no other aggra#ating circumstance has "een alleged or !ro#ed against a!!ellants$ (owe#er, the
court "elow, failed to a!!reciate, and the !arties themsel#es did not consider, the !resence of
e4tenuating circumstances a#aila"le to a!!ellants and reflected "y the e#idence on record$
.t is significant that the !rosecution itself does not dis!ute that what started the whole fracas
which e#entuated in the murder of the #ictim was the se4ual ad#ances he made against a!!ellant
'ony 9a"or, followed "y his slashing her hand with his "olo when he was frustrated in his lustful
design, and thereafter his turning around against and attac+ing a!!ellant Nestor 9a"or who
arri#ed u!on the scene$ There is no showing or intimation that either a!!ellant had any moti#e
or reason whatsoe#er to cause or !ro#o+e a fight with him or that they e#er did so$
The Court, therefore, a!!reciates in fa#or of a!!ellant 'ony 9a"or the mitigating circumstance
of sufficient !ro#ocation, !ersonal to her and unlawful in nature, which immediately !receded
and resulted in the ensuing e4changes of "lows with "laded wea!ons and culminated in the
#ictimOs death$
-!!ellant Nestor 9a"or should, in turn, "e credited with the mitigating circumstance of ha#ing
acted in the immediate #indication of a gra#e offense committed "y the deceased against his
wife, who is now li+ewise his co3a!!ellant, consisting of a li"idinous attem!t against her #irtue
and a cowardly attac+ against her !erson$ arenthetically, while the law s!ea+s of an
MimmediateM #indication of a gra#e offense, the same should "e understood to mean
!ro4imate$M
6*F7
There "eing no aggra#ating circumstance to offset these mitigating circumstances to which
a!!ellants are res!ecti#ely entitled, the lower court erred in im!osing u!on them the medium
!eriod of the then !enalty for murder, instead of the minimum !eriod thereof with the "enefit of
an indeterminate sentence$
)$ On the foregoing dis,uisition, this a!!ellate re#iew would ha#e ended with a sim!le
modification of the trial courtOs /udgment of con#iction, e4ce!t that the Court feels it /ust and fair
to address a!!ellantsO grie#ance o#er the delay that su!er#ened during this a!!ellate
!roceeding$ .ndeed, it is lamenta"le that this a!!eal is "eing decided only now although it was
"rought to this Court under a notice of a!!eal dated -ugust *<, *CC)$
This regretta"le im!asse was initially caused "y a!!ellantsO own counsel who, des!ite the notice
to file a!!ellantsO "rief as early as March =, *CC<, actually com!lied therewith only on July )G,
*CC=, after re!eated resolutions of the Court and an ultimate sanction "y the im!osition u!on him
of a fine$
Thereafter, as candidly re#ealed in the CourtOs resolution of January )=, *CC:,
6*C7
the situation
was aggra#ated "y the ine4!lica"le failure of the Io#ernmentOs own counsel to su"mit the "rief
for a!!ellee, des!ite fourteen e4tensions !atiently granted "y the Court on his stereoty!ed
re!resentation of !ressure of wor+ as a /ustification$ Thus, although called for u!on recei!t of
a!!ellantOs "rief, it was only on %e"ruary F, *CC: that the "rief for a!!ellee was filed "y the
Office of the 'olicitor Ieneral$ With the Court first attending to the corres!onding sanctions,
and gi#ing allowance for the filing of a!!ellantOs re!ly "rief, it was only in July, *CC: that this
case was ready for resolution$
.f the Court has digressed to narrate these facts, it is not to essay an apologia or a /ustification
"ut to ma+e +nown such contretem!s in the ho!e that the !ressure of !u"lic o!inion would "ear
u!on and deter !ri#ate and go#ernment ad#ocates from !ractices conduci#e to delay in /udicial
administration and ad/udication$ -s the Court stated in its aforecited resolutionA
MThe Court has often and unfairly "een the o"/ect of criticisms for su!!osed inordinate delay in
the administration of /ustice, es!ecially regarding its role in the criminal /ustice system$ What
ha!!ened in this case illustrates one of the reasons for such delay, which fact has not "een
!u"licly re#ealed "ut is +nown to most mem"ers of the "ar, with the Court continuously
e4!loring remedial measures therefor$ 4 4 4$M
.t must also "e "orne in mind "y "oth defense and !rosecution counsel that, regardless of the
ultimate dis!osition of an a!!eal, the un/ustifia"le delay thereof will ha#e !re/udiced the
a!!ellant either way$ 9y way of re"u+e and reminder, the Court stressed in its aforesaid
resolution that counsel should not "e Mcrassly indifferent to the situation of an accused3a!!ellant
who, if ac,uitted, cannot reco#er in !oint of time e#en a moment of his unwarranted detention2
and if con#icted, would generally "e entitled to only =Q; of his !re#enti#e im!risonment and is
denied good conduct allowances since he is only a detention !risoner "efore such final
con#iction$M
To "e sure, this case and others which ha#e "een "eset "y the same #icissitudes may constitute
isolated situations, with the accused therein "eing unfortunate #ictims of circumstances$ -lso, to
their credit, the 'olicitor Ieneral and heads of !rosecution ser#ices, together with res!onsi"le
mem"ers of the hili!!ine 9ar in !ri#ate !ractice, ha#e !ledged to ado!t !rocedures aimed at
!rom!t and efficient conduct of /udicial "usiness$ .t is on the foregoing so"ering thoughts and
with this !resent ho!eful note that the case at "ar may ha#e !ro!itiously ser#ed a meaningful
!ur!ose$
Coming "ac+ to the !uniti#e as!ect of the im!ugned /udgment, as earlier e4!lained, the !enalty
for murder of which we fine a!!ellants guilty should "e im!osed in the minimum !eriod thereof,
that is, reclusion te"poral in its ma4imum, !eriod$ Corres!ondingly, they are entitle to an
indeterminate sentence$
"HE#EFO#E, the /udgment of the court a 6uo is here"y MOD.%.?D "y im!osing u!on each
of the a!!ellants Nestor 9a"or and 'ony 9a"or an indeterminate sentence of ten >*B@ years and
one >*@ day of prision "ayor, as minimum, to se#enteen >*G@ years, four >=@ months and one >*@
day of reclusion te"poral, as ma4imum$ .n all other res!ects, the /udgment a!!ealed from is
-%%.8M?D$
O O#DE#ED.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE IL$ND! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
EPIF$NIO DIO4NO and #O&$N DIO4NO! defendants3a!!ellants$
)a"on 7iokno and 1abriel 8. -rinidad %or appellants.
9%%ice o% t!e 'olicitor&1eneral :ilado %or appellee.
(ILL$5#E$L! J.:
?!ifanio Dio+no and 8oman Dio+no a!!eal to this court from the /udgment of the Court of %irst
.nstance of &aguna, the dis!ositi#e !art of which reads as followsA
.n #iew of the foregoing considerations, the court finds the accused ?!ifanio Dio+no and 8oman
Dio+no guilty of the crime of murder, "eyond a reasona"le dou"t, and sentences each of them
to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify /ointly and se#erally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
*,BBB and to !ay the costs of the suit$ .t is so ordered$
.n su!!ort of their a!!eal, the a!!ellants assign the following alleged errors as committed "y the
court a 6uo in its /udgment in ,uestion, to witA
*$ The lower court erred in acce!ting ?4hi"it ? as e#idence$
)$ The lower court erred in admitting ?4hi"it 0 as e#idence$
<$ The lower court erred in not ac,uitting the a!!ellant 8oman$
=$ The lower court erred in sentencing the a!!ellant ?!ifanio to reclusion perpetua$
The following facts ha#e "een !ro#en "eyond a reasona"le dou"t during the trialA
The deceased Yu (iong was a #endor of sundry goods in &ucena, Taya"as$ -t a"out G oOcloc+ in
the morning of January =, *C<;, 'alome Dio+no, to whom Yu (iong was engaged for a"out a
year, in#ited the latter to go with her$ Yu (iong acce!ted the in#itation "ut he told 'alome that
her father was angry with him$ 'alome answered himA MNo matter, . will "e res!onsi"le$M -t
a"out : oOcloc+ in the afternoon of said day, Yu (iong and 'alome Dio+no too+ an automo"ile
and went to the house of Jicente Jerina, 'alomeOs cousin, in ag"ilao$ -s they found no"ody in
the house, they went on their way u! to 'an a"lo, &aguna$ On January ;th or :th of said year,
8oman Dio+no telegra!hed his father ?!ifanio Dio+no, who was in Manila, informing him that
'alome had elo!ed with the Chinese Yu (iong$ On the morning of January G, *C<;, ?!ifanio
Dio+no and 8oman Dio+no went to 'an a"lo, &aguna, in search of the elo!ers$ (a#ing "een
informed that the latter were sto!!ing at the house of -ntonio &ayco, they went there$ 5!on
arri#ing near the house, they saw Yu (iong coming down the stairs$ When Yu (iong saw them,
he ran u!stairs and they !ursued him$ -s the Chinese found the door of the house loc+ed, he
shouted that it "e o!ened for him$ -t that moment, he was o#erta+en "y the accused who carried
+ni#es locally +nown as balisong, of different sizes$ Yu (iong fell on his +nees and im!lored
!ardon$ .n that situation 8oman Dio+no sta""ed him with the +nife in the "ac+ and later in the
left side$ ?!ifanio Dio+no also sta""ed him once$ Yu (iong fell on the landing of the stairs in the
"alcony, and there he was again sta""ed re!eatedly$ Then 8oman Dio+no saidA M?nough, father$M
Yu (iong lost consciousness$ Juan -lcantara, who li#ed on the same street, (ermanos 9elen, in
front of -ntonio &aycoOs house, saw the accused !ursue Yu (iong and fired shots for the !olice
to come$ 5!on hearing the shots, munici!al !oliceman %rancisco Cura"o a!!eared and found Yu
(iong !ale and lying on the landing of the stairs$ (e then as+ed who had wounded the Chinese
and the accused ?!ifanio Dio+no answered that it was he$ The !oliceman too+ the +nife >?4hi"it
C@ which ?!ifanio Dio+no carried in his right hand and "rought him to !olice head,uarters$
8oman Dio+no had left "efore the !oliceman arri#ed and he was not located until after three
days$ The munici!al !resident of 'an a"lo, &aguna, also went to the scene of the crime, found
the Chinese almost unconscious and ,uestioned him, !utting down his answers in ?4hi"it ?$ The
Chinese was "rought to the !ro#incial hos!ital of 'an a"lo where he was e4amined "y Drs$
Da#id ?#angelista and Manuel Quisum"ing, who found that he had fi#e incised wounds in
different !arts of the "ody, one of them at the "ac+ and a"out three and a half inches long,
!iercing the !leura and !enetrating the lower lo"e of the right lung a"out an inch, which wound
was necessarily mortal and which caused the death of the #ictim$ On January F, *C<;, while the
said Chinese was in a serious condition in the hos!ital, he made a statement telling how he was
attac+ed "y the accused >?4hi"it 0@$
The accused, testifying as witnesses in their own "ehalf, stated that they had not gone to 'an
a"lo together on the day in ,uestion2 that when 8oman Dio+no arri#ed, his father ?!ifanio
Dio+no was coming down the stairs of -ntonio &aycoOs house with a +nife in his hand2 that
?!ifanio Dio+no told his son 8oman to go home and tell their relati#es what had ha!!ened2 that
when ?!ifanio Dio+no o#ertoo+ Yu (iong on the landing of the stairs of -ntonio &aycoOs house,
he as+ed Yu (iong whether he was willing to marry his daughter2 that the Chinese answered him
in the negati#e and at the same time tried to ta+e something from his !oc+et2 that as ?!ifanio
+new that Yu (iong carried a re#ol#er, he feared the Chinese might harm him2 he "ecame
o"fuscated, drew his +nife and +new not what ha!!ened afterwards$
The first ,uestion to "e decided in the !resent a!!eal is whether or not the court a 6uoerred in
admitting as e#idence ?4hi"it ?, consisting in the in#estigation conducted "y the munici!al
!resident of 'an a"lo in the same !lace where Yu (iong had fallen a few minutes "efore, at
a"out *$<B !$ m$ on January G, *C<;, and wherein Yu (iong, answering the ,uestions as+ed "y
said munici!al !resident, stated that it was 8amon Dio+no and ?!ifanio Dio+no who had
wounded him$
.t is argued "y the defense that said document ?4hi"it ? should not "e admitted on the ground
that some words had "een altered and "ecause it has not "een !ro#en that declarant had a sense
of im!ending death$
.t does not a!!ear that said document was altered after it had "een signed, "ut on the contrary,
munici!al !resident Jacinto eKaflor, u!on "eing cross3e4amined "y the defense, declared that he
neither erased any word nor !ut another in its !lace after said document had "een finished$
The fact that Yu (iong failed to state that he had gi#en u! all ho!e of life, in answering the
munici!al !residentOs ,uestions, does not ma+e his declaration inadmissi"le$ .t is enough if, from
the circumstances of the case, it can "e inferred with certainty that such must ha#e "een his state
of mind >eo!le vs. Chan &in Wat, ;B hil$, *F) @$ .n the !resent case, Yu (iong was
semiconscious as a result of the wounds recei#ed "y him and, conse,uently, he could not ha#e
the ho!e to li#e when he made his declaration immediately after he was mortally wounded$ 9ut
e#en if the document ?4hi"it ? were not admissi"le as an ante "orte" declaration, it is
admissi"le as a !art of the res gest;"ecause it was made under circumstances so !ro4imate to the
incident that it may "e considered as a !art thereof$ >eo!le vs. ortento and ortento, =F hil$,
CG*2 eo!le vs. alamos, =C hil$, :B*$ @
The first assignment of alleged error is, therefore, untena"le$
With res!ect to the second assignment of alleged error consisting in that the court a 6uo erred in
admitting ?4hi"it 0 as an ante "orte" declaration of Yu (iong, "ecause it does not a!!ear that
when the declarant made it he was aware of im!ending death and that he did not die until three
days after ma+ing it, all that has "een said relati#e to ?4hi"it ?, which is the su"/ect matter of the
first assignment of alleged error, may "e re!eated in connection with said ?4hi"it 0, in the sense
that it is admissi"le as an ante "orte" declaration$ %urthermore, when the deceased made the
declaration ?4hi"it 0, he com!lained of great difficulty in "reathing and of "eing #ery ill$ The
fact that he did not die until three days later neither im!lies that he had no sense of im!ending
death when he made his declaration "ecause he did not im!ro#e thereafter "ut "ecame worse
until he died2 nor detracts from its character of an ante "orte" declaration "ecause what gi#es
the declaration such character is the declarantOs con#iction, u!on ma+ing it, that he is not going to
li#e >5$ '$ vs. Mallari, )C hil$, *= @$
The third assignment of alleged error consists in the failure of the court a 6uo to ac,uit the
a!!ellant, 8oman Dio+no$
The testimony of the eyewitnesses Juan -lcantara and -ntonio &ayco corro"orated "y the
different dimensions of the wounds which, according to Dr$ Manuel Quisum"ing, were caused
"y two instruments of different sizes, and the ante "orte" declarations >?4hi"its ? and 0@ of the
deceased, lea#e no room for dou"t that 8oman Dio+no coo!erated with his father and sta""ed
the deceased Yu (iong with a +nife in different !arts of the "ody$ %urthermore, the deceased
stated in his ante "orte" declaration >?4hi"it 0@ that it was 8oman Dio+no who inflicted the
necessarily mortal wound in his "ac+, which caused his death$
We find the fourth assignment of alleged error well founded$ The circumstance of a"use of
su!erior strength, ,ualifying the crime of murder, which the trial court found to ha#e "een
!ro#en, has not "een esta"lished "eyond a reasona"le dou"t$ .n the case of <nited 'tates vs.
7evela >< hil$, :);@ , this court said that Mthe mere fact that the num"er of the assailants is
su!erior to that of those attac+ed "y them is not sufficient to constitute the aggra#ating
circumstance of a"use of su!eriority$M .n this case we ha#e the !hotogra!hs of the "ody of the
deceased >?4hi"its D and D3*@ showing that he had a strong constitutionA "ut there is no
e#idence of the !hysical constitution of the accused ?!ifanio Dio+no and 8oman Dio+no$
Therefore, we cannot determine whether or not said accused were !hysically stronger than the
deceased and whether or not they a"used such su!eriority$
Neither does this court find the e4istence of the other circumstance ,ualifying murder, that is,
e#ident !remeditation, !ro#en "eyond a reasona"le dou"t "ecause, e#en assuming that "oth the
accused went to 'an a"lo, &aguna, each carrying the +nife used "y him in attac+ing Yu (iong,
it "eing customary for the !eo!le of said !ro#ince to carry it, it cannot "e inferred with certainty
from the mere fact that they carried +ni#es that their intention in going to 'an a"lo was to loo+
for the deceased in order to +ill him$ .n order that !remeditation may "e considered either as an
aggra#ating circumstance or as a ,ualifying circumstance, it must "e e#ident, that is, the
intention to +ill must "e manifest and it must ha#e "een !lanned in the mind of the offender and
carefully meditated$ .t is not enough that it arose at the moment of the aggression$
Therefore, there ha#ing "een neither a"use of su!erior strength nor e#ident !remeditation, the
crime committed "y the accused is sim!le homicide$
The !resence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article *< of the 8e#ised enal Code, that is,
immediate #indication of a gra#e offense to said accused, may "e ta+en into consideration in
fa#or of the two accused, "ecause although the elo!ement too+ !lace on January =, *C<;, and the
aggression on the Gth of said month and year, the offense did not cease while 'alomeOs
wherea"outs remained un+nown and her marriage to the deceased unlegalized$ Therefore, there
was no interru!tion from the time the offense was committed to the #indication thereof$ Our
o!inion on this !oint is "ased on the fact that the herein accused "elong to a family of old
customs to whom the elo!ement of a daughter with a man constitutes a gra#e offense to their
honor and causes distur"ance of the !eace and tran,uility of the home and at the same time
s!reads uneasiness and an4iety in the minds of the mem"ers thereof$
The !resence of the si4th mitigating circumstance of said article *<, consisting in ha#ing acted
u!on an im!ulse so !owerful as naturally to ha#e !roduced !assion or ofuscation, may also "e
ta+en into consideration in fa#or of the accused$ The fact that the accused saw the deceased run
u!stairs when he "ecame aware of their !resence, as if he refused to deal with them after ha#ing
gra#ely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to !roduce in their mind a fit of
!assion which "linded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged, as
held "y the 'u!reme Court of '!ain in similar cases in its decisions of %e"ruary <, *FFF, July C,
*FCF, %e"ruary F, *CBF, May );, *C*B, July <, *CBC, and in other more recent ones$
The se#enth circumstance of article *< of the 8e#ised enal Code, consisting in ha#ing
surrendered himself immediately to the agents of !ersons in authority, should also "e ta+en into
consideration in fa#or of the accused ?!ifanio Dio+no$
.n #iew of the foregoing considerations, this court concludes that the accused are guilty "eyond a
reasona"le dou"t of the crime of homicide defined and !unished in article )=C of the 8e#ised
enal Code, the !enalty !rescri"ed therein "eing reclusion te"poral in its full e4tent$ Three
mitigating circumstances must "e ta+en into consideration in fa#or of the accused ?!ifanio
Dio+no and two in fa#or of the accused 8oman Dio+no, with no aggra#ating circumstance, thus
authorizing the im!osition of the !enalty ne4t lower to that !rescri"ed "y law >reclusion
te"poral in its full e4tent@, orprision "ayor in its full e4tent, in the !eriod that this court deems
a!!lica"le, which is the medium !eriod in this case, in accordance with the !ro#isions of article
:=, rule ;, that is eight years and one day of prision "ayor$
9oth accused should "e granted the "enefits of the indeterminate sentence !ro#ided in-ct No$
=*B<, as amended "y -ct No$ =));, which !rescri"es a !enalty the minimum of which shall "e
ta+en from that ne4t lower to prision "ayor, or prision correccional of from si4 months and one
day to si4 years$ Ta+ing into account the circumstances of the case, the indeterminate !enalty to
which each of said accused must "e sentenced is fi4ed at from two years and one day of prision
correccional to eight years and one day of prision "ayor, crediting each with one3half of the
time during which they ha#e undergone !re#enti#e im!risonment >art$ )C, 8e#ised enal Code@$
Wherefore, this court declares the accused ?!ifanio Dio+no and 8oman Dio+no guilty of the
crime of homicide and sentences each of them to an indeterminate !enalty from two years and
one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision "ayor, crediting them with
one3half of the time during which they ha#e undergone !re#enti#e im!risonment, and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of *,BBB, with the costs of "oth instances$ 'o
ordered$
=vance>a, ,. ?. =bad 'antos, and I"perial, ??., concur.
eparate Opinions
L$6#EL! J., concurring and dissentingA
. acce!t the conclusion of the ma/ority of my "rethren that the crime committed "y the
defendants and a!!ellants was sim!le homicide as the e4istence of either the ,ualifying
circumstance of e#ident !remeditation >art$ *=, !ar$ *<, 8e#ised enal Code@ or that of a"use of
su!erior strength >art$ *=, !ar$ *;, 8e#ised enal Code@, has not "een clearly esta"lished$ The
mere fact that the two a!!ellants were "oth armed withbalisong +ni#es and that the deceased
+nelt "efore them and im!lored forgi#eness for what he had done is not in my o!inion,
necessarily conclusi#e of the concurrence of a"use of su!erior strength in the commission of the
crime >"esides 5$ '$ vs. De#ela, < hil$, :);, :)C , vide . Jiada, ,odigo Penal, !!$ )GF, )GC@$ To
constitute a"use of su!erior strength, it is necessary to show with sufficient clearness
>eo!le vs. Trumata and 9aligasa, =C hil$, *C), *C= @, that the aggressors, indi#idually and
collecti#ely, were greatly su!erior in strength to the offended !arty >eo!le vs. Dayug and
9annaisan, =C hil$, =)<, =)G@$
%or the reason gi#en in the ma/ority o!inion, . also agree to the ta+ing into account of the
mitigating circumstance of the a!!ellants ha#ing acted u!on an im!ulse !owerful as natural to
ha#e !roduced !assion or o"fuscation >art$ *<, !ar$ :, 8e#ised enal Code@$
. also agree in according to the a!!ellant, ?!ifanio Dio+no, the mitigating circumstance of
#oluntary surrender$ >-rt$ *<, !ar$ G, 8e#ised enal Code$@
. am of the o!inion, howe#er, that the mitigating circumstance of immediate #indication of a
gra#e offense >art$ *<, !ar$ ;, 8e#ised enal Code@ should not "e considered in fa#or of the
a!!ellants$ .t should "e o"ser#ed that the !ro4imate cause of the tragedy was the elo!ement of
'alome, the daughter of ?!ifanio and the sister of 8oman$ 'alome and the deceased had "een
engaged for a"out a year and the e#idence shows that the elo!ement too+ !lace at the instance of
'alome herself$ 5nder e4isting legislation, a woman eighteen years of age or o#er, can contract
marriage without the consent of her !arents$ .f she lea#es the !arental home for this !ur!ose,
neither she nor her lo#er commits any offense$ 5nder the doctrine laid down "y the ma/ority in
the !resent case, if a woman thirty or more years of age should lea#e the !arental home for the
!ur!ose of marrying or for some +ind or s!ecies of that romance descri"ed "y Tennyson in
his Idylls o% t!e @ing or "y 'cott in his 0ay o% t!e 0ast .instrel, against the wishes of her
!arents, and her father or "rother should, in hot !ursuit, o#erta+e the im!assioned 8omeo and +ill
him on the s!ot, the enraged assailant or assailants would "e accorded the "enefit of the
mitigating circumstance of ha#ing acted in immediate #indication of a Mgra#e offenseM
committed against them, notwithstanding the maturity or o#ermaturity in age of the woman and
the fact that the elo!ement was had at her instance and u!on her in#itation$ .t seems to me that
the inter!retation is not in +ee!ing with the "ores of the times$ %ilial res!ect and family
traditions are "est conser#ed "y home education or en#ironment, not to s!ea+ of other factors,
rather than "y the rigid or li"eral a!!lication of the !enal laws$ The act of the deceased in elo!ing
with 'alome, at the in#itation of the latter was not a Mgra#e offenseM which called for or /ustified
immediate #indication$
Disregarding the mitigating circumstance of immediate #indication, considering, furthermore,
that there are no aggra#ating circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, and
a!!lying the !ro#isions of article := of the 8e#ised enal Code and those of the .ndeterminate
'entence &aw, ?!ifanio Dio+no, ha#ing in his fa#or two mitigating circumstances, should "e
sentenced to an indeterminate !rison term ranging from four years, two months and one day
of prision correccional to ten years and one day of prision "ayor, and 8oman Dio+no, ha#ing in
his fa#or only one mitigating circumstance, should "e sentenced to an indeterminate !rison term
ranging from si4 years and one day of prision "ayor to twel#e years and one day of reclusion
te"poral$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
E6)ENIO '#IOTO&O! accused3a!!ellant$
-!e 'olicitor 1eneral %or plainti%%&appellee.
?ose .a. =bola %or accused& appellant.

)$N'$2'O! J.:
On Christmas day, Decem"er );, *C:G, "etween :ABB and GABB oO cloc+ in the e#ening at 'to$
8osario, (agonoy, 9ulacan, while ?ugenio Crisostomo was !assing near the house of 8omeo
Ieronimo, he met the latter and in#ited him to ha#e a drin+ in the !lace of a friend$ 8omeo
declined the offer$ 'uddenly ?ugenio rushed towards 8omeo who was then standing near a store
facing the street with his "ac+ towards ?ugenio and shot him with a $)) cali"er re#ol#er at a
distance of one >*@ meter$ The "ullet entered a"out two >)@ inches "elow the a4illa >arm!it@ and
came out on the right side of the chest a"out one >*@ inch to the sternum$ 8omeo fell to the
ground mortally wounded while ?ugenio ran away$ 9y3standers who were near the !lace such as
Delfin &o!ez, ?rnesto Trillana -!olonio 'antos and Manuel Tamayo and others who were all
friends of "oth the #ictim and assailant came to the aid of the fallen #ictim and "rought him to
the 8eyes (os!ital at the o"lacion of (agonoy where the doctor !ronounced the #ictim dead
u!on arri#al$ Thus, they "rought the #ictimOs "ody to his home$
-n information for murder was filed "y the !ro#incial fiscal in the Court of %irst .nstance >C%.@
of 9ulacan against ?ugenio Crisostomo charging him of the crime of murder as followsA
That on or a"out the );th day of Decem"er, *C:G, in the munici!ality of (agonoy, !ro#ince of
9ulacan, hili!!ines, and within the /urisdiction of this (onora"le Court, the said accused
?ugenio Crisostomo, armed with a firearm and with intent to +ill one 8omeo %eli!e Ieronimo,
did then and there unlawfully and feloniously, with e#ident !remeditation and treachery, attac+,
assault and shoot the said 8omeo %eli!e Ieronimo with the firearms he was then !ro#ided,
hitting the latter on the chest, causing serious !hysical in/uries thereon, which directly caused the
death of the said 8omeo %eli!e Ieronimo$
-fter the arraignment wherein accused entered a !lea of not guilty and again during the trial, the
accused signified his intention to withdraw his !lea of not guilty to the charge of murder and to
su"stitute it with a !lea of guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and !rayed that he "e allowed to
!ro#e the mitigating circumstances$ The same !lea was made "y the accused after the
!rosecution had rested its case "ut the fiscal did not agree$ Thus the court denied the !etition$
- decision was rendered on March )F, *C:C con#icting the accused of the offense charged, the
dis!ositi#e !ortion of which reads as followsA
.N J.?W O% T(? %O8?IO.NI CON'.D?8-T.ON', the court finds the accused ?5I?N.O
C8.'O'TOMO guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of M58D?8, !unished under -rt$
)=F of the 8e#ised enal Code, without any modifying circumstance and here"y sentences him
to )eclusion Perpetua, with the accessories of the lawA to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the sum of TW?&J? T(O5'-ND ?'O' >*),BBB$BB@2 and to !ay the costs$
Not satisfied therewith the accused now inter!osed this a!!eal alleging that the trial court
committed the following assigned errorsA
.
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N %.ND.NI T(-T D?%?ND-NT3 -?&&-NT (-'
-DM.TT?D (-J.NI 0.&&?D 8OM?O I?8ON.MO, .N'T?-D O% &.M.T.NI .T'
%.ND.NI TO T(? T85? ?RT?NT O% (.' -DM.''.ON$
..
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N %.ND.NI T(-T T(?8? .' ?J.D?NC? 9?YOND
8?-'ON-9&? DO59T T(-T D?%?ND-NT3-?&&-NT 0.&&?D 8OM?O
I?8ON.MO, .N'T?-D O% %.ND.NI T(-T NO ?J.D?NC? (-D 9??N 8?'?NT?D -'
TO T(? -CT5-& C-5'? O% D?-T(, T(?8? (-J.NI 9??N NO -5TO'Y
?8%O8M?D ON T(? 9ODY O% 8OM?O I?8ON.MO$
...
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N %.ND.NI T(-T D?%?ND-NT3 -?&&-NT (-D
-CT?D W.T( T8?-C(?8Y$
.J
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N NOT %.ND.NI T(-T D?%?ND-NT3 -?&&-NT .'
?NT.T&?D TO T(? M.T.I-T.NI C.8C5M'T-NC? O% D85N0?NN?''$
J
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N NOT -8?C.-T.NI .N %-JO8 O% -?&&-NT T(?
M.T.I-T.NI C.8C5M'T-NC? O% JO&5NT-8Y '588?ND?8$
J.
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N NOT -8?C.-T.NI D?%?ND-NT3-?&&-NTO'
O%%?8 TO &?-D I5.&TY TO T(? C(-8I? O% (OM.C.D? >T(? T85? C8.M?
COMM.TT?D .% ON? (-D .N %-CT 9??N COMM.TT?D -' - M.T.I-T.NI
C.8C5M'T-NC?$
J..
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N NOT C8?D.T.NI D?%?ND-NT3-?&&-NT W.T(
T(? 8.J.&?I?D M.T.I-T.NI C.8C5M'T-NC? O% 8?'?NC? O% TWO O8D.N-8Y
M.T.I-T.NI C.8C5M'T-NC?' W.T(O5T T(? 8?'?NC? O% -NY -II8-J-T.NI
C.8C5M'T-NC?$
5nder the first assigned error a!!ellant claims that the trial court erred in finding that he
admitted ha#ing +illed the #ictim$
Testifying in his defense the a!!ellant claims that at the time of the incident when he saw the
#ictim he !layed a /o+e on him "y drawing his gun from his waist and !ointing the same to the
#ictim "ut the gun suddenly went off, its "ullet hitting the #ictim$ Ta+en "y sur!rise he fled$
No dou"t from the said #ersion of the a!!ellant he effecti#ely admitted ha#ing shot the #ictim
8omeo Ieronimo$ .n fact he fled from the scene of the crime u!on realizing the gra#ity of what
he had committed$ .t is clear that it was that single shot that felled the #ictim which was the
immediate cause of his death$
.ndeed, during the trial and as late as after the !rosecution had rested its case, the a!!ellant
offered to withdraw his !lea of not guilty and su"stitute it with a !lea of guilty of the lessor
offense of homicide "ut the !rosecution refused to agree with his !ro!osal$
5nder the second assigned error the a!!ellant claims that as no auto!sy was !erformed on the
"ody of the #ictim the !rosecution has not esta"lished the actual cause of death of the #ictim$ (e
contends that the death certificate of the #ictim >?4hi"it -@ to which he offered no o"/ection is
admissi"le only to esta"lish the fact of death not the cause of the death of the #ictim$ (e further
a#ers that the testimony of Dr$ Juan 'antos who e4amined the "ody of the #ictim "ut did not
!erform an auto!sy shows that he did not ,ualify as an e4!ert witness2 and e#en if he were an
e4!ert witness there was no "asis for him to render an o!inion as to the cause of death of the
#ictim$ %urther, a!!ellant alleges that Dr$ 'antos mentioned two >)@ wounds of different sizes "ut
otherwise with e4actly identical characteristics from which the !ossi"ility may "e deduced that
the #ictim may ha#e "een shot twice, the second time "y a !erson other than the a!!ellant$
These arguments are de#oid of merit$
Dr$ 'antos, who was then the munici!al health officer of (agonoy, 9ulacan, categorically
testified that the cause of death of the deceased was a through and through gunshot wound which
was caused "y a "ullet$
*
-lthough he may not "e an e4!ert witness, as a !hysician and health
officer he is certainly ,ualified to gi#e an o!inion as to the cause of death of the #ictim$ (e
e4ternally e4amined the "ody of the deceased on the same night of the incident, and found no
other sign of e4ternal #iolence e4ce!t the shot wound$
,
5nder such circumstances, one need not
"e an e4!ert to render an o!inion that the said gunshot wound was the cause of death of the
#ictim$
Contrary to the contention of the a!!ellant, Dr$ 'antos !ointed out the difference "etween the
two >)@ wounds on the "ody of the #ictim in that the left a4illa wound was only )$; milimeters,
while the right chest wound was F milimeters in diameter2 that the former was round while the
latter was o#al2 and that the former was dee! while the latter was shallower (e denied that the
wounds were of identical a!!earance$
/
Dr$ 'antos em!hasized that the left a4illa wound is the
!oint of entry of the "ullet while the right chest wound is its !oint of e4it and that the said
wounds were caused "y one "ullet$ The tra/ectory of the "ullet was from the left a4illa to the
right chest$
7
The s!eculation of the a!!ellant that the #ictim may ha#e "een shot twice is thus
totally without "asis$
The death certificate and the notes issued "y Dr$ 'antos after his e4ternal e4amination of the
"ody of the #ictim esta"lish the cause of death of the deceased contrary to the contention of the
a!!ellant$
8
.n this /urisdiction such death certificate and notes issued "y said munici!al health
officer in the regular !erformance of his duty are pri"a %aciee#idence of the cause of death of
the #ictim$
9
Moreo#er, the said death certificate is not only confirmed "y the testimony of Dr$ 'antos and "y
two >)@ eyewitnesses Manuel Tamayo and Delfin &o!ez who stated that they saw the a!!ellant
rush at the #ictim and suddenly shoot him2 that the #ictim fell down after he was hit2 and that
they "rought him to the hos!ital "ut the doctor !ronounced him dead on arri#al$ These two
witnesses are mutual friends of "oth the deceased and the a!!ellant so that their testimonies are
free from any sus!icion of "ias or !re/udice$
The a!!ellant assails the findings of the court a 6uo that he acted with treachery in the
commission of the offense as a third assigned error$ (e contends that while it may "e true that he
suddenly attac+ed the #ictim, it does not a!!ear that he had consciously ado!ted the mode of
attac+ intended to facilitate the !er!etuation of the offense without ris+ to himself$ .n fact
a!!ellant claims that he was drun+ and as such he could not ha#e reflected on the s!ecial means
of the e4ecution of the act$
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the !erson, em!loying
means, method or forms in the e4ecution thereof which tend directly and s!ecially to insure its
e4ecution, without ris+ to himself arising from the defense which the offended !arty might
ma+e$
+
The suddenness of the attac+ does not, of itself, suffice to su!!ort the findings
of alevosia$
-
There must "e e#idence that the mode of attac+ was consciously ado!ted "y the
a!!ellant to ma+e it im!ossi"le or hard for the !erson attac+ed to defend himself or retaliate$
:
.n the !resent case, the a!!ellant admitted that he had a !re#ious altercation with the #ictim
wherein he was hit "y the deceased with a "ottle "ecause of certain differences they had in a
"illiard hall although he claimed to ha#e resumed friendly relations with the #ictim
thereafter$
*0
Ne#ertheless, at the time of the incident, the a!!ellant went through the motion of
in#iting the #ictim to /oin him in a drin+ing s!ree which the #ictim declined and then suddenly,
without any ceremony, he shot the #ictim while his >the #ictimOs@ "ac+ was turned$ The a!!ellant
used a gun, a lethal wea!on to insure his design to +ill the #ictim$ (e fired at him at a short
distance aiming at a #ital s!ot of his "ody$ The #ictim was unarmed$ %rom the en#ironmental
circumstances of the case, alevosia has "een fully esta"lished$
**
5nder the fourth assigned error a!!ellant alleges that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of drun+enness$ (e asserts that he had "een drin+ing from one oOcloc+ in the afternoon on that
Christmas day and that he had "een drun+ fi#e >;@ times in his entire life so that it is not ha"itual$
5nder -rticle *; of the 8e#ised enal Code, into4ication of the offender shall "e ta+en into
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender committed a felony in a state of
into4ication, if the same is not ha"itual or su"se,uent to the !lan to commit said felony$
Otherwise when ha"itual or intentional, it shall "e considered as an aggra#ating circumstance$
The allegation of the a!!ellant that he was drun+ when he committed the offense is self3ser#ing
and uncorro"orated$ 9esides, a!!ellant admitted that at that time he was only dizzy,
*,
and that he
was on the way to another drin+ing s!ree$ O"#iously he had not drun+ enough$ (e remem"ers
the details of the shooting, the time it started and ended, how much wine he im"i"ed and the
!ersons who were with him$ (e realized the gra#ity of the offense he committed so he fled and
hid from the authorities$ (e sought sanctuary in the cha!el of 'to$ 8osario, "oarded a tricycle
going to thepoblacion and too+ a &a Mallorca "us to Manila$ -ll these are acts of a man whose
mental ca!acity has not "een im!aired$
-s the fifth assigned error a!!ellant argues that he should "e credited with the mitigating
circumstance of #oluntary surrender stating that although he hid himself from the authorities for
ten >*B@ days, he #oluntarily surrendered to the authorities thereafter u!on the ad#ice of his
!arents$
The re,uisites of #oluntary surrender areA >a@ that the offender had not actually "een arrested2 >"@
that the offender surrendered himself to a !erson in authority or the latterOs agent2 and >c@ that the
surrender was #oluntary$
*/
The testimony of the a!!ellant is not dis!uted "y the !rosecution that while in hiding, u!on the
ad#ise of his !arents, he #oluntarily surrendered on January =, *C:F, so he was detained in the
munici!al /ail of (agonoy$
*7
The Court agrees that the a!!ellant is entitled to this mitigating
circumstance$
(owe#er, he cannot "e credited with the mitigating circumstance of a !lea of guilty to a lesser
offense of the charge of homicide as in#o+ed under the si4th assigned error$ The re,uisites of the
mitigating circumstance of #oluntary !lea of guilty areA >*@ that the offender s!ontaneously
confessed his guilt2 >)@ that the confession of guilt was made in o!en court, that is, "efore the
com!etent court that is to try the case2 and ><@ that the confession of guilt was made !rior to the
!resentation of e#idence for the !rosecution$
*8
.n the !resent case the a!!ellant offered to enter a !lea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide
only after some e#idence of the !rosecution had "een !resented$ (e reiterated his offer after the
!rosecution rested its case$ This is certainly not mitigating$
*9
.n the light of the foregoing discussion, the se#enth assigned error where the a!!ellant claims
that he should "e entitled to the !ri#ileged mitigating circumstance is conse,uently without
merit$
The offense committed is the crime of murder as the +illing was ,ualified "y
treachery$
*+
Considering that the commission of the offense is attended "y the mitigating
circumstance of #oluntary surrender, a!!lying the .ndeterminate 'entence &aw, the a!!ellant is
here"y im!osed the indeterminate !enalty of im!risonment of Ten >*B@ Years and One >*@ Day
of prision "ayor as minimum to 'e#enteen >*G@ Years, %our >=@ Months, and One >*@ Day
of reclusion te"poral as ma4imum$ The indemnity for the death of the #ictim is increased to
<B,BBB$BB$
W(?8?%O8?, with the a"o#e modification as to the !enalty and indemnity, the decision
a!!ealed from is -%%.8M?D in all other res!ects, with costs against accused3a!!ellant$
'O O8D?8?D$
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
&$#I$NO O$ND$$N ;1ulala ur! $parri! 'aga<an=, defendant3a!!ellant$
9%%ice o% t!e 'olicitor 1eneral %or plainti%%&appellee. =ntonio .a. =zurin %or de%endant&
appellant.
anc>e?! J.:
DefendantOs "rief on a!!eal underscores one claimed errorA the !enalty im!osed is incorrect$ *
The criminal com!laint was for homicide$ The charge was lodged with the Munici!al Court of
%lora, Mountain ro#ince$ -t the !reliminary in#estigation in that court, the accused was
arraigned, !leaded Mnot guiltyM to the charge$
The case was thereafter ele#ated to the Court of %irst .nstance of Cagayan for trial on the merits$
There, a formal indictment for homicide was filed "y the !rosecuting attorney$ 5!on
arraignment, the accused 3 this time 3 !leaded guilty$ 9efore sentence, he !resented e#idence to
!ro#e the mitigating circumstances of incom!lete self3defense and #oluntary surrender, aside
from the !lea of guilty$
Came the trial /udgeOs decision of 'e!tem"er )G, *C:G$ (e ignored the a!!ellantOs !lea of guilty
as a mitigating circumstance Min #iew of his former !lea of not guilty "efore the munici!al court
of %lora, Mt$ ro#ince$M (e did not ta+e into account incom!lete self3defense as a !ri#ileged
mitigating circumstance$ (e merely accorded defendant the "enefits of !ro#ocation together with
#oluntary surrender, as ordinary mitigating circumstances$ (e thus sentenced defendant for the
crime of homicide defined and !enalized under -rticle )=C of the 8e#ised enal Code to an
indeterminate !enalty of two >)@ years, four >=@ months and one >*@ day of prision
correccional as minimum, to eight >F@ years of prision "ayor as ma4imum, with the accessories
of the law$ (e further directed defendant to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
:,BBB$BB without su"sidiary im!risonment in case of insol#ency, and to !ay costs$
*$ The accused argues that his !lea of guilty should "e considered in his fa#or$ .n this he recei#es
an assist from the 'olicitor Ieneral$
.t is to "e conceded right at the outset that if an accused, charged with an offense cogniza"le "y
the munici!al court, !leads not guilty therein, and on a!!eal to the court of first instance,
changes his !lea to that of guilty u!on rearraignment, he should not "e entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of confession of guilt$ ) The !hiloso!hy "ehind this rule is o"#ious$ %or, the
s!ontaneous willingness of the accused to admit the commission of the offense charged, which is
rewarded "y the mitigating circumstance, is a"sent$ < .ndeed, if the rule were otherwise, an
accused, who naturally nourishes the ho!e of ac,uittal, could deli"erately !lead not guilty in the
munici!al court, and u!on con#iction and on a!!eal to the court of first instance, !lead guilty /ust
so he can a#ail himself of the "enefit of a mitigating circumstance$ = This cannot "e
countenanced$ The accused should not "e allowed to s!eculate$
One feature of this case, howe#er, ta+es it out of the reach of the !rinci!le earlier ad#erted to$
The munici!al court "efore which the accused !leaded not guilty was only conducting a
!reliminary in#estigation$ .t had no /urisdiction o#er the crime of homicide2 it could not ha#e
rendered /udgment on the !lea$ .t must ele#ate the case to the court of first instance 3 the court of
com!etent /urisdiction 3 e#en if the !lea "e that of guilty$ %or !ur!oses of a!!lying the mitigating
circumstance of confession of guilt, the !lea of not guilty u!on arraignment at !reliminary
in#estigation in the munici!al court is no !lea at all$
5!on the other hand, we cannot /ust swee! away defendantOs right to a !reliminary in#estigation$
.t is a statutory grant$ .t cannot "e withheld$ To do so would "e to transgress constitutional due
!rocess$ Defendant herein was thus entitled to +now if !ro"a"le cause e4isted to re,uire
ele#ation of his case to the court of first instance$ 9ecause, a"sent a !ro"a"le cause, the case
against him must "e dismissed$ (is !lea of not guilty "efore the munici!al court therefore may
not "e ta+en against him$
Thus it is, that the !ro!er forum where a !lea in mitigation may "e !resented is the court which
has /urisdiction to ta+e cognizance of the case$ (omicide, we re!eat is the charge$ The court
ha#ing original /urisdiction is the court of first instance$ Defendant, accordingly, !ro!erly
entered his !lea of guilty therein 3 with right to claim it as a mitigating circumstance$
9y statute 6-rticle *<>G@, 8e#ised enal Code7, a circumstance which mitigates !enal lia"ility is
that the accused Mhad #oluntarily confessed his guilt "efore the court !rior to the !resentation of
the e#idence for the !rosecution$M Otherwise, such #oluntary confession should "e ruled out in
fi4ing the sentence$ ;
(ere, the !lea of guilty was made u!on arraignment, certainly "efore trial was conducted$ The
mitigating circumstance of #oluntary confession of guilt "efore the court of first instance should
"e counted in his fa#or$
)$ The other argument defendant !resses u!on us is that the trial court should ha#e a!!reciated
the !ri#ileged mitigating circumstance of incom!lete self3defense$
The conce!t of /ustice thus es!oused finds full su!!ort in the trial courtOs decision itself, #izA
The accused testified that he saw the deceased Quirino Duldulao chasing his son$ Not contented
with that and not "eing a"le to catch the latter the said #ictim Quirino Duldulao threw his
wooden clu" at the son of the accused, "ut the accusedOs son was not hit$ The accused
a!!roached Quirino Duldulao and as+ed him why he was chasing the son and why he threw the
clu"$
5!on "eing as+ed, the deceased Quirino Duldulao instead of answering the accused Mariano
Oandasan clu""ed the accused Mariano Oandasan, hitting him on the left shoulder$ The accused
Mariano Oandasan ste!!ed "ac+ward and remem"ering that he had a shar!3!ointed +nife, he
drew it$ -gain the deceased struc+ the accused on the head with the clu", so the accussed sta""ed
Quirino Duldulao on the front$ The deceased sustained two wounds, one at the e!igastric region
and the other on the right hand$:
Once again, the 'olicitor Ieneral /oins the accused in ascri"ing error to the trial court when it
declared that the facts /ust recited merely show !ro#ocation "y the deceased, a mitigating
circumstance under -rticle *<>=@, 8e#ised enal Code$ They say that those facts also clearly
demonstrate an act of unlawful aggression "y the deceased as well as lac+ of sufficient
!ro#ocation on the !art of the accused$ There two circumstances, they su"mit, car#e out a good
case of incom!lete self3defense$G
Their su"mission induces a!!ro"ation$ .t is "orne out "y the facts found "elow$ The accused saw
the deceased Quirino Duldulao chasing the formerOs son$ When the accused a!!roached Duldulao
and as+ed him why he >Duldulao@ was doing so, Duldulao hit the accused with a wooden clu" on
the left shoulder$ The accused drew a shar!3!ointed +nife he had with him$ Then, the deceased
clu""ed the accused on the head, which !rom!ted the latter to sta" Duldulao on the front$ -s we
see it, the only element a"sent to e4em!t the accused totally from criminal lia"ility under -rticle
**>*@, 8e#ised enal Code, is M6r7easona"le necessity of the means em!loyed to !re#ent or re!elM
the unlawful aggression$
The !ri#ileged mitigating circumstance of incom!lete self3defense is here !resent$
<$ We now come to assess the !enalty that should "e im!osed$
9y the facts, the accused deser#es the "enefit of -rticle :C of the 8e#ised enal Code$ .t
!ro#idesA M- !enalty lower "y one or two degrees than that !rescri"ed "y law shall "e im!osed if
the deed is not wholly e4cusa"le "y reason of the lac+ of some of the conditions re,uired to
/ustify the same or to e4em!t from criminal lia"ility in the se#eral cases mentioned in articles **
and *), !ro#ided that the ma/ority of such conditions "e !resent$ The courts shall im!ose the
!enalty in the !eriod which may "e deemed !ro!er, in #iew of the num"er and nature of the
conditions of e4em!tion !resent or lac+ing$M
-nd then, in #iew of the !lea of guilty and #oluntary surrender and the a"sence of any
aggra#ating circumstance, the accused is also entitled, as -rticle :=>;@ of the same code
commands, to a M!enalty ne4t lower to that !rescri"ed "y law, in the !eriod that it 6the court7
may deem a!!lica"le, according to the num"er and nature of such circumstances$M
%rom all this, the defendant !rays, and the 'olicitor Ieneral recommends, a two3degree
reduction of !enalty$ This is well ta+en$
.n the !ast, this Court has found occasion in a num"er of instances to lower the !enalty "y one
degree F or two degrees C "ecause of incom!lete self3defense >with the concurrence of unlawful
aggression and lac+ of sufficient !ro#ocation, and a"sent a reasona"le necessity of the means
em!loyed@, "ut without ha#ing to com!ute into the !enalty other !ri#ileged mitigating
circumstances$
What a"out incom!lete self3defense cou!led with a !ri#ileged mitigating circumstance, as in this
caseS
.n eo!le #s$ &ucero, =C hil$ *:B, *:), incom!lete self3defense was accom!anied "y
!ro#ocation, a circumstance analogous to arrebato y o"cecacion and youthfulness of the accused
>*C years of age at the time of the trial@$ This Court reduced the !enalty for homicide "y two
degrees$ eo!le #s$ Jaurigue, G: hil$ *G=, *F)3*F<, was a case of incom!lete defense of honor
attended "y four generic mitigating circumstances$ The !enalty for homicide was li+ewise
lowered "y two degrees$ .n eo!le #s$ Maula >unre!orted@, &3G*C*, Octo"er *F, *C;=, this Court
a!!reciated incom!lete self3defense, concurred in "y minority of the accused as a !ri#ileged
mitigating circumstance and "y #oluntary surrender$ The !enalty of the accused for homicide
was also "rought down "y two degrees$
The standard set down in the cases /ust discussed gi#es us the !ro!er course to !ursueA - two3
degree reduction of !enalty 3 one degree, "y -rticle :C, and another degree, "y -rticle :=>;@$ .t
is the most reasona"le and /ust for the accused Mariano Oandasan$
=$ The crime of homicide is !enalized "y -rticle )=C of the 8e#ised enal Code$ The !enalty
therein !rescri"ed is reclusion te"poral$ Two degrees lower is prision correccional, the !enalty
im!osa"le "y law in the !eriod that the courts may deem a!!lica"le, Maccording to the num"er
and natureM of the mitigating circumstances$ With the mitigating circumstances attendant, we
feel that OandasanOs !enalty should "e fi4ed within the medium !eriod at two >)@ years, four >=@
months, and one >*@ day$
Calling the .ndeterminate 'entence &aw into o!eration 3 whose a!!lica"ility is "ased Mu!on the
!enalty actually im!osed in accordance with law and not u!on that which may "e im!osed in the
discretion of the courtM *B 3 the minimum of the !enalty then should "e within the range of the
!enalty ne4t lower in degree, ** i$e$, arresto "ayor, which we fi4 at four >=@ months$
;$ We cannot close this decision without !utting in a good word for defendantOs lawyer, -tty$
-ntonio Ma$ -zurin$ -!!ointed counsel de officio "elow, he #olunteered to !rosecute
defendantOs a!!eal "y see+ing a new a!!ointment as such counsel on the a!!ellate le#el$
Conscientious and diligent in cham!ioning defendantOs rights "elow and on a!!eal, his actuations
!resent an e4em!lary case of de#otion to duty$ They are those of a worthy mem"er of the 9ar$
5!on the record as it stands, the lower court /udgment rendered against the accused Mariano
Oandasan is here"y modified2 and he is here"y sentenced to an indeterminate !enalty of four >=@
months of arresto "ayor as minimum, to two >)@ years, four >=@ months and one >*@ day
of prision correccional as ma4imum, with the accessories of the law$ .n all other res!ects, the
decision "elow is affirmed$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
L$#O2 16EN$FLO# < T6$%ON alias @Larr<!@ defendant3a!!ellant$

FELI'I$NO! J.:
&aroy 9uenaflor, who was charged with and con#icted of ra!e and sentenced to suffer the
!enalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended !arty in the sum of <B,BBB$BB and
the costs of suit, is "efore the Court on a!!eal$
The com!laint filed "y the offended !arty, .sa"ella %ederis, against a!!ellant 9uenaflor reads as
followsA
That on or a"out -ugust *C, *CFC, in the City of Naga, hili!!ines and within the /urisdiction of
this (onora"le Court, the a"o#e3named accused, with lewd design, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, "y means of force, threats and intimidation, commit se4ual
intercourse against one .sa"ella %ederis y Cedron, against her will and consent$
Contrary to law$
*
The a!!ellant ha#ing entered a !lea of not guilty on arraignment, the case !roceeded to trial$ On
*B May *CCB, /udgment was rendered "y the trial court with the following dis!ositi#e !ortionA
W(?8?%O8?, finding the accused &aroy 9uenaflor y Tuazon, alias M&arry,M guilty "eyond
reasona"le dou"t of the crime of ra!e under -rticle <<;, !aragra!h * of the 8e#ised enal Code,
as amended, he is here"y sentenced to suffer the !enalty of reclusion perpetua$ The accused is
further ordered to indemnify the offended !arty, .sa"ella %ederis, the sum of <B,BBB$BB and to
!ay the costs of suit$
'O O8D?8?D$
,
The facts constituting the offense were summarized "y the trial court in its decision in the
following mannerA
-s the e#idence of the !rosecution stands, we find from the clear and !ositi#e testimony of the
com!lainant that she is )* years old, single, a student at the 5ni#ersity of Nue#a Caceres in Naga
City, with residence at &ourdes Young, Na"ua, Camarines 'ur2 that at a"out **ABB oOcloc+ in the
e#ening of -ugust *C, *CFC, she was on her way home to her "oarding house in eKafrancia
-#enue, Naga City, together with her "oardmate .melda 9arce"al, coming from the 9ichara
Theater, and they had to wal+ in returning to their "oarding house2 that when they reached the
Naga City ost Office along eKafrancia -#enue, the accused coming from "ehind them and
armed with a +nife !ut his left arm on her shoulder and with his right hand !o+ed a +nife on the
right side of her "ody and told her not to mo#e "ecause she might "e +illed2 that she called for
.melda 9arce"al "ut the latter +e!t on running away and left her alone$ The accused then
transferred the !osition of the +nife from the right side of her "ody to the right side of her nec+$
'he tried to shout "ut the accused !ressed harder the +nife on her nec+ and dragged her to a
dar+er !ortion of the Ma"ini .nterior and she noticed that the accused had no more !ants and
"rief and then !ushed her down and laid on to! of her and tried to remo#e her t3shirt >?4hi"it D@,
and 6told7 her not to shout "ecause he was going to +ill her$ The accused was also a"le to remo#e
her !ants >?4hi"it ?@ and !anty >?4hi"it %@ and, thereafter, inserted his !enis on her #agina for
which she felt !ain and the accused started +issing her on her li!s and other !arts of her "ody$
That she +e!t on crying and the accused threatened to +ill her$
%rom the testimony of the com!lainant it has "een further sufficiently esta"lished that, when she
was a"le to regain her strength she told the accused that where#er he will go she will go with
him, "ut re,uested the accused that she first "e allowed to go home to got her clothes and money,
to which the accused agreed$ The accused then accom!anied the com!lainant on the way to her
"oarding house, "ut when they reached the Mary -nne 'nac+house which was /ust in front of the
"oarding house, the com!lainant told the accused to wait for her in that !lace$ 'he then
!roceeded to her "oarding house and u!on reaching the same she was met "y -urora Ozaeta,
.melda 9arce"al and the rest of her co3"oarders$ 'he then related to them the incident that
ha!!ened to her and further told them that the man who ra!ed her was waiting for her in front of
the Mary -nne 'nac+house and descri"ed to them the !erson of the accused and the clothes he
was wearing$ (er "oardmate, -urora Ozaeta, called u! the !olice station gi#ing said information
gi#en "y the com!lainant identifying the !erson of the accused and where he could "e found$
That after a while !olicemen arri#ed informing them that they were a"le to a!!rehend the !erson
re!orted to ha#e ra!ed the com!lainant$ The !olicemen showed to her a +nife >?4hi"it 9@ which
the com!lainant identified as the one used "y the accused in !o+ing at her$ The !olicemen went
"ac+ to their !olice head,uarters$ -fter a while her !arents arri#ed and they all went to the !olice
head,uarters$ -urora Ozaeta and .melda 9arce"al followed to the !olice head,uarters$ That at
the !olice head,uarters the !olicemen showed to the com!lainant the !erson a!!rehended and
the com!lainant readily identified him as the !erson who ra!ed her$
/
9efore this Court, the sole error assigned "y the a!!ellant is thatA
6t7he trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstances of im"ecility and
drun+enness in con#icting the accusedQa!!ellant of the crime charged$
7
-!!ellant did not seriously try to deny that he had se4ual intercourse with .sa"ella %ederis on the
night of *C -ugust *CFC$ (e, howe#er, denied ha#ing se4ually assaulted .sa"ella2 he claimed
that .sa"ella did not !hysically resist the act of !enile !enetration and had in effect gi#en her
consent to it$
-!!ellant 9uenaflor testified in su"stance that he was in Naga City 'u"di#ision on *C -ugust
*CFC, in the house of one 9adong for whom he wor+ed$ (e later declared that he was staying in
his sisterOs house in Canaman, Camarines 'ur$ On the night of *C -ugust *CFC, he saw a mo#ie
at the 8o"ertson Cinema2 he left the cinema at *)ABB midnight and !roceeded to the !u"lic !laza
where he allegedly had "een staying for fifteen >*;@ days$ On cross3e4amination, he declared that
while at the !laza, he saw two >)@ women tal+ing$ (e a!!roached them, !o+ed a +nife at one of
them >.sa"ella %ederis@ and led her away to a dar+ alley$ There they !erformed the se4ual act,
a!!ellant stated, without .sa"ella offering any resistance and e#en em"racing a!!ellant in the
course of co!ulation$ -!!ellant also testified that he was a Mlittle "it drun+M during that time$
8
The trial court found that a!!ellant 9uenaflor had indeed forced himself on .sa"ella, that he had
e4!licitly admitted M!o+ing a +nifeM at .sa"ella and that the testimony of .sa"ella that she had
"een forced down u!on or near a gar"age hea! in the dar+ alley of Ma"ini .nterior and there
ra#ished against her will, was forthright and candid and worthy of "elief$ -!!ellant ha#ing
!resented no "asis for re/ecting and o#erturning the a"o#e finding of coercion and intimidation,
that finding must stand$
The !rinci!al su"mission of a!!ellant was in fact that his criminal lia"ility, if any, should at least
ha#e "een mitigated in #iew of his im!aired mental faculties$ -!!ellant a!!arently does not see+
com!letely to a#oid criminal lia"ility on the ground of im"ecility as an e4em!ting circumstance$
The !leadings filed "y a!!ellant merely tended to show erratic "eha#ior and lac+ of coherence
on his !art in the course of trial, said to "e sym!tomatic of a diseased mind, which "eha#ior,
although not indicating com!lete de!ri#ation of intelligence and freedom of will, we are urged to
ta+e as "asis for mitigation of lia"ility$
During the !retrial conference, counsel for a!!ellant stated that his client was suffering from
mental disease$ The !retrial conference was thereu!on reset to a later date and the trial court
ordered a!!ellant e4amined "y a !hysician to ascertain a!!ellantOs mental condition$ -!!ellant
9uenaflor was e4amined "y Dr$ .melda ?scuadra, a medical s!ecialist at the Don 'usano
8odriguez 8egional Mental (os!ital$ The re!ort !re!ared "y Dr$ ?scuadra set forth the
following informationA
9rief 9ac+ground (istoryA
The !atient is the fifth among eight si"lings$ (e was "orn on %e"ruary *=, *C:F "y normal
s!ontaneous deli#ery, assisted "y hilot at home$ -t age three months, he started to ha#e
con#ulsions, u! to age three years old$ -s a conse,uence, he had !oor scholastic standing,
re!eating Irade . se#eral times and sto!!ed at Irade ..$ (e was o"ser#ed to "e childish with
!oor s!eech de#elo!ment and "eha#ed as Muto3uto$M
atient was accused of ra!ing a girl last -ugust )B, *CFC$ (e was ordered to su"mit himself for
neuro!sychiatric e#aluation$
Mental 'tatus ?4aminationA
-n adult male, with handcuffs, wearing clean !rinted !olo shirt and faded maong !ants$ (e had
!oc+mar+s on his face due to !im!le scars$ (e loo+ed serious, with faraway gaze and at times
downcast eyes$
(e claimed he was &arry 9uenaflor, a resident of 'an Jose, Camarines 'ur$ (e recognized his
com!anionsA his mother and !olice escort$ (e claimed he finished Irade ...$ .nitially, he denied
+nowing the num"er of children in their family, later, he said there are four "oys and fi#e girls$
(e also claimed he did not +now his age$
(e admitted he had a case in court T ra!e2 mentioned a girl named -nna"el %rias as the #ictim,
a resident of eKafrancia 'treet, Naga City$ (e narrated that he "rought her home from Naga
City$ With him that time was 8uel Jillegas$ (e said he lo#ed the girl and has "een courting her
gi#ing se#eral dates when his lo#e 6was7 acce!ted$ (e also said he ra!ed the girl once "ut it was
8uel who did it first$ (e cannot gi#e the details of the incident of the crime$
(e s!o+e coherently and rele#antly "ut not s!ontaneous in character$ (e denied not 6sic7
+nowing some facts as his age, the num"er of children of the family and he was not sure of the
dates he ga#e$ -s he s!o+e, he sighed dee!ly$
(e com!lained of im!aired slee! and im!aired a!!etite$ (e had im!aired memory as e#idenced
"y his ina"ility to recall im!ortant facts li+e num"er of children in the family$
During the second inter#iew he was more rela4ed, res!onded s!ontaneously and claimed he had
good slee! and a!!etite$ No hallucinations were elicited$
.n his third inter#iew, he loo+ed de!ressed, com!laining of insomnia$
During the last inter#iew, he was also de!ressed and com!lained of !oor slee!$
hysical ?4aminationsA
?ssentially normal findings$
sychological TestingA
'u"/ect weighted a score of <G with an .Q e,ui#alent to :< indicating mild mental deficiency
le#el of intellectual functioning$ (is /udgment and com!rehension are !oor$ ro/ecti#ewise,
de!ressi#e reaction is !rominently esta"lished$ oor reality testing function is elicited$
DiagnosisA
*$ Mental retardation
)$ 8eacti#e de!ression
<$ No !sychosis$
8emar+s and 8ecommendationsA
.n #iew of the foregoing e4aminations and o"ser#ations, the !atient is suffering from Mental
8etardation and 8eacti#e De!ression$ (owe#er, he is not !sychotic$
- !erson with mental retardation has "elow normal intelligence as e#idenced "y the intelligence
,uotient tests$ (e has !oor memory, !oor /udgment and !oor gras! of general information$ (e is
traina"le u! to the !rimary grades only$ -ccording to the M'yno!sis of sychiatryM "y 0a!lan a
!atient with mental retardation Mhas concurrent deficits or im!airment in ada!ti#e
functioning, i.e$, a !ersonOs effecti#eness in meeting the standards e4!ected for his or her age "y
his or her cultural grou! in area such as social s+ills and res!onsi"ility, communicates daily
li#ing s+ills, !ersonal indulgence and self3sufficiency$M >sic@ Therefore, he is ca!a"le of
undergoing /udicial trial with much difficulty$
9
-rticle *) >*@ of the 8e#ised enal Code !ro#ides as followsA
-rt$ *)$ ,ircu"stances w!ic! ABe"pt %ro" ,ri"inal 0iability$ T The following are e4em!t
from criminal lia"ilityA
*$ -n im"ecile or insane !erson, unless the latter has acted during a lucid inter#al$
444 444 444
.m"ecility, li+e insanity, is a defense which !ertains to the mental condition of a !erson$ Our
case law !ro/ects the same standards in res!ect of "oth insanity and im"ecility, that is, that the
insanity or im"ecility must constitute com!lete de!ri#ation of intelligence in committing the
criminal act, or total de!ri#ation of freedom of the will$
+
The a"o#e ,uoted medical e#idence
that was admitted into the record in the case at "ar does not show com!lete de!ri#ation >nor e#en
su"stantial de!ri#ation@ of intelligence on the !art of a!!ellant 9uenaflor and he, accordingly,
cannot "e deemed e4em!ted from criminal lia"ility for the ra!e of .sa"ella %ederis$ (is "eha#ior
on the night he ra!ed .sa"ella showed that he was ,uite conscious of his acts and aware of the
moral ,uality thereof$
-t the same time, we "elie#e, howe#er, that the medical e#idence of record does show that
a!!ellant 9uenaflorOs mental faculties were to some e4tent retarded or im!aired in their
de#elo!ment, which im!airment or retardation reflects a diminished le#el of res!onsi"ility for
his criminal acts$ -rticle *< >C@ of the 8e#ised enal Code !ro#ides as followsA
-rt$ *<$ .itigating ,ircu"stances$ T The following are mitigating circumstancesA
444 444 444
>C@ 'uch illness of the offender as would diminish the e4ercise of the will !ower of the offender
without, howe#er, de!ri#ing him of the consciousness of his acts$
444 444 444
We thin+ that the mitigating circumstance contem!lated in -rticle *< >C@ of the 8e#ised enal
Code was !resent in the case at "ar$
-!!ellant, in addition, claimed into4ication as a mitigating circumstance$ -s earlier noted, he
had declared on cross3e4amination that he was a Mlittle "it drun+M at the time "e committed the
act com!lained of$ On that "asis alone, a!!ellant asserts he should "e credited with a mitigating
circumstance$
The ordinary rule is that into4ication may "e considered either as aggra#ating or as mitigating,
de!ending u!on the circumstances attending the commission of the crime$ .nto4ication has the
effect of decreasing the !enalty, if the into4ication is not ha"itual or su"se,uent to the !lan to
commit the contem!lated crime2 u!on the other hand, when into4ication is ha"itual or
intentional, it is considered as an aggra#ating circumstance$ - The !erson !leading into4ication
must !resent !roof that he had ta+en a ,uantity of alcoholic "e#erage, !rior to the commission of
the crime, sufficient to !roduce the effect of "lurring his reason2
:
and at the same time, he must
!ro#e that not only was into4ication not ha"itual
*0
"ut also that his im"i"ing the alcoholic drin+
was not intended to fortify his resol#e to commit the crime$
**
The record here does not show that a!!ellant had ta+en an alcoholic "e#erage !rior to ra!ing
.sa"ella %ederis$ The testimony of a!!ellant himself on direct e4amination did not esta"lish such
drin+ing as a fact$ The sole "asis of a!!ellantOs claim to the alternati#e circumstance of
into4ication is his own remar+ during cross3e4amination that he was a Mlittle "it drun+M when he
inflicted himself se4ually u!on .sa"ella %ederis$ We do not "elie#e that a!!ellantOs own remar+
sufficiently esta"lished his asserted state of into4ication$
-t any rate, the a!!reciation of a mitigating circumstance in fa#or of a!!ellant 9uenaflor would
not ha#e the effect of reducing the !enalty of reclusion perpetua im!osed u!on him "y the trial
court$ -rticle :< of the 8e#ised enal Code !rescri"es that Min all cases in which the law
!rescri"es a single indi#isi"le !enalty, 6such !enalty@ shall "e a!!lied "y the courts regardless of
any mitigating circumstances that may ha#e attended the commission of the deed$M )eclusion
perpetua is a single indi#isi"le !enalty$
*,
W(?8?%O8?, the decision of the trial court dated *B May *CCB is here"y -%%.8M?D in
toto. Costs against a!!ellant$
$))#$($TIN)P
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
A6I#INO #$&OLETE! $ND#E $'OT$ and F$6TINO #$1$#$ alias F$6!
deBendants! A6I#INO #$&OLETE, defendant3a!!ellant$
9%%ice o% t!e 'olicitor 1eneral CeliB /. .akasiar, =ssistant 'olicitor 1eneral ,onrado -.
0i"caoco and 'olicitor 9ctavio ). )a"irez %or plainti%%&appellee. Pio ?oven as counsel de
oficio %or de%endant&appellant.
$Cuino! J.:
This is an a!!eal of defendant Quirino 8amolete from the decision of the Court of %irst .nstance
of .locos 'ur, con#icting him of Mdou"le murder with serious !hysical in/uriesM, sentencing him
to Mdou"le life im!risonmentM Mfor the death of 'e#erino 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amoleteM, and
ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the two #ictims Min the sum of :,BBBM
%or the lesiones graves sustained "y -lfredo 8ayray, a!!ellant 8amolete was Msentenced to
suffer an indeterminate !enaltyM ranging from four >=@ months and twenty >)B@ days of arresto
"ayor to two >)@ years, ele#en >**@ months and ten >*B@ days of !rision correcional and to !ay
one3third of the costs$ >Criminal Case No$ =)GC@$
Quirino 8amolete, -ndres -costa and %austino 8a"ara were charged, as co3!rinci!als, with the
murder of Mariano 8amolete and 'e#erino 8efuerzo and with frustrated murder in connection
with the in/uries inflicted on -lfredo 8ayray$ -fter the !rosecution had rested its case, the trial
court granted the demurrer to the e#idence inter!osed "y -costa and 8a"ara$ -s to them, the
case was dismissed$
-t the trial Quirino 8amolete admitted that he inflicted in/uries on 8ayray$ (e denied ha#ing
shot 8efuerzo and his uncle, Mariano 8amolete >their fathers were cousins@$ .n this a!!eal, io
Jo#en, his counsel de o%icio, su"mits that !ortion of the trial courtOs /udgment, con#icting Quirino
8amolete of lesiones graves, should not "e distur"ed$ Counsel admits that 8amolete is
res!onsi"le for 8efuerzoOs death$ 9ut he argues that the offense was homicide and not murder$
(e contends that the !rosecution failed to !ro#e that Quirino 8amolete +illed Mariano 8amolete$
The 'olicitor Ieneral recommends that the death !enalty, instead of reclusion perpetua, "e
im!osed for a!!ellantOs +illing of Mariano 8amolete$ (is #iew is that the offense committed "y
the a!!ellant with res!ect to 8ayray was attem!ted murder rather thanlesiones graves$
'o, the contro#erted !oints in this a!!eal are >a@ whether a!!ellant Quirino 8amolete +illed
Mariano 8amolete and whether ca!ital !unishment should "e im!osed on him for that crime2 >"@
whether the +illing of 8efuerzo should "e categorized as sim!le homicide or as murder ,ualified
"y treachery and !remeditation, and >c@ whether a!!ellantOs admitted infliction of !hysical
in/uries on 8ayray should "e regarded as attem!ted murder and not lesiones graves$
The case for the !rosecution rests on the testimonies of Cali4ta 8a"ot, the forty3eight year old
widow of Mariano 8amolete, and ?nri,ueta 8efuerzo, the fifteen3year old, Irade 'i4 sister of
the deceased #ictim, 'e#erino 8efuerzo$ They were eyewitnesses of the assaults which had a
tragic denouncement for 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete$
%rom their testimonies, it a!!ears that in the e#ening of June )=, *C:* there was a gathering in
the house of the s!ouses, Mariano 8amolete and Cali4ta 8a"ot, located at4arrio aratong, 'ta$
Catalina, .locos 'ur$ - few relati#es, neigh"ors and friends of the cou!le were cele"rating the
"irth of a grandchild "egotten "y Nicasia 8a"anal, their daughter3in3law >her hus"and, Mateo
8egas!i is the son of Cali4ta 8a"ot "y her first marriage@$ - game of cards +nown as "ris+a was
"eing !layed near the door of the sala$ -mong the !layers were 8ayray and 8efuerzo$ The sta+es
were !ieces of candy called lemon candies or #ic+s dro!s$ The house was lighted "y a Coleman
lam! and a lantern$
-t a"out ten oOcloc+, Quirino 8amolete, a twenty3four3year old farmer, came to the house,
entered the sala were the game was "eing !layed and as+ed for candy$ 8efuerzo and 8ayray ga#e
him candy$ -fter eating it, he left the house$ -"out a minute later, he returned, accom!anied "y
-costa and 8a"ara$ ?ach of them was armed with a gun$ Quirino 8amolete stood at the door, the
only ingress and egress of the house >?4h$ *@$ 9ehind him were his minions, -costa and 8a"ara$
They !ointed their wea!ons at the astounded and tra!!ed !ersons !laying "ris+a$
Quirino 8amolete, addressing to 8ayray, saidA MYou stand u!, -lfredo, and . will shoot you$M
Cali4ta 8a"ot saidA MOh, my son, !lease donOt do thatM$ - commotion ensued$ The guests inside
the sala shouted simultaneously$ They dis!ersed, scurried away and tried to hide or flee$ Quirino
8amolete instructed 8a"ara and -costa to go down and watch for those !ersons who were going
to /um! out of the house$ Quirino shot 8efuerzo while the latter was /um!ing through the
window into the batalan or !orch$ (e shot Mariano 8amolete who was in the batalan$ (e also
shot 8ayray downstairs$ 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete died on that same night 8ayray was
wounded$
Doctor 9$C$ ?duarte, a /unior resident !hysician of the .locos 'ur ro#incial (os!ital at Jigan,
found that the deceased se#enty3year old Mariano 8amolete, sustained >*@ a gunshot wound in
the left "uttoc+s without any e4it and >)@ a through3and3through gunshot wound of entry in the
a"domen with an e4it on the flan+ or right iliac region$ The second wound was fatal$ (is findings
are ,uoted "elowA
Wound, gunshot, left "uttoc+s at u!!er outer ,uadrant a"out one centimeter in diameter directed
medially and downwards$ No wound of e4it$
Wound, gunshot, a"domen thru and thru$ ?ntrance of anterior su!erior iliac s!ine, one centimeter
in diameter directed medially and slightly u!wards$ >?4it$ 3 right iliac region, a slit ) centimeters
long@$
-uto!sy %indings$ 3 'mall intestines !erforated nine >C@ times and mesentery three ><@ times$
(emorrhage, se#ere secondary$
Cause of Death$ 3 'hoc+ with hemorrhage, se#ere secondary to gunshot wound of a"domen$
Doctor Moises 8$ -rce, the rural health !hysician of 'ta$ Catalina, who !erformed a !ostmortem
e4amination on the "ody of the deceased twenty3 year old 'e#erino 8efuerzo, found that he
sustained through3and3through gunshot wounds$ There were three gunshot wounds of entry on
his "ac+ and three corres!onding wounds of e4it on the front as shown "elowA
*$ Iunshot wound, thora4, "ac+, right, "etween *B3** costal ri"s, $< centimeter diameter, *3*Q=
centimeter from s!inal column, going inward medially, smashing the li#er and "lood #essels
e4tensi#ely to the right side, and come out from gunshot wound No$ =$
)$ Iunshot wound, "ac+, left, at the le#el of the na#el, <3<Q= centimeters from s!inal column, $F
centimeter diameter, going inward and come out from gunshot wound No$ ;$ Organ in#ol#ed
intestine$
<$ Iunshot wound, "ac+, "uttoc+s, right, <3<Q= centimeters from coccy4 horizontally, going
inward and come out from gunshot wound No$ :$C centimeter diameter$
=$ Iunshot wound, thora4, front, left3side, ) centimeters from the 4i!hoid !rocess, *3UV
centimeters in diameter, !iercing the :th costal cartilage$
;$ Iunshot wound, a"domen, front, left at the na#el line, C3UV centimeters from um"ilicus, *
centimeter in diameter$
:$ Iunshot wound, hy!ogastric region, left along the !u"ic tu"ercle, ) centimeters in diameter *3
UV from root of !enis$ No organ in#ol#ed$
Cause of death 3 .nternal and e4ternal hemorrhage due to the a"o#e3mentioned wounds Nos$ * to
:$ >?4h$ %@$
Doctor -rce concluded that the assailant was "ehind 8efuerzo when he was shot$ .nasmuch as
the three wounds of entry ha#e almost the same diameter, they were !ro"a"ly inflicted "y one
gun only, !ossi"ly a thirty3cali"er rifle$
8ayray, a twenty3one year old farmer, suffered gunshot wounds on the arm and leg >?4h$ D@$ (e
was hos!italized for more than one month and inca!acitated in his wor+ as farmer for one year$
(e s!ent one thousand !esos for hos!italization and medical treatment in addition to suffering a
loss of income in the amount of four hundred !esos$
-!!ellant Quirino 8amolete said that, after lea#ing the house of Mariano 8amolete, he sle!t in
the house of %rancisco 8amolete at 4arrio 'ina"an, 'ta$ Catalina$ On the following morning, he
went to the house of -ndres -costa$ Then, he did in the ricefields$ On June <B, *C:* he and
-ndres -costa "oarded a "us and went to 4arrio 'ta$ Cruz, 9allesteros, Cagayan$ (e stayed in
the house of Jaco"o Olanino$ On July )G, *C:* he was arrested "y a Consta"ulary sergeant$
.n his statement dated July <*, *C:* "efore Cor!oral Jaime C$ %oronda of the Consta"ulary
detachment at Tamag, Jigan, he stated that on the night of June )=, *C:*, while he was in the
house of Mariano 8amolete, he shot -lfredo 8ayray with his paltikgun$ (e affirmed that on the
occasion -costa shot Mariano 8amolete while 8a"ara shot 8efuerzo$ The two used forty3fi#e
cali"er !istols >?4hs$ - to 93), !ages <* to <: of the 8ecord@$
(owe#er, in his testimony he ga#e a different #ersion$ (e said that 8a"ara shot and +illed
Mariano 8amolete$ (e was non3committal as to who shot 8efuerzo$
What was the moti#e for the assaultsS On that !oint, there is a hiatus #alde deflendus in the
!rosecutionOs e#idence$ Moti#e !laces the case in !ro!er /udicial !ers!ecti#e$ The record yields
some intimation as to the moti#ation of Quirino 8amolete in +illing 8efuerzo and in wounding
8ayray$ -"out three months "efore the +illing, 8efuerzo sta""ed one atricio 8agil, a friend of
Quirino 8amolete and -costa$ 8ayray was im!licated in that incident$ Quirino 8amolete testified
against 8ayray in that case >No$ )<, ?4h$ -3)2 No$ C, ?4h$ D2 'tatements of Daniel 8efuerzo and
Miguel 8a!anut, !ages *B to *< of the 8ecord@$ 'o, it seems that Quirino 8amolete had a score
to settle with 8efuerzo and 8ayray$
On the other hand, Quirino 8amolete denied that he had any misunderstanding with his uncle,
Mariano$ Quirino said that Mariano e#en in#ited him to !lay "ris+a in MarianoOs house$ Cali4ta
8a"ot declared she did not +now why Quirino 8amolete should +ill Mariano 8amolete$ 'he said
that, whene#er Quirino went to their house, he dined with them$
One curious !iece of e#idence !resented at the last hearing "y a!!ellant Quirino 8amolete was
an alleged Mdying declarationM of Mariano 8amolete, ta+en "y the thirty3nine year old Cor!oral
Cirilo Ducay of the Consta"ulary detachment at Tamag, Jigan in the early morning of June );,
*C:*$ (e said that he too+ the statement of Mariano 8amolete near the +itchen of his house
while 8amolete was on the !oint of death$ Cor!oral &aguesma was !resent$ The declaration is in
?nglish in the handwriting of Ducay$ .t was witnessed "y the Chief of olice and su!!osed to
ha#e "een thum"mar+ed "y Mariano 8amolete with his "lood >?4hi"it =, !age *G of the record@$
The ty!ewritten co!y was authenticated "y Justice of the eace edro 8$ -rce$ Mariano
8amolete was as+ed "y DucayA
Q$ Who shoot >sic@ youS 3 -$ . donOt +now only Quirino >sic@ 8amolete who was holding a gun
who come inside my house and his com!anion whom . donOt +now his nameM >sic@$ >age *G of
the 8ecord@$
Ducay !ro!ounded the ,uestions in ?nglish, translated them into .locano and translated into
?nglish 8amoleteOs answers$ -fter Mariano 8amolete had made his declaration, Ducay held
8amoleteOs right thum", M!laced it in his >8amoleteOs@ "loodM and affi4ed his thum"mar+ at the
"ottom of the !a!er containing the dying declaration as written in ?nglish "y Ducay$ The
thum"mar+ is reddish3"rown$ Ducay is a nati#e of 'anta Maria, .locos 'ur$ (e said that he wrote
the ante3mortem statement in ?nglish "ecause that is the language used in court$
The trial court, in not attaching any !ro"ati#e #alue to the Mdying declarationM and to DucayOs
testimony, o"ser#ed that Mariano 8amolete declared that he did not +now his assailant "ecause
he was shot in the "ac+$ (e did not see the aggressor$ Moreo#er, the !rosecution witnesses
!ositi#ely identified the cul!rit as Quirino 8amolete$
The Mdying declarationM has an am"iguous, dou"le meaning$ While the declarant said that he did
not +now who was his assailant, in the same "reath he !ointed to Quirino 8amolete as the
gunwielder who, with a com!anion, entered his domicile$ .t may "e im!lied from the Mdying
declarationM that Quirino 8amolete had com!licity in the +illing of Mariano 8amolete$
%inally, for a com!lete #iew of the case, it should "e stated that, according to Quirino 8amoleteOs
#ersion, gunshots were also fired under the batalan or !orch of Mariano 8amoleteOs house >: tsn
Decem"er *<, *C::@$
-s already stated, a!!ellantOs counsel admits that Quirino 8amolete +illed 8efuerzo and shot
8ayray$ The trial court correctly #iewed, as a Msign of guiltM, 8amoleteOs flight to 9allesteros$ .t
o"ser#ed that the two !rosecution witnesses, ?nri,ueta 8efuerzo and Cali4ta 8a"ot, were
!ositi#e in their identification of Quirino 8amolete, as the malefactor who shot 8efuerzo and
Mariano 8amolete$ .t commented that the defense failed to im!air their credi"ility in s!ite of
rigid cross e4amination$ On the "asis of their testimony, the trial court was con#inced that
Quirino 8amolete +illed 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete$
-!!ellantOs counsel, in su!!ort of his contention that Quirino 8amolete did not +ill Mariano
8amolete, ,uotes in his "rief a !ortion of ?nri,ueta 8efuerzoOs testimony that she did not see
Quirino firing at Mariano$ (owe#er, counsel omitted ?nri,uetaOs su"se,uent declaration that she
+new Mthat Quirino 8amolete fired at her "rotherM, 'e#erino, and at MMariano 8amoleteM >*: tsn
-!ril <, *C:<@$ -n im!artial !erusal of ?nri,uetaOs entire testimony re#eals that she categorically
testified that Quirino 8amolete +illed Mariano 8amolete >= and G tsn -!ril <, *C:<@$
-!!ellantOs counsel im!ugns the trial courtOs finding that Cali4ta 8a"ot testified that Quirino
8amolete shot Mariano 8amolete$ Counsel cites her declaration that, "ecause a wall se!arated
her and her hus"and, Mariano 8amolete, she did not see Quirino 8amolete shooting Mariano$ -s
shown "elow, her declaration was ,uoted out of conte4t$
Whether the +illing of 8efuerzo was treacherous and whether Quirino 8amolete +illed Mariano
8amolete may "e deduced from the !ertinent !ortions of the testimonies of the !rosecution
witnesses ,uoted hereunderA
Testimony of ?nri,ueta 8efuerzo
Q$ You said Quirino 8amolete +illed some, do you +now $$$ who were those that were +illedS 3 -
$$$ 'e#erino 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete, sir$ >= tsn -!ril <, *C:<@$
Q$ -nd when Quirino 8amolete fired his gun what ha!!ened ne4tS 3 - $$$ There was someone
who was +illed$
Q$ Who was that was +illedS 3 -$ 'e#erino 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete, sir$
Q$ (ow a"out his two com!anions, -ndres -costa and %austo 8a"ara, how far were you to
themS 3 -$ They were farther to me than Quirino 8amolete$
Q$ -nd what did they do with their guns that they were holdingS 3 -$ They fired their guns, sir$
Q$ Can you tell the Court the direction where they fired their gunsS 3 -$ Quirino 8amolete
!ointed his gun to 'e#erino 8efuerzo$ . donOt +now to whom the others !ointed their guns$ >G
tsn@$
Q$ -nd when you heard a noise which seems that someone was coming u!, you made a
conclusion that Quirino 8amolete was going u!S 3 -$ No, sir$ (e tal+ed when he came u! and
said, M'tand u!, -lfredo, and . will shoot you$M >*= tsn@$
Q$ When Quirino 8amolete uttered those words to -lfredo 8ayray, what did -lfredo 8ayray doS
3 -$ They went out "ecause they were afraid, sir$ $$$ Our com!anions including 'e#erino
8efuerzo went out, sir$ $$$ When 'e#erino 8efuerzo /um!ed from the batalan, it was at that
moment when Quirino 8amolete fired at him$
Q$ (ow far were you when Quirino 8amolete fired at 'e#erino 8efuerzoS 3 -$ . was a"out one
meter from them, Your (onor$ . was at the doorway$ >*; tsn@$
Q$ -nd neither did you see also Quirino 8amolete fire at Mariano
8amoleteS 3 -$ No, sir$ When Quirino 8amolete fired at 'e#erino 8efuerzo, Mariano 8amolete
was at the batalan$
Q$ 'o, all that you +now is that Quirino 8amolete fired at your "rother >8efuerzo@ and to
Mariano 8amoleteS 3 -$ Yes, sir$ >*: tsn@$
CourtA 3 QA -re you sure that it was Quirino 8amolete who fired at your deceased "rotherS 3 -$
Yes, Your (onor, . saw him$ >)< tsn@$
Q$ 'o you saw Quirino 8amolete !ointing his gunS (e was not !articularly trying to shoot your
"rother "ecause all of you were scam!ering, is that rightS 3 -$ . was sure, sir$ When my "rother
/um!ed to go down, it was then that he, Quirino 8amolete, !ointed his gun at him$ >)= tsn@$
Q$ To where did you ranS 3 -$ When we ran away, 'e#erino 8efuerzo /um!ed out of the window
west of the door >F tsn March *;, *C::@$
Q$ Then what ha!!enedS 3 -$ When we had "een running, scam!ering towards any direction, .
remem"ered 'e#erino 8efuerzo, and when . loo+ed, that was the time when . saw Quirino
8amolete shot him$ >C tsn@$
Q$ What was the !osition of 'e#erino 8efuerzo when he was fired at "y Quirino 8amoleteS 3 -$
(e was in the act of /um!ing o#er the window so he could go to thebatalan "ecause that is where
the stairs were$ >*B tsn@$
Q$ (ow far was Quirino 8amolete when he fired at 'e#erino 8efuerzoS 3 -$ .t was near, sir$ >The
witness indicating a distance of a"out two and a half meters@$
Q$ -fterwards, what did you do and what ha!!ened ne4tS 3 -$ When there was no more firing, .
went out and . saw 'e#erino 8efuerzo and Mariano 8amolete on the batalanand Mariano
8amolete was at his head$
Q$ What was their conditionS 3 -$ 'e#erino 8efuerzo was then dead and 8amolete was
agonizing$ >*B3** tsn@$
Q$ -fter you heard Quirino 8amolete say that he will shoot -lfredo 8ayray, you ran inside the
room where Nicasia 8a"anal was, is it notS 3 -$ Not immediately, sir, "ecause . stood u! near the
door where he was and that was the time when he fired at 'e#erino >8efuerzo@$
Q$ ?#ery"ody who was inside the house had to !ass that door where Quirino 8amolete was at
that timeS 3 -$ Yes, sir$ >*:3*G tsn@$
Testimony of Cali4ta 8a"ot
Q$ When did your hus"and, Mariano 8amolete, dieS 3 -$ (e died two years ago, sir$
Q$ What was the cause of his deathS 3 -$ (e was shot "y Quirino 8amolete, sir$ >< tsn@$
Q$ -nd a"out you, how far were you in relation to Quirino 8amoleteS 3 -$ . was not #ery far, sir$
(e was close to me$
Q$ (ow close was itS Will you indicate the distance from your !laceS 3 -$ - distance of a"out
one yard, sir$
Q$ What else ha!!ened when the !layers ran awayS 3 -$ Quirino 8amolete fired his gun, sir$
Q$ What else ha!!enedS 3 -$ (e shot 'e#erino >8efuerzo@ and my hus"and, Mariano >8amolete@,
sir$ >=3; tsn -!ril =, *C:<@$
Q$ -nd you said that 'e#erino 8efuerzo ran and was fired at$ Do you +now or did you see the
one who fired at himS 3 -$ Quirino 8amolete, sir$
Q$ -nd where was your hus"and at the time when Quirino 8amolete fired at 'e#erino 8efuerzoS
3 -$ (e was in the batalan, sir$
Q$ 9ut you did not actually see your hus"and "eing fired u!on, is it notS 3 -$ -s soon as
'e#erino 8efuerzo fell !rostrate, my hus"and also fell$ >G3F tsn -!ril =, *C:<@$
Q$ 9ut your hus"and was in your batalan and "etween the batalan and where you were was a
wallS 3 -$ Yes, sir$ The wall is here and here is where my hus"and fell >the witness indicating the
walling to "e "etween her and the !lace where her hus"and fell@ >*B tsn@$
Q$ -s a matter of fact, while you were near Quirino 8amolete, you did not see him in
the batalan and you only +new that he was there when your hus"and was moaningS 3 -$ Yes, sir,
"ecause when 'e#erino 8efuerzo fell, my hus"and fell also$ >*B tsn@$
Q$ $$$ You mean to say that what you had stated that only Quirino 8amolete fired at 'e#erino
8efuerzo and your hus"and is not trueS 3 -$ What . saw Quirino 8amolete fired at 'e#erino
8efuerzo and my hus"and$ >.d$ *< tsn@$
Q$ Can you tell the Court who was the accused who shot your hus"andS 3 -$ Quirino 8amolete,
your (onor$ >*F tsn@$
Q$ When you saw Quirino 8amolete shoot your hus"and, was your hus"and inside the houseS 3
-$ (e was at the batalan, your (onor$ >*F tsn@$
Q$ When you were at the doorway of the +itchen that was the time when he shot your hus"andS 3
-$ Yes, sir$
Q$ -nd you were #ery near the !lace where your hus"and was shotS 3 -$ . was close to him, your
(onor$
Q$ (ow near were you from himS 3 -$ %rom here to there, your (onor >the witness indicating a
length of two meters@$
Q$ %rom the !lace where Quirino 8amolete shot your hus"and, how far was your hus"and to
Quirino 8amolete at the time he was shotS 3 -$ (e was #ery close, your (onor$ (e was here
while 'e#erino 8efuerzo and my hus"and were here dead >the witness indicating >where@ she,
the witness, was from the two deceased Mariano 8amolete and 'e#erino 8efuerzo@$
Q$ When you said Quirino 8amolete shot 'e#erino 8efuerzo and your hus"and, were they shot
simultaneouslyS 3 -$ -s soon as 'e#erino 8efuerzo fell !rostrate, my hus"and also fell, your
(onor$
Q$ Did 'e#erino 8efuerzo and your hus"and fall to the ground when they were shotS 3 -$ They
fell on the front of the batalan, your (onor$
Q$ 'o they were "oth dying and +illed on the batalanS 3 -$ Yes, your (onor$ >*F3*C tsn@$
Considering the foregoing oral e#idence, a!!ellantOs claim that he did not +ill Mariano 8amolete
is not "orne out "y the record$
- close scrutiny and dis!assionate a!!raisal of the testimonies of Cali4ta 8a"ot and ?nri,ueta
8efuerzo confirm the trial courtOs finding that they witnessed the shooting of 8efuerzo "y
Quirino 8amolete$ (owe#er, there is a !al!a"le ne"ulousness in their testimonies as to how
Mariano 8amolete was shot "y Quirino 8amolete or how Mariano recei#ed the fatal gunshot
wound of entry in the a"domen whose corres!onding e4it wound was in the left iliac region and
how the other gunshot wound in his "uttoc+s was inflicted$
-!!ellantOs counsel de o%icio contends that the +illing of 8efuerzo "y Quirino 8amolete was not
attended with treachery "ecause Mno deceit and tric+eryM were em!loyed$ (e argues that Mwhile it
is true that the wounds of 'e#erino 8efuerzo were at his "ac+M, there was no treachery since he
Mwas not waylaid or tra!!edM !ursuant to Ma !reconcei#ed !lot "y his aggressorM$ Counsel says
that there is no !roof that there was treachery at the ince!tion of the attac+ and that there is no
showing that Quirino 8amolete, in shooting 8efuerzo, was not e4!osed to any ris+ which would
Mre,uire him to !ut u! a defenseM$ (ence, while admitting that Quirino 8amolete +illed 8efuerzo,
counsel concludes that the +illing was only homicide$
These contentions are untena"le$ The trial court found that the +illings of 8efuerzo and Mariano
8amolete were attended with treachery "ecause the wounds which they sustained were on the
"ac+$ The 'olicitor Ieneral agrees that treachery was !resent "ecause the wounds on the "ac+
indicate that the #ictims were shot from "ehind$
- conscientious re#iew of the circumstances surrounding the +illing of 8efuerzo su!!orts the
finding that there was treachery$ -!!ellant Quirino 8amolete first came to the house unarmed
and ostensi"ly with !acific intentions$ -s it turned out, his !ur!ose was to reconnoiter or to case
the house and ascertain whether the intended #ictims were !resent and unarmed$ That conduct of
Quirino 8amolete amounted to Mtric+ery or deceitM$ (e dissem"led and camouflaged his
murderous intention "y gi#ing the inmates of the house the im!ression that he would not do them
any harm$
(a#ing satisfied himself that the !lace and time were !ro!itious for the e4ecution of his
dia"olical !lan, he left the house and fetched his confederates, -costa and 8a"ara$ -fter
e,ui!!ing themsel#es with deadly wea!ons, they entered the house to !ut into effect their
felonious design$ They sur!rised the !ersons inside the house !articularly 8efuerzo$ 8amolete
strategically stationed himself near the door, Mthe only e4it in the houseM$ >F, *G tsn March *;,
*C::@$
8efuerzo must ha#e instincti#ely felt that he was one of the o"/ects of Quirino 8amoleteOs
#indicti#e hostility in #iew of the !rior incident regarding 8agil, QuirinoOs friend$ .nasmuch as
8efuerzo was unarmed and utterly defenseless, he tried to esca!e through the window$ Quirino
8amolete shot him in that situation$ 8efuerzo fell into the batalan with three serious gunshot
wounds of entry on his "ac+$ Treachery >alevosia@ was manifest in that manner of assault
"ecause it insured the +illing without any ris+ to the assailant >ar$ *:, -rt$ *= of the 8e#ised
enal Code@$
-n attac+ made on a !erson who was running away and who was com!letely defenseless was
held to "e treacherous >eo!le #s$ &ogroKo C: hil$ CG;2 Cf$ eo!le #s$ 'awit, *BB hil$ ;BG,
;*)@$ Where the attac+ was made with firearms and the #ictims were unarmed and with no
means of defense or esca!e "ecause they were tra!!ed inside a house, the assault in that situation
was held to "e treacherous >eo!le #s$ (airal and Ta/iril, CG hil$ C::@$
-s to the cul!a"ility of a!!ellant Quirino 8amolete for the death of Mariano 8amolete, the Court
is not con#inced that the +illing was attended with treachery$ -s already noted, although the
!rosecution had esta"lished Quirino 8amoleteOs res!onsi"ility for the +illing of Mariano
8amolete, it failed to esta"lish clearly the circumstances surrounding the +illing$ Conse,uently,
the +illing of Mariano 8amolete should "e characterized as homicide aggra#ated "y dwelling$ (e
was +illed in his own house without ha#ing gi#en any !ro#ocations >ar$ <, -rt$ *=, 8e#ised
enal Code@$
9ut dwelling is not aggra#ating in the +illing of 8efuerzo since he was a mere #isitor in Mariano
8amoleteOs house >Cf$ eo!le #s$ 9asa, F< hil$ :)), citing * Jiada, Codigo enal, Cuarta
?dicion, !age <<F and eo!le #s$ Celes!ara, F) hil$ <CC@$
The trial court held that there was no a"use of su!eriority "ecause only Quirino 8amolete
committed the three offenses$ .t is not necessary to !ass u!on that !oint and u!on its finding that
nocturnity was also aggra#ating$ Treachery a"sor"s a"use of su!erior strength and nocturnity$
.t is alleged in the information that the +illings were also ,ualified with !remeditation$ While it is
manifest that the assaults were not !er!etrated on a momentary im!ulse and that there must ha#e
"een some !lanning and deli"eration, yet it cannot "e held that there was !remeditacion
conocida$ -s correctly o"ser#ed "y the trial court, the e#idence does not show >a@ the time when
the offender determined to commit the crime, >"@ an act manifestly indicating that the cul!rit had
clung to his determination and >c@ an a!!recia"le inter#al of time "etween the determination and
the e4ecution of the crime that was sufficient to allow him to reflect u!on the conse,uence of his
act and to o#ercome the resolution of his will >#encer las determinaciones de la #oluntad@ if he
desired to hear+en to its warnings >eo!le #s$ %uentesuela, G< hil$ ;;<2 5$'$ #s$ Iil,*< hil$
;<B, ;=G@$
(ow to do /ustice in the case in#ol#ing 8ayray is rendered difficult "y the contradictory and
confusing e#idence in the record$ -s already noted, Quirino 8amolete was charged with
frustrated murder for ha#ing assaulted 8ayray$ The lower court con#icted him of lesiones graves$
(is counsel in this a!!eal !rays that /udgment "e affirmed$ The 'olicitor Ieneral recommends
that he "e con#icted of attem!ted murder$
8ayray himself, as an am"i#alent witness, was not hel!ful in dissi!ating the discre!ancies in the
testimonial e#idence$ &isted as a !rosecution witness for "eing an offended !arty, he testified for
the defense$ O"#iously, he must ha#e "een under hea#y !ressure to sa"otage the !rosecution of
his assailant or assailants$ Two days after the shooting, 8ayray signed a statement "efore
Consta"ulary Cor!oral 8odolfo urisima while confined in the hos!ital$ .t was sworn to "efore
the /ustice of the !eace of Jigan$ 8ayray said that Quirino 8amolete shot him in the arm while
he >8ayray@ Mwas at the stairsM$ Then, -costa shot him in the leg$ (e colla!sed$ >?4h$ D@$
8ayray, testifying as a defense witness more than fi#e years after the tragic occurrence, said on
direct e4amination that he had an altercation with Quirino 8amolete in the house of Mariano
8amolete during the card game$ (e told QuirinoA M. ha#e "een losing and it is only my first time
to win this game, OyotO M$ Quirino went out$ 8ayray followed Quirino$ Then, there was a gunshot
and 8ayray Mfelt a stinging !ainM in his "ody$ (e was "leeding$ (e ran and went downstairs,
where he colla!sed$ On cross3e4amination, 8ayray said that his statement "efore the /ustice of
the !eace >?4h$ D@ was fa"ricated "y the late Mayor Jose 8a!isura$ (e said that he was
intimidated "y the mayor and "y oliceman 8acsa$ 8ayray categorically testified that Quirino
8amolete shot him ><: tsn No#em"er )), *C::@$ - !rosecution witness testified that 8ayray was
shot downstairs or when he went down >*G tsn -!ril <, *C:<2 *B tsn March *;, *C::@$ Quirino
8amoleteOs #ersion on the witness stand was that, after his altercation with 8ayray, the latter
gri!!ed his >8ayrayOs@ gun and rushed at him >8amolete@, sayingA MWhy do you ha#e "ad
feelingsSM Quirino shot 8ayray twice in the arm$ The trial court did not accord any credence to
QuirinoOs story$ -fter weighing carefully the e#idence, the Court concludes that the shooting of
8ayray "y Quirino 8amolete was attem!ted homicide$ -!!ellant 8amolete intended to +ill
8ayray "ut he was not a"le to !erform all the acts of e4ecution necessary to consummate the
+illing$ The wounds suffered "y 8ayray on his arm and leg did not affect his #ital organs$ They
were not mortal$ There was no treachery "ecause Quirino 8amolete first warned 8ayray that he
would "e shot$ No modifying circumstances can "e considered in the assault against 8ayray$
W(?8?%O8?, as to the +illing of 'e#erino 8efuerzo, the /udgment of the trial court is affirmed
>-rts$ :=6*7 and )=F, 8e#ised enal Code@, with the modification that the indemnity should "e
twel#e thousand !esos$ The !enalty should "e designated as reclusion perpetua$ The term Mlife
im!risonmentM is not correct >eo!le #s$ Mo"e, F* hil$ ;F@$ %or the +illing of Mariano
8amolete, a!!ellant Quirino 8amolete is guilty of homicide aggra#ated "y dwelling >morada@$
(e is sentenced to an indeterminate !enalty ranging from twel#e >*)@ years of prision "ayor to
eighteen >*F@ years of reclusion te"poral and to !ay the heirs of the #ictim an indemnity of
twel#e thousand !esos$ .n the third case the lower courtOs /udgment is also modified$ -!!ellant
Quirino 8amolete is con#icted of attem!ted homicide as to -lfredo 8ayray instead of lesiones
graves$ There "eing no modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate !enalty
ranging from si4 months of arresto "ayor to three ><@ years of prision correccional and to
indemnify 8ayray in the sum of one thousand four hundred !esos >*,=BB@ to co#er his medical
e4!enses and loss of income$ Costs against the a!!ellant$ The ma4imum duration of forty years
fi4ed in article GB of the 8e#ised enal Code a!!lies to the ser#ice of the three sentences$ 'o
ordered$ Ma+alintal, C$J$, Haldi#ar, Castro, %ernando, 9arredo, ?sguerra, %ernandez and MuKoz
alma, JJ$, concur$ Teehan+ee and -ntonio, JJ$, concurs in the result$ Ma+asiar, J$, too+ no !art
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
#O&EO NI&$L 2 E6P$L$O! defendant3a!!ellant$
PE# '6#I$&:
-utomatic re#iew of the /udgment of con#iction and im!osition of the death !enalty on accused
8omeo Nismal y ?u!alao "y the Circuit Criminal Court, 'e#enth Judicial District for the crime
of ro""ery with homicide$
To "e noted at the outset is that accused, when arraigned, with the assistance of two counsel de
oficio -ttorneys &uisito C$ 'ardillo and Jose Ial#an, entered a !lea of guilty to the following
informationA
That on or a"out the *;th day of Decem"er *CG;, in Quezon City, hili!!ines, the a"o#enamed
accused, "eing then a security guard assigned with the 8e!u"lic 9an+, 5 Com!ound, Diliman,
this City, at night time !ur!osely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime, did, then and
there, "y means of #iolence and intimidation against !erson of one JO'? T??(-N0??, J8$,
Manager3Cashier of the said 8e!u"lic 9an+, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of
gain, ta+e, ro" and carry away the amount of :;,BBB$BB in !a!er "ills, "elonging to the
8e!u"lic 9an+ and the said accused to further facilitate the commission of the crime and in
disregard of the res!ect due the offended !arty on account of his ran+ and age with intent to +ill
,ualified "y treachery and e#ident !remeditation, attac+, assault and em!loy !ersonal #iolence
u!on the !erson of said JO'? T??(-N0??, J8$, "y then and there sta""ing the latter se#eral
times on the different !arts of his "ody, there"y inflicting u!on him serious and mortal sta"
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and !re/udice of
the heirs of the said T??(-N0??, J8$, in such amount as may"e awarded under the !ro#isions
of e4isting laws$
Contrary to law$ >age *B, 8ecord$@
-gain worthy of immediate consideration is that after the !rosecution !resented no less than ten
witnesses, the accused o!ted not to !resent e#idence, much less to testify on his own "ehalf, if
only to e4!lain the a!!arent discre!ancies "etween his written confession, ?4hi"it C, and his
admission made to the N9. !olygra!h e4aminer, ?4hi"it D$
.n his "rief, counsel for accused faults the trial court with ha#ing "ased its finding of guilt on
what he claims to ha#e "een made an im!ro#ident !lea of guilty of the accused and secondly,
with not ha#ing him found guilty of two se!arate crimes of theft and homicide, instead of the
com!le4 offense of ro""ery with homicide under -rticle )C= >*@ of the 8e#ised enal Code$
The claim of im!ro#ident !lea has a"solutely no "asis$
-s a rule, this Court has set aside con#ictions "ased on !leas of guilty in ca!ital offenses "ecause
of im!ro#idence of the !lea only when such !lea is the sole "asis of the /udgment of the
condemnatory /udgment$ When, as in this case, the trial court in o"edience to this CourtOs
in/unction in -!duhan
*
and similar cases, recei#es e#idence to determine !recisely whether or
not the accused has erred in admitting guilt, the manner in which the !lea of guilty is made loses
legal significance, for the sim!le reason that the con#iction is, as in this case, !redicated not on
the !lea "ut on the e#idence !ro#ing the commission "y the accused of the offense charged$ .n
the instant case, ten witnesses testified for the !rosecution, all of them cross3e4amined "y the
defense counsel$ More than that, the accused su"mitted the case without !resenting any e#idence$
(e did not dare to testify to deny the incul!atory testimonies and documents and real e#idence
!resented against him$ Jerily, under these circumstances, to insist on the in#alidity of the !lea of
the accused can ser#e no more effect than to de!ri#e the accused of the credit of the mitigating
circumstance that such !lea connotes$
.. -nent the argument of the accused that he should ha#e "een con#icted of two crimes,
homicide and theft instead of ro""ery with homicide, it is readily im!licit that he admits not only
that he did "rutally +ill the #ictim, Mr$ Jose Teehan+ee, Jr$, "ut that he too+ away money
"elonging to the 8e!u"lic 9an+$ -nd now he insists that he did not ro" and +ill "ut +illed and
stole$
.n this connection, it must "e "orne in mind that the only e#idence on which accused "ases his
theory of two se!arate offenses is nothing more than the self3e4tenuating circumstance he
inserted in his confession that after Mr$ Teehan+ee had o!ened the #ault, he too+ hold of a "ig
"undle of money and threw it at the accused, and it was "ecause he felt insulted "y such act of
Mr$ Teehan+ee that he sta""ed him se#eral times with a +itchen +nife he +e!t hidden in his
uniform, he smashed Mr$ Teehan+eeOs head with an adding machine and !ounded him with an
electric fan, and after !er!etrating such inhuman acts, he left "ut not without ta+ing away with
him money of the "an+, !lacing them in a "o4$ One has to "e #ery nai#e to "elie#e such a
#ersion$ -s #ery well discussed in the eo!leOs "riefA
-!!ellantOs claim is de#oid of merit$
.n the first !lace, the incidents and circumstances that surrounded and unfolded "efore the
disco#ery of the crime demonstrate unerringly and ine4ora"ly that a!!ellant remained inside the
"an+ that late afternoon of Decem"er *;, *CG; no longer as a security guard to secure the
"uilding and !ro!erties of said "an+ "ut !recisely to ro" the "an+ of its cash de!osits and
!roceeds which he had !lanned days "efore$
Consider that at that late afternoon, a!!ellant was armed with a +itchen +nife a"out =3*Q) inches
long, concealed in his /ac+et which was hang on a !anel "ehind one of the doors inside the "an+$
.t was rather unusual for a security guard to "e armed with an additional dangerous +nife, "esides
his ser#ice firearm, since the "an+ is located inside the 5 Com!ound, !o!ulated "y students,
faculty mem"ers and the latterOs families$ The 5 Com!ound is well secured "y the 5 'ecretary
%orce$ -s a matter of fact, the "an+ closed is at ;ABB oOcloc+ in the afternoon of each wor+ing
day, "ecause there are guards from the 5 'ecurity %orce inside the 5 Com!ound that secure
the !lace during the right >!!$ );3):, tsn, 'e!t$ )), *CGG@$ -s a security guard, the accused had
the !lace already cased, +nowing that the manager3 cashier of the "an+ often left the "an+ when
e#eryone else had already gone home after closing time in the afternoon of each wor+ing day$
The conclusion is, therefore, inesca!a"le that when he "rought the +itchen +nife to the "an+ on
that day, he had already !lanned to ro" the "an+ and +ill its manager3cashier on the same
occasion$
Other !ieces of e#idence !oint to the same conclusion$ There was that tele!hone call of Miss
Chee Teehan+ee to her father wherein she noticed that, from his unusual #oice, something wrong
and dreadful was a"out to ha!!en to her father inside the "an+ that e#ening$ -lso, in his written
confession, a!!ellant made some declarations which re#ealed the state of fear on the !art of the
#ictim, Mr$ Teehan+ee, and the aggressi#e and felonious actuations on his >a!!ellantOs@ !art, /ust
"efore he !roceeded to sta" his #ictim to death$ ?arlier, we ha#e discussed the nature and num"er
of the sta" wounds and "lunt in/uries sustained "y the #ictim, and the disarray of the e,ui!ment
and other things inside the "an+, which led the !olice in#estigators to "elie#e that the !lace was
ransac+ed, showing that the #ictim !ut u! a des!erate struggle to sa#e his life$ -nd there is also
the neat arrangement and se,uence of the "undles of money later reco#ered "y the !olice
in#estigators from the house of the a!!ellantOs sister$
.ndeed, a!!ellantOs written confession >?4hi"it OCO@ and his admission to the N9. !olygra!h
e4aminer as narrated "y the latter in his !olygra!h re!ort >?4hi"it OMO@ and in his testimony in
court >!!$ ;=3;;, tsn, 'e!t$ )), *CGG@, and, as corro"orated in the main "y the re!orts and the
testimonies of the other !olice in#estigators and !rosecution witnesses, clearly and con#incingly
demonstrate that a!!ellant, with e#ident !remeditation and through treachery, sta""ed to death
the "an+Os manager3cashier and thereafter di#ested or ro""ed the "an+ of its cash de!osit and
!roceeds, as gra!hically !resented in this "rief$ 'uch #ersion as to what actually ha!!ened inside
the "an+ is the only natural and logical conclusion as firmly and clearly su!!orted "y the factual
circumstances, which are e#ident from the credi"le e#idence on record, and which are in
accordance with common e4!erience, human nature and the natural se,uence of things$
9ut, in confessing to the commission of the crime, a!!ellant still had to ma+e false allegations of
circumstances and reasons which had no other !ur!ose "ut to lessen the degree of his cul!a"ility
and the e4tent of his lia"ility for his felonious deed$ -mong them was his declaration that he was
there inside the "an+ that late afternoon of Decem"er *;, *CG; to as+ from Mr$ Teehan+ee, the
"an+Os manager3cashier, for a loan of only ;B$BB, informing the latter that he needed the money
#ery "adly "ecause his wife was then sic+$ %rom the inter#iews conducted "y the !olice
in#estigators u!on his wife, it was shown that his wife was not heard to com!lain of any sic+ness
or ailment$ .t was rather unnatural for Mr$ Teehan+ee, whom Mr$ a"lo 8oman, chairman of the
"oard of directors of the 8e!u"lic 9an+, had +nown as a good man that no"ody would harm him
>!$ *;, tsn, 'e!t$ )), *CGG@, to ha#e uttered insulting words at his security guard andQor to react
#iolently, as what a!!ellant claimed, to his re,uest for a loan of only ;B$BB$ -!!ellant need not
wait until late in the afternoon to a!!roach Mr$ Teehan+ee for such a small re,uest or fa#or$ -nd
Mr$ Teehan+ee could ha#e /ust as well gotten a ;B$BB "ill from his own wallet and gi#en it
willingly to their security guard e#en as a Christmas gift in ad#ance, it "eing the e#e of the
-d#ent of the Christmas 'eason and the reason gi#en "eing that a!!ellantOs wife was then sic+$ .t
is against human "eha#ior and common sense, as !ortrayed "y a!!ellant, that Mr$ Teehan+ee
should react "y getting from the "an+Os safe Ona+a"alun"on na !eraO amounting to :;,BBB$BB and
throw them angrily at the a!!ellant$
.f it is true that Mr$ Teehan+ee reacted thus #iolently, se#eral wra!!ers of the "undles of money
would ha#e "een torn a!art$ 9ut only one wra!!er of the ;B$BB denominations was found inside
the tangerine3colored maleta, where a!!ellant +e!t his loot$ -nd no other wra!!er of the !a!er
"ills were found on the floor of the "an+ "y !olice in#estigators$ .t should also "e o"ser#ed that
the !a!er "ills were neatly arranged and in correct se,uence of *BB "ill for each "undle of the
same denomination when reco#ered "y the !olice in#estigators from the house of a!!ellantOs
sister$ This circumstance clearly indicates that the !a!er "ills were neatly stac+ed inside the safe
of the "an+ in their res!ecti#e "undles which were ta+en "y a!!ellant from the safe, not from the
floor of the "an+ as claimed "y him, after he had feloniously sta""ed Mr$ Teehan+ee to death
des!ite the des!erate struggle !ut u! "y the latter$
%urthermore, a!!ellant made contradictory declarations in his e4tra/udicial confession >?4hi"it
OCO@ and in his admission to the N9. !olygra!h e4aminer >?4hi"it ODO@$ .n the former, a!!ellant
claimed that the "undles of money were thrown at him "y the manager3cashier of the "an+ which
resulted allegedly in their "eing scattered on the floor of the #ault room, "ut, in the latter
admission, he did not mention that the "undles of money were thrown at him "y Mr$ Teehan+ee$
.n his written confession, a!!ellant claimed that the immediate cause that led him to sta" the
manager3cashier was when the latter threw the "undles of money at him, "ut, in the latter
admission, the !ro4imate cause was when the manager3cashier, after withdrawing money from
the safe, threatened and warned him, sayingA MMagtago +a na +ung saan mo gusto at huwag +a ng
mag!a+ita !a sa a+in "u+as at malalagot +aM$ .n his written confession, a!!ellant claimed that he
left the maleta, containing the loot, at the house of his cousin, Willy 'antos, "ut, in his latter
admission, and as later confirmed "y !olice in#estigators when they reco#ered the loot, a!!ellant
left the maleta, full of money with his sisterOs house at Caloocan City$ There are still other
inconsistencies "etween his written confession and his admission to the N9. !olygra!h
e4aminer$
Considering, howe#er, that at first a!!ellant !ersisted in disclaiming any +nowledge of the crime
and e#en dared the !olice in#estigators to !ut him under lie detector test, as well as the fact that
considera"le time had la!sed for him to con/ure false reasons "efore he "ro+e down and admitted
committing the crime "efore the N9. !olygra!h e4aminer, a!!ellant then succeeded to include
false allegations of circumstances and reasons in his admission to the N9. !olygra!h e4aminer$
With more reason, when he finally ga#e his written confession to the QCD !olice in#estigators
at a"out FA<B oOcloc+ of Decem"er *:, *CG; a!!ellant had more tune to con/ure additional false
situations and circumstances which found their way to his written confession, if only to lessen
his lia"ility for the heinous crime he had committed$ >!!$ )F3<;, 9rief for the laintiff3-!!ellee$@
We fully agree with the foregoing arguments and the dis,uisition of the 'olicitor Ieneral, the
same "eing fully su!!orted "y the e#idence We ha#e e4amined and studied$
-ccordingly, We hold that the accused is guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t of ro""ery with
homicide as alleged in the information$ 9eing the security guard of the "an+, Mr$ Teehan+ee was
su!erior$ .ndeed, it was his duty !recisely to defend Mr$ Teehan+ee from any aggressor$ 9ut in
disregard of the res!ect he owed Mr$ Teehan+ee, on account of su!erior ran+ to him, he assaulted
him$ 'uch disregard of res!ect is an aggra#ating circumstance$
Mr$ Teehan+ee re!osed confidence in him2 he a"used it$ (e attac+ed the :B3year old Mr$
Teehan+ee with o"#ious ungratefulness$ That is another aggra#ating circumstances$
We also find that accused #ery well !lanned to await until nighttime, !ast ;A<B oOcloc+ in
Decem"er when the nights are long, which he +new was the time when Mr$ Teehan+ee would "e
alone$ .f such circumstances may not strictly "e considered as constituti#e of nocturnidad, to
facilitate the commission of the crimes he was "ent on committing, the e#idence We ha#e
re#iewed sufficiently esta"lish e#ident !remeditation, one more aggra#ating circumstance$
-gainst the foregoing aggra#ating circumstances, the only mitigating circumstance that can "e
set off is his !lea of guilty$ ln conse,uence it is ine#ita"le that he must suffer the ca!ital
!unishment of death, as held "y the trial court$
W(?8?%O8?, the /udgment of the trial court is here"y affirmed in toto, with costs against
accused Nismal$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE IL$ND, !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
(I'ENTE &$T1$)ON, defendant3a!!ellant$
Asteban P. Paulin %or appellant. 9%%ice o% t!e 'olicitor 1eneral :ilado %or appellee.
(icDers! J.:
This is an a!!eal from a decision of the Court of %irst .nstance of Ce"u, finding the defendant
guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer reclusion !er!etual to indemnify the heirs of
Marciano 8etu"ado in the sum of *,BBB, and to !ay the costs$
-!!ellantOs attorney ma+es the following assignments of errorA
.$ The lower court erred in gi#ing credit to the !er/ured testimonies of ?miliano 8e"utado and
8ufino 'urigao, son and "rother3in3law res!ecti#ely of the deceased$
..$ The lower court erred in holding that it was the accused who waited at the colo tree to assault
the deceased$
...$ The lower court erred in not ac,uitting the accused on the ground of com!lete legitimate self3
defense$
We find no merit in the errors assigned$ .t clearly a!!ears from the e#idence that "etween ele#en
and twel#e oOcloc+ on the night of May *<, *C<=, Marciano 8etu"ado, the deceased, and Jicente
Mat"agon, the defendant, had a fight at the coc+!it in .lihan, in the munici!ality of To"ogon,
Ce"u ro#ince$ The fight resulted from a remar+ made "y the defendant res!ecting the tu"a sold
"y the niece of Marciano 8etu"ado$ Magno 'urigao se!arated the defendant and the deceased,
"ut they had already "itten each other$ 'hortly afterwards Marciano 8etu"ado called his son and
they started home$ (e carried a torch struc+ in a "ottle, and was followed "y his son, ?miliano
8etu"ado, a school"oy, fifteen years old$ When they came o!!osite a colo tree, a"out fifty
meters from the coc+!it, the defendant with a +nife in his hand a!!roached the deceased and
sta""ed him in the "reast$ The deceased struc+ the defendant on the head with the "ottle that he
was carrying$ The "ottle was "ro+en and the light went out$ - struggle "etween the accused and
the deceased followed$ The deceased recei#ed in all four wounds2 one on the chin, and another
on the right side of the face2 one, two inches dee!, on the left side of the chest, and another, one
and one3half inches dee!, on the "reast$ The in/ured man died in a few minutes from the wounds
that he had recei#ed on the "reast and on the left side of the chest$ The accused then ran away$
When the accused first sta""ed the deceased, ?miliano 8etu"ado cried for hel!$ 8ufino 'urigao
was the first to arri#e$ The distance "etween the !lace where the defendant was standing near the
colo tree and the !lace where he sta""ed the deceased was a"out a "raza$
The trial /udge found the defendant guilty of murder "ecause the crime was committed with
treachery2 that the aggra#ating circumstance of nocturnity was offset "y the mitigating
circumstance of !assion and o"fuscation, since the defendant committed the crime "ecause he
had "een "itten a few minutes "efore "y the deceased$
.n our o!inion the e#idence does not /ustify the finding of the trial /udge as to the classification
of the crime or the a!!reciation of the modifying circumstances$ .n the first !lace there could not
"e, under the circumstances of this case, "oth treachery and the aggra#ating circumstance of
nocturnity, "ecause the nocturnity would "e included in the treachery as an inse!ara"le incident,
and should not "e considered se!arately >5$ '$ #s$ 'algado, ** hil$ ;:, ;C@$
With res!ect to the mitigating circumstance of !assion and o"fuscation, we thin+ it was
im!ro!erly a!!reciated in this case$ .t a!!ears that at least half an hour inter#ened "etween the
fight at the coc+!it and the sta""ing of the deceased$ The accused in waiting for the deceased
near the colo tree and in attac+ing him with a +nife was actuated "y a desire for re#enge "ecause
of the in/ury he had recei#ed in the fight with the deceased$ The attac+ was not the result of a
sudden im!ulse of natural and uncontrolla"le fury >eo!le #s$ (ernandez, =< hil$ *B=, ***@$
We came now to the ,uestion of whether or not the crime was committed with alevosiaor
treachery$ -s we ha#e already stated, when the deceased, carrying a light, came o!!osite the colo
tree where the defendant was waiting, the defendant with a !oc+et+nife in his hand a!!roached
the deceased, and sta""ed him$ .f the accused had "een hiding "ehind the tree and had sta""ed
the deceased without warning, the crime would undou"tedly ha#e "een committed with
treachery, "ut that is not what too+ !lace in this case$ The accused was waiting near the colo tree,
and when a "raza away he was seen "y the son of the deceased, and !resuma"ly "y the deceased$
The accused with a +nife in his hand wal+ed u! to the deceased and sta""ed him in the "reast$
5nder these circumstances we thin+ it is clear that there was no treachery or alevosiaas that term
is used in the 8e#ised enal Code$ MThere is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the !erson, em!loying means, methods or forms in the e4ecution thereof which
tend directly and s!ecially to insure its e4ecution, without ris+ to himself arising from the
defense which the offended !arty might ma+e$M .t is clear that the accused did not commit the
crime in such a manner as to insure its e4ecution without ris+ to himself from the defense which
the deceased might ha#e made$
The ne4t ,uestion is whether or not nocturnity should "e ta+en into account as an aggra#ating
circumstance in this case$
No$ *; of article *B of the enal Code !ro#ided that it was an aggra#ating circumstance that the
crime "e committed in the nighttime, or in an uninha"ited !lace, or "y a "and of more than three
armed men >en cuadrilla@2 that this circumstance should "e ta+en into consideration "y the courts
according to the nature and incidents of the crime$
No$ : of article *= of the 8e#ised enal Code !ro#ides that it is an aggra#ating circumstance that
the crime "e committed in the nighttime, or in an uninha"ited !lace, or "y a "and, whene#er such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense2 that whene#er more than three
armed malefactors shall ha#e acted together in the commission of an offense it shall "e deemed
to ha#e "een committed "y a "and$
There a!!ears to "e no material difference "etween the !ro#ision of the 8e#ised enal Code and
that of the enal Code$ .n construing the !ro#ision of the enal Code relating to nocturnity, it
was re!eatedly held "y this court that nocturnity would "e considered as an aggra#ating
circumstance only when it a!!eared that it was es!ecially sought "y the offender or that he had
ta+en ad#antage thereof in order to facilitate the commission of the crime or for the !ur!ose of
im!unity$
.t was said in the case of eo!le #s$ Trumata and 9aligasa >=C hil$ *C)@, that nocturnity should
not "e estimated as an aggra#ating circumstance, since the time for the commission of the crime
was not deli"erately chosen "y the accused2 that if it a!!ears from the record that the accused
too+ ad#antage of the dar+ness for the more successful consummation of his !lans, to !re#ent his
"eing recognized, and that the crime might "e !er!etrated unmolested, the aggra#ating
circumstance of nocturnity should "e a!!lied >5$'$ #s$ 9illedo, <) hil$ ;G=, ;GC@$
.n the !resent case none of the foregoing reasons e4ists for a!!reciating nocturnity as an
aggra#ating circumstance$ The attac+ made "y the defendant u!on the deceased was "ut a se,uel
to the fight at the coc+!it, which had ta+en !lace half an hour "efore$ .f the defendant had +illed
the deceased in the fight at the coc+!it, !ro"a"ly no one would contend that nocturnity should "e
a!!reciated as an aggra#ating circumstance in that case$ .t would "e !urely accidental, and so it
was in the !resent case$
The 'u!reme Court of '!ain in its decision of May )<, *FF; held that e#en in the case of ro""ery
with homicide the fact that the crime was committed at night is not to "e a!!reciated as an
aggra#ating circumstance when it may "e inferred that the dar+ness was not intentionally sought
or ta+en ad#antage of, "ut inter#ened casuallyA MConsiderando ,ue tam!oco es de estimar en
!er/uicio de los mencionados reos Oli#a y 8uiz 9ringas la circunstancia de ha"erse e/ecutado el
delito de noche, ,ue es la *; del citado articulo *B, !or,ue no surte efecto alguno legal en sentido
de agra#ar la !ena im!oni"le si los cul!a"les no la han elegido !ara realizar me/or sus malos
!ro!ositos, o como medio de conseguir la im!unidad, lo cual no consta ,ue hicieran a,uellos al
matar y ro"ar al &o!ez, toda #ez ,ue hallandose los tres con frecuencia en una ha"itacion
inde!endiente de las demas ,ue ocu!a"an otros #ecinos, no !arece ,ue les fuera necesaria una
hora !recisa !ara su !er!etracion, deduciendose sin gran esfuerzo ,ue, si el delito se cometio de
noche, fue sin ser "uscada e4!rofeso, inter#iniendo esa circunstancia casualmenteM$
.n its decision of January );, *FFF, relating to a tumultuous affray at night, the same court held
that the fact that the offense was committed at night should not "e regarded as an aggra#ating
circumstance, "ecause it was not chosen or sought for "y the accused, "ut was !urely accidental$
On the other hand, in its decision of -!ril *=, *FFF, the 'u!reme Court of '!ain held that the
aggra#ating circumstance of nocturnity should "e a!!reciated when the accused chose the
nighttime or too+ ad#antage of it to commit the crime more easily or to secure his im!unity$
JiadaOs comment on this ,uestion is as followsA M?n a,uellos delitos, cuya naturaleza no em!ece
a la a!reciacion de la circunstancia de la noche, ha"ra ,ue distinguirA cuando a!arezca ,ue el
autor del hecho "usco la noche, o !or lo menos se a!ro#echo de ella !ara facilitar la e/ecucion
del delito, o lograr, a ser !osi"le, su im!unidad, de"era a!reciarse esta circunstancia de
agra#acion2 cuando a!arezca lo contrario, esto es, ,ue la noche no ha sido aguardada ni
a!ro#echada con intencion !or el delincuente !ara e/ecutar en ella el delito, en este caso no
da"era tomarse en consideracion la circunstancia de nocturnidad, ,ue fue !uramente accidental,
!ara agra#ar la res!onsi"ilidad del cul!a"le$M >) Jiada, ):), ;th ed$@
.n the case at "ar the accused neither sought the nighttime nor too+ ad#antage of it to commit the
crime with greater facility or to esca!e$ .f he had hidden "ehind the tree and attac+ed the
deceased without warning or a#ailed himself f the dar+ness t !re#ent his "eing recognized or to
esca!e, then nocturnity would ha#e "een an aggra#ating circumstance$ .f the accused in this case
did not ta+e ad#antage of the nighttime to commit the crime or to esca!e, then the dar+ness did
not facilitate the commission of the offense$ To ta+e ad#antage of a fact or circumstance in
committing a crime clearly im!lies an intention to do so, and one does not a#ail oneself of the
dar+ness unless one intended to do so$
%or the foregoing reasons, the defendant is found guilty of the crime of homicide, without the
!resence of any aggra#ating or mitigating circumstance, and is condemned to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of not less than eight years of prision "ayor and not more than fourteen
years, eight months, and one day of reclusion te"poral, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased, Marciano 8etu"ado, in the sum of *,BBB, without su"sidiary im!risonment in case of
insol#ency$
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$ E6)ENIO L$)$#TO < )ET$L$DO! J#.! accused3a!!ellant$
P$#$! J.:p
This is an automatic re#iew of the /udgment 3 of the 8egional Trial Court, Fth Judicial 8egion,
9ranch RR.., &aoang, Northern 'amar, in Criminal Case No$ *;::, finding the accused
?5I?N.O &-I-8TO y I?T-&-DO, J8$ guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of
M58D?8$
The !ertinent facts of the case areA
.n the early e#ening of May );, *CF<, 8eynaldo -ducal, who was "uying fish in the !u"lic
mar+et, o"lacion &aoang, Northern 'amar, was fatally sta""ed$ 8ight after the sta""ing, the
assailant was a!!rehended "y fc$ Wenefredo &aguitan whose commenda"le act thwarted the
assailantOs esca!e$
%or the +illing of 8eynaldo -ducal, accused ?ugenio &agarto y Ietalado, Jr$ was charged in an
amended information with the crime of Murder as defined and !enalized under -rticle )=F of the
8e#ised enal Code, allegedly committed as followsA
That on or a"out the );th day of May, *CF<, at a"out :ABB oOcloc+ in the e#ening more or less,
inside the !u"lic mar+et 9gy$ &ittle Jenice, Munici!ality of &aoang, ro#ince of Northern
'amar, hili!!ines and within the /urisdiction of this (onora"le Court, the a"o#e named accused
with deli"erate intent to +ill with the ,ualifying circumstances of treachery and e#ident
!remeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac+, assault and sta"
one 8?YN-&DO -D5C-& y &58- with the use of a 9atangas fan +nife or 9alisong which the
a"o#e3named accused had !ro#ided himself for the !ur!ose, there"y inflicting u!on said #ictim
fatal wounds on his chest, which wounds caused the instantaneous death of the #ictim$
-ccused is a recidi#ist, ha#ing "een !re#iously con#icted "y final /udgment of another came
em"raced .N T(? '-M? T.T&? O% T(? 8?J.'?D ?N-& COD?, T(-T O% M58D?8 .N
C8.M.N-& C-'? NO$ *=G<$
CONT8-8Y TO &-W$
>8ecord, M-mended .nformationM, !$ <;@
5!on arraignment, a!!ellant entered a !lea of guilty$
The records disclose that the trial court had as+ed a!!ellant whether or not he understood the
conse,uences of his !lea$ %ollowing the rulings of this Court, howe#er, the trial court still
directed the !rosecution to !resent its e#idence for the !ur!ose of esta"lishing with certainty the
guilt and the degree of cul!a"ility of the accused$
Two witnesses were !resented "y the !rosecutionA they were Hosimo -ducal, father of the
#ictim, and fc$ Wenefredo &aguitan$
*$ Hasimo -ducal testified that in the e#ening of May );, *CF< while he was attending to his
farm, three ><@ +ilometers away from the !o"lacion of &ittle Jenice, &aoang, Northern 'amar,
his grandson -rtemio -ducal, son of 8eynaldo, informed him that 8eynaldo -ducal had "een
sta""ed dead2 he was not a"le to see his deceased son that night "ecause he could not see his way
during night time2 it was only in the following morning when he saw his deceased son with two
sta" wounds on the right and left "reast$ >T'N, Octo"er *F, *CF<, !!$ *=3)B@$
)$ fc$ Wenefredo &aguitan testified that on May );, *CF<, around :ABB in the e#ening, while he
and at$ Manuel 'e#illana were !assing the mar+et !lace, his attention was called "y a certain
-rmando 9aluyot to a commotion2 he o"ser#ed that the !eo!le were scam!ering for safety and a
man was esca!ing2 when some"ody shouted that the man was the assailant, he immediately
followed the man and a!!rehended him right then and there2 at the !olice head,uarters the man
admitted to him that he had long !lanned to +ill the #ictim and that, the !lotter was ?ugenio
&agarto, Jr$, herein a!!ellant$ >T'N, Octo"er *F, *CF<, !!$ ))3)F,@$
The !rosecution li+ewise !resented the following e#idenceA
>a@ Case 8ecord of Criminal Case No$ *=G< entitled Meo!le #s$ ?ugenio &agarto, Jr$M showing
that a!!ellant had "een con#icted "y final /udgment of homicide$ >?4hi"it M-M to M-3* aM@2
>"@ Death Certificate of deceased 8eynaldo -ducal >?4hi"it M9M@2
>c@ %an +nife >?4hi"it MDM@2
>d@ ?4tra3/udicial confession of a!!ellant >?4hi"it MCM to MC3=M@, which discloses the followingA
BG$ QuestionA Do you +now 8eynaldo -ducal !ersonallyS
-nswerA Not so much, sir, "ut he was the one who sta""ed my "rother a"lito last *CFB$
BF$ QuestionA What was the result when 8eynaldo -ducal sta""ed your "rother a"litoS
-nswerA -s a result, my "rother a"lito was hos!italized$
BC$ QuestionA Why did you sta" to death 8eynaldo -ducalS
-nswerA . sta""ed him to death sir, as a re#enge or retaliation for his sta""ing of my "rother
a"lito$
*B$ QuestionA -ccording to what you ha#e said 8eynaldo -ducal had sta""ed your "rother
a"lito in *CFB$ Do you mean to say that since *CFB u! to May );, *CF< you had "een !lanning
to a#enge your "rother "y +illing 8eynaldoS
-nswerA Yes, sir$
>!$ ), ?4hi"it MCM@
9ased on the a!!ellantOs !lea of guilty and the e#idence adduced, the trial court rendered
/udgment, the dis!ositi#e !ortion of which readsA
W(?8?%O8?, the Court acce!ts his !lea and declares accused, ?ugenio &agarto y Ietalado
guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t as !rinci!al of the crime of Murder defined and !enalized in
-rticle )=F of the 8e#ised enal Code, as charged in the information, a!!reciating in his fa#or
the mitigating circumstance of s!ontaneous !lea of guilty which is offset "y the aggra#ating
circumstance of e#ident !remeditation, the Court here"y sentences said accused to suffer the
e4treme !enalty of D?-T( with all the accessories !ro#ided for in -rt$ =B of the 8e#ised enal
Code$
The accused is here"y ordered to indemnify the heirs of 8eynaldo -ducal in the amount of
*),BBB$BB and to !ay the costs$
'O O8D?8?D$
>Decision, !$ ;2 )ollo, !$ )B@
The im!osition of the su!reme !enalty of death warrants an automatic re#iew "y this Court$
(owe#er, the !enalty of Death had "een changed to reclusion perpetua in accordance with the
!ro#ision of 'ection *C>l@, -rticle ... of the *CFG Constitution$
The counsel de o%icio recommends that the sentence "e modified, contending thatA
.$ T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N -8?C.-T.NI T(? -II8-J-T.NI
C.8C5M'T-NC? O% ?J.D?NT 8?M?D.T-T.ON -I-.N'T T(? -CC5'?D$
..$ T(? &OW?8 CO58T &.0?W.'? ?88?D .N -8?C.-T.NI T(? -II8-J-T.NI
C.8C5M'T-NC? O% T8?-C(?8Y -I-.N'T T(? -CC5'?D2 -ND
...$ CON'?Q5?NT&Y, T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N '?NT?NC.NI T(? -CC5'?D
TO '5%%?8 T(? ?RT8?M? ?N-&TY O% D?-T($M
>9rief for -ccused3-!!ellant, !$ =2 )ollo, !$ * * F@
.t is a well3esta"lished rule that a !lea of guilty, "esides "eing a mitigating circumstance, is a
/udicial confession of guiltTan admission of all the material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggra#ating circumstances$ >eo!le #s$ -riola, *BB 'C8-, ;)<@ To "e considered a
true !lea of guilty, it must "e made "y the accused freely, #oluntarily and with full +nowledge of
the conse,uences and meaning of his act$ .t must "e made unconditionally$ >eo!le #s$
Comendador, *BB 'C8- *;;@$
.n the case at "ar, the trial court e4erted its utmost effort to "e e4tra solicitous in seeing to it that
the accused understood, the meaning and im!ortance of his !lea$ Thus,
Q Do you realize the im!ort and conse,uences of your ha#ing entered the !lea of guiltyS
- Yes, your (onor$
444 444 444
Q Now, the Court would re!eat to you that you ha#e entered the !lea of guilty to a most grie#ous
offenseS
- Yes, your (onor$
Q %or ha#ing entered a !lea of guilty to the !resent crime of murder for the +illing of 8eynaldo
-ducal you are therefore su"mitting the case without !resenting your own e#idence, do you
realize thatS
- Yes, your (onor$
Q -nd des!ite this ad#ise and admonition to you "y the court, do you still insist on entering a
!lea of guilty to the crime as chargedS
- Yes, your (onor$
Q The Court will ad#ise you that in this +ind of offense which is a crime of murder there is only
one !ossi"le !enalty and the court has no other recourse "ut to im!ose it, that of death, do you
realize thatS
- Yes, your (onor$
>Translated in the dialect +nown to the accused@
>T'N, Octo"er **, *CF<, !!$ )3=@$
The trial court was not remiss in its o"ligation to warn the accused of the im!ortant
conse,uences of his !lea$ The !ossi"ility that death might "e im!osed should ha#e warned the
accused to !rotect his interestA e#en an ordinary unlettered man fears death$ -nd des!ite the
thought of losing his life, the accused !leaded guilty$ We are con#inced that the guilt of the
accused has "een !ro#ed "eyond reasona"le dou"t in the light of o#erwhelming e#idence
!resented "y the !rosecution, fully corro"orated and su"stantiated "y the !lea of guilty of the
accused$
The only issue "efore 5s is whether or not the trial court correctly a!!reciated the e4istence of
recidi#ism and the ,ualifying circumstances of e#ident !remeditation and treachery$
'ection ;, 8ule **F of the old 8ules of Court !ro#ides that MWhere the defendant !leads guilty to
a com!laint or information, if the trial court acce!ts the !lea and has discretion as to the
!unishment for the offense, it "ay !ear witnesses to deter"ine w!at punis!"ent s!all be
i"posed$M >em!hasis su!!lied@$ The trial court in a criminal case may sentence a defendant who
!leads guilty to the offense charged in the information, without the necessity of ta+ing testimony$
>5' #s$ Tal"anos, : hil$ ;=*@$ Yet, it is ad#isa"le for the trial court to call witnesses for the
!ur!ose of esta"lishing the guilt and the degree of cul!a"ility of the defendant$ >eo!le #s$
Comendador, supra@ The !resent 8e#ised 8ules of Court, howe#er, decrees that where the
accused !leads guilty to a ca!ital offense, it is now mandatory for the court to re,uire the
!rosecution to !ro#e the guilt of the accused and his !recise degree of cul!a"ility, with the
accused "eing li+ewise entitled to !resent e#idence to !ro#e, inter alia, mitigating circumstances
>'ee eo!le #s$ Camay, *;) 'C8- =B*2 'ection <, 8ule **: of 8ules of Court@$
.n the case at "ar, the trial court directed the !rosecution to !resent e#idence for the !ur!ose of
esta"lishing the guilt and degree of cul!a"ility of the defendant$
We find, as the trial court found, that the accused is a recidi#ist$ - recidi#ist is one who, at the
time of his trial for one crime, shall ha#e "een !re#iously con#icted "y final /udgment of another
crime em"raced in the same title of the 8e#ised enal Code$ (erein accused had "een con#icted
of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No$ *=G< "efore the trial of the !resent Criminal Case
No$ *;::$ The former counsel de o%icio of herein accused alleged that the /udgment in Criminal
Case No$ *=G< was rendered on 'e!tem"er *;, *CF<, hence when the accused was arraigned on
Octo"er **, *CF< for Criminal Case No$ *;:: he was not a recidi#ist$
The former counsel de o%icio is of the o!inion that Mthe time of trialM is to "e rec+oned with the
date of the arraignment$ The !hrase Mat the time of his trialM should not "e restricti#ely construed
as to mean the date of arraignment$
We declared in People vs$ Anri6uez, CB hil$ =)F, that the !hrase Mat the time of his trial for an
offenseM is em!loyed in its general sense, including the rendering of the /udgment$ .n <'
vs$ @arelsen, < hil$ )<, We held that the !hrase Mat the trialM is meant to include e#erything that
is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced "y the /udge
in o!en court$ .n the case at "ar, the accused was con#icted of homicide in Criminal Case No$
*=G< on 'e!tem"er *;, *CF<$ There "eing no a!!eal, the /udgment therein "ecame final on
Octo"er **, *CF<$ The second con#iction was rendered on Octo"er ):, *CF< for Murder$ (ence,
it is crystal clear that the accused is a recidi#istA the accused had "een con#icted "y final
/udgment at the time of the rendition of the /udgment for the second offense$
We find no merit in the finding of the trial court that e#ident !remeditation and treachery e4isted
in the commission of the crime$ .t is a rule that a !lea of guilty cannot "e held to include e#ident
!remeditation and treachery where the e#idence adduced does not ade,uately disclose the
e4istence of these ,ualifying circumstances >eo!le #s$ Ira#ino, *)) 'C8- *)<@$
?#ident !remeditation re,uires !roof of the following re,uisitesA >a@ the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime2 >"@ an act manifestly indicating that he had clung to his
determination2 and >c@ a sufficient la!se of time "etween the determination and the e4ecution of
the crime to allow him to reflect u!on the conse,uences of his act and to allow his conscience to
o#ercome the resolution of his will$ >eo!le #s$ Cafe, *:: 'C8- GB=2 eo!le #s$ Monte/o, *:G
'C8- ;B:@$
The statement of the accused, that he had long !lanned to +ill 8eynaldo -ducal in retaliation for
the act of 8eynaldo -ducal in sta""ing his "rother, does not ade,uately !ro#e the e4istence of
e#ident !remeditation$ .t is necessary to esta"lish that the accused meditated on his intention
"etween the time it was concei#ed and the time the crime was actually !er!etrated$ DefendantOs
!ro!osition was nothing "ut an e4!ression of his own determination to commit the crime which
is entirely different from !remeditation$ >eo!le #s$ Carillo GG hil$ ;G)@$ .nPeople vs$ =lde, :=
'C8- ))=, We ruled that there is no e#ident !remeditation where the only e#idence to su!!ort it
is the statement of the accused that he !lanned to +ill the #ictim in *C:= when actual sta""ing
was *C:C$
To show !remeditation, it is re,uired that the criminal intent "e e#idenced "y notorious acts
e#incing the determination to commit the same$ >eo!le #s$ Iuiya", *<C 'C8- ==:@$ .t must "e
e#ident and not merely sus!ected >eo!le #s$ .turriaga, FF hil$ ;<=@ or merely thought of or
contem!lated mentally, without e4ternalized acts$ The finding of the trial court, that the accused
had clandestinely concealed the +nife in his "ody away from the searching eye of the !rison
guards which showed the deli"erate intent of the accused, is not "orne out "y the records$ erusal
of the records does not show that the accused deli"erately !lanned the +illing through e4ternal
acts$ The finding of facts "y the trial court should not "e "ased on mere assum!tions2 there must
"e !roof that such facts e4ist$
.n order that treachery may "e a!!reciated, it is necessary to !ro#e the manner in which the
#ictim was attac+ed$ Treachery can in no way "e !resumed "ut must "e fully !ro#ed$ Where
there are merely indications that the attac+ was sudden and une4!ected, "ut there are no !recise
data on this !oint, the circumstance of treachery can not "e ta+en into account$ >eo!le #s$
-riola, supra@
.n the case at "ar, there is no e#idence to show that the mode of attac+ was consciously ado!ted
as to insure the !er!etration of the crime and safety from the defense that the #ictim might !ut
u!$ There is an a"sence of e#idence to show the means em!loyed "y assailant and the mode of
attac+$ Treachery may not "e sim!ly deduced from assum!tions2 it must "e as clearly !ro#ed as
the crime itself in order to ,ualify the crime into murder$
W(?8?%O8?, the that courtOs /udgment is MOD.%.?D$ -ccused3a!!ellant ?5I?N.O
&-I-8TO y I?T-&-DO is here"y CONJ.CT?D of homicide2 a!!reciating in his fa#or the
mitigating circumstance of s!ontaneous !lea of guilty which is offset "y the aggra#ating
circumstance of recidi#ism, the Court here"y sentences said accused to an indeterminate !enalty
of ten >*B@ years of prision "ayor as minimum, to se#enteen >*G@ years and four >=@ months
of reclusion te"poral as ma4imum, and to !ay the heirs of 8eynaldo -ducal an indemnity of
fifty thousand !esos >;B,BBB$BB@$ Costs de o%ici
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
EF#EN PEEONE! O'$# PEEONE! F#OIL$N PEEONE! and $ND#E
PEEONE! accused3a!!ellants$
N$#($$! J.:p
Tomas Oronan died a #iolent death at the hands of four >=@ !ersons who attac+ed him with
"am"oo s!ears >gu!i@, "ows and arrows, and "ig stones$ The !ost3mortem e4amination disclosed
that he had sustained se#enteen >*G@ assorted wounds, a"rasions and fractures$
-t the time of the assault, Tomas Oronan was with his wife, %elomina eKones Oronan, and two
sons, 8amon and -ntonio Oronan$ %elomina .dentified the assailants as her own "rothers, ?fren,
Oscar, %roilan and -ndres eKones$ - li+e identification was also made "y her sons, 8amon and
-ntonio$ -fter due !reliminary !roceedings, the four "rothers were charged in the Court of %irst
.nstance at &igao, -l"ay,
*
with the felony of murder, attended "y e#ident !remeditation and
ta+ing ad#antage of su!erior strength$
The circumstances of the +illing were detailed "efore the Trial Court "y said %elomina OronanT
the defendantsO sister and their #ictimOs widowTand 8amon Oronan, %elominaOs son "y the
deceased$ -ccording to these eyewitnesses, at the time of the assault on Tomas Oronan, he, his
wife, %elomina, and their two sons, 8amon and -ntonio, were on their way to the home of
the 4arangay Ca!tain at barrio 0inuartelan, olangui, -l"ay$ They had arri#ed in olangui at
mid3morning of that day,
,
ha#ing ta+en the "us from .riga, and had forthwith !roceeded to the
olangui Munici!al 9uilding to re!ort an incident that had occurred the day "eforeTconcerning
8amon, the son of the deceased Tomas Oronan, who was chased "y the latterOs "rothers3in3law
>his wifeOs "rothersA ?fren and Oscar eKones@ and his father3in3law >his wifeOs fatherA &eon
eKones@$ (a#ing "een ad#ised, howe#er, to ma+e their re!ort directly to the 9arangay Ca!tain
of barrio 0inuartelan, which was the !lace where &eon eKones and his children were residing,
the Oronan family had then ta+en a tricycle to go to the 9arangay Ca!tain, intending to a#oid
!assing "y the houses of the eKones$ 9ut as fate would ha#e it, one of the tricycleOs tires went
flat "efore they could reach their destination, so they had to go the rest of the way on foot, and
!erforce !ass "y the houses of the eKones$
-s the Oronans neared the house of Oscar eKones, %roilan and -ndres eKones suddenly
emerged from a gro#e of palo"aria trees and "loc+ed their !ath$ The two were armed with
"am"oo s!ears >gu!i@, large stones, and "olos sheathed in sca""ards at their waists$ The Oronans
then heard a #oice from "ehind them say$ M%ight them$ They turned and saw that "ehind them
were two other eKones "rothers, ?fren and Oscar, armed with "ows and arrows$ These two
suddenly loosed their arrows at Tomas Oronan$ The arrows hit Tomas in the "ac+$ Tomas tried to
run towards the house of &eon eKones, his father3in3law, "ut -ndres hurled a large stone at him,
hitting him in the chest and causing him to stum"le$ %roilan thereu!on sta""ed Tomas with his
"am"oo s!ear$ The four "rothers then /oined in the attac+ on Tomas, inflicting more in/uries on
him with their wea!ons until he e4!ired$ %elomina tried to go to her hus"andOs defense "ut was
!ushed away "y her "rother, -ndres eKones$ TomasO cor!se was "rought "y his attac+ers to the
home of &eon eKones and left in the yard$
Testifying in their defense, three ><@ of the accused "rothersTOscar, %roilan, and -ndres
eKones told the Trial Court they could not ha#e committed the crime "ecause on the day and at
the time of its commission, they were in another !lace, 'an -ntonio, 9uhi, Camarines 'ur,
har#esting !alay in a field of which -ndres was a tenant$ .t was while they were thus engaged
that -ndres eKones Jr$ came and told them of the slaying of Tomas Oronan$ They immediately
decided to go to 0inuartelan$ They left 'an -ntonio at a"out *BABB oOcloc+ that morning and
wal+ed all the way to 0inuartelan ,a distance of four +ilometers or so, arri#ing there at around *)
oOcloc+ noon$
.n corro"oration of their ali"i, they !resented two witnessesA ?leno 9ronzal >father3in3law of
Oscar eKones@ and one Dominador 8amos$
The fourth "rother charged with the crime, ?fren efiones also too+ the witness stand$ (e
claimed self3defense and defense of relati#e$ -ccording to him, he was then in the house of his
father >&eon eKones@, starting a fire in the +itchen sto#e to coo+ lunch2 and while he was thus
occu!ied he heard the #oice of Tomas Oronan, his "rother3in3law2 Tomas was shouting that he
would +ill &eon eKones >?frenOs father@ and was calling for him to come out of the house$ ?fren
loo+ed out and saw that his sister, %elomina, was with Tomas, her hus"and, together with four of
their children, Julieta, 8amon, oldo and -ntonio$ ?fren says he also saw that his father, &eon,
was at the !orch, and that he heard %elomina tell Tomas to go into the house and attac+ &eon$
Tomas did so and struc+ out at &eon with a "olo "ut failed to hit him$ &eon ran to the +itchen and
!laced himself "ehind his son, ?fren$ Tomas Oronan followed and again struc+ out with his "olo,
this time at ?fren$ ?fren howe#er shifted away from the "low and thus a#oided "eing hit$ ?fren
!ic+ed u! a !iece of firewood and hit Tomas with it, causing the latter to stagger and dro! the
"olo$ -s Tomas was staggering from the force of the "low, ?fren saw that 8amon Oronan had a
dart which he hurled at ?fren$ 9ut ?fren gra""ed Tomas and used him as a shield, so the dart hit
Tomas instead$ ?fren released Tomas and !ic+ed u! another !iece of firewood which he cast at
8amon, who ran away, ?fren saw that Tomas was trying to !ic+ u! the "olo he had dro!!ed2 so
with his firewood clu", ?fren struc+ Tomas again and again, and yet again until Tomas ceased to
mo#e$ ?fren then went to the residence of 9arangay Councilman 8o"erto No#ales and
surrendered to him$
.n an attem!t to "olster ?frenOs story, the defense also !resented &eon eKones ?frenOs father, and
a certain 8o"erto Madrile/os as witnesses$
The Trial Court rendered /udgment on January )=, *CF;$ .t re/ected as unworthy of credence the
e#idence tending to esta"lish the ali"i of Oscar, %roilan and -ndres eKones and the claim of
self3defense of ?fren eKones and ruled that the !roofs of the !rosecution esta"lished their guilt
"eyond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of murder, ,ualified "y a"use of su!erior strength$
-ccordingly, there "eing no mitigating nor aggra#ating circumstances the Taal Court also ha#ing
found that there was no sufficient e#idence of the modifying circumstance of e#ident
!remeditation set out in the indictment the Court sentenced all said accused to suffer the, !enalty
of reclusion perpetua together with all its accessory !enalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased, /ointly and se#erally, in the amount of )B,BBB$BB as com!ensatory damages for death,
)B,BBB$BB as moral damages, and *B,BBB$BB as e4em!lary damages, as well as to !ay the
costs$
/
This /udgment the accused now assail in this Court as "eing grie#ously in error$ They ascri"e the
following s!ecific errors to the Trial CourtA
*@ re/ection of the defense of ali"i asserted "y %roilan, -ndres and Oscar eKones
)@ re/ection of ?fren eKones claim of com!lete defense of self and of his father2
<@ "asing the con#iction solely on the e#idence of "iased witnesses the decedentOs widow,
%elomina Oronan, and son, 8amon2
=@ admission of !hotogra!hs of the #ictim and a !olice officer, o#er the defense o"/ection that
the same are incom!etent without accom!anying testimony of the !hotogra!her and the
!oliceman de!icted, and o!!ortunity to cross3e4amine them2 and
;@ denial of a motion for new trial to !resent newly disco#ered e#idence consisting of the
testimony of 9gy$ Councilman 8o"erto No#ales, to whom ?fren eKones had #oluntarily
surrendered$
-s regards the defense of ali"i, well esta"lished and of un#arying a!!lication is the rule that it is
una#ailing against !ositi#e identification of the accused "y credi"le witnesses
7
or a"sent a
satisfactory showing of the !hysical im!ossi"ility of the accusedOs "eing !resent at the scene of
the crime at the time of its commission$
8
Tested "y these /uris!rudential standards, the defense of ali"i must fail$ - leisurely wal+ of two
hours, according to the three "rothers in#o+ing that defense, is all that it ta+es to tra#el from
"arrio 'an -ntonio, where they claimed they were, to "arrio 0inuartelan where the +illing of
Tomas Oronan was !er!etrated$ .n fact, one of their own witnesses, ?leno 9ronzal, estimated the
time at only an hour$ .t cannot therefore "e concluded that under the circumstances it was
!hysically im!ossi"le for the "rothers to go from 'an -ntonio to 0inuartelan +ill their "rother3
in3law, and then immediately return to 'an -ntonio "efore their a"sence could "e noticed,
s!ecially considering that they were the only !eo!le in the field or farm in 'an -ntonio where
they were su!!osedly engaged in har#esting !alay$
There is, moreo#er, the !ositi#e identification made of them "y their own sister of the full3"lood,
and her son, their ne!hew, in addition to the detailed narration of the manner "y which they and
their other "rother, ?fren, had attac+ed and slain Tomas Oronan$ That !ositi#e identification3not
to mention the telling circumstance that it was made "y relati#es who, "ecause of the closeness
of their consanguineous relationshi! would not, in the #ery nature of things, "e e4!ected to
im!licate them for so horri"le a crime as murder and e4!ose them to the gra#e !enalty thereto
attached "y law, if said relati#es were not otherwise certain of the #eracity and accuracy of their
!erce!tions or were !lagued "y e#en the smallest dou"t res!ecting themT!recludes sustaining
the three "rothersO defense of ali"i$
-s to ?fren eKones contention that he acted in legitimate defense of his !erson and of his father,
&eon, this Court feels that the same was correctly re/ected "y the Trial Court$ (a#ing admitted
that he had clu""ed Tomas Oronan to death, it "ehoo#ed ?fren to demonstrate, "y !re!onderance
of e#idence, the !resence of the familiar elements of self3defense and defense of stranger, to witA
unlawful aggression on the !art of the #ictim, Tomas Oronan2 lac+ of sufficient !ro#ocation on
?frenOs !art, as the !erson ma+ing the defense2 and reasona"le necessity of the means ado!ted "y
him to re!el the aggression$
The trou"le is that an o"/ecti#e a!!raisal of his own !roofs as to the manner of the +illing of
Tomas Oronan, immediately !ro#o+es and im!els re!udiation2 for said !roofs disclose an
irreconcila"le inconsistency "etween his story and e#idence of so high an order as to "e well
nigh conclusi#e, i$e$, e#idence of the wounds and in/uries inflicted on Tomas Oronan disclosed
"y the !ost3mortem e4amination$ ?fren eKones story that he had clubbed -o"as 9ronan to
deat! in the !rocess of defending himself and his father against the formerOs wild assault with a
"olo, is o"#iously untrue$ .t is contradicted "y the nature and num"er of the deceasedOs in/uriesA
no less than se#enteen >*G@ different wounds, a"rasions and fractures$ These wounds and in/uries
indu"ita"ly !ro#e that Tomas Oronan was not only struc+ four or fi#e times with a wooden clu"
"y /ust one !erson, "ut was su"/ected to hea#y "lows and sta""ing with !ointed o"/ects "y more
than one !erson, a !ro!osition entirely consistent with the !rosecutionOs #ersion of the tragic
occurrence$
9
%urthermore, the claim of self3defense would a!!ear to "e a mere afterthought on the !art of
?fren enones$ (e did not ma+e the claim of self3defense or defense of relati#e when he
allegedly surrendered to a "arangay official, or when he was ta+en into custody "y the !olice,
which would ha#e "een the natural and logical reaction of a !erson in his !redicament$ This
omission ma+es his su"se,uent assertion of the defense in court sus!ect, as this Court has had
occasion to o"ser#e$
+
.n an effort to undermine the Trial CourtOs fundamental conclusions, the charge is made that
8amon and %elomina Oronan are "iased$ Their dis,ualification as witnesses, or a refusal to gi#e
credence to their testimony cannot, to "e sure, result merely from their "eing the sur#i#ing son
and widow of the #ictim and therefore, interested in the outcome of the case$ %or under the rules
of e#idence, neither !arties Mnor other !ersons interested in the outcome of a caseM are e4cluded
as witnesses$
-
More than once has this Court held that mere relationshi! to a !arty cannot
militate against the credi"ility of a witness or "e ta+en as destructi#e of the witnessO credi"ility,
for it is not to "e lightly su!!osed that relati#es of the #ictim would callously #iolate their
conscience "y "laming the crime on !ersons whom they +now to "e innocent $
:
The defense sought to !ro#e that the %elomina had a moti#e to testify falsely against the
eKoneses "ecause her father and a "rother had earlier tried to manhandle her son, and she
herself and her son had "een haled to court for gra#e threats "y &eon eKones$ 'u"sumed in this
su"mittal is the theory that Tomas Oronan had gone to the !lace of residence of &eon eKones
and his four >=@ sons, "ringing with him his wife and four >=@ children, to launch an attac+
against &eon$ - more foolhardy M"earding of lionsM can scarcely "e imagined$ The !roffered
scenario is also ,uite im!ro"a"leA that the mere chasing of TomasO son "y &eon eKones would
"e considered so grie#ous an affront as to !ro#o+e Tomas to ma+e a rash attem!t against &eonOs
#ery life2 and, as stressed "y the 'olicitor Ieneral, that after gra!!ling with and "ludgeoning
Tomas Oronan to death, ?fren Mwas unscat!ed while the alleged aggressor >Tomas@ sustained
fourteen >*=@ in/uries$M Moreo#er, the hy!othesis is in contradiction with the clear indication in
the record of Tomas OronanOs !eaceful "ent at the time, for the undis!uted fact is that he had
tra#eled to 0inuartelan to re!ort, as he did re!ort, to the !olice authorities there the incident
in#ol#ing his son and the latterOs grandfather$
The a!!ellants ne4t ma+e a half3hearted attem!t in their "rief to !ersuade this Court to re/ect
%elominaOs testimony "ecause tainted "y inconsistencies$ They do not howe#er "other to
!articularize the inconsistencies or e4!lain in what way they detract from %elominaOs credi"ility$
The Court is satisfied of the correctness of the Trial CourtOs o"ser#ation that any inconsistencies
M"etween what was stated in the affida#it of %elomina eKones Oronan, ta+en at the !olice
head,uarters of olangui, -l"ay, and her oral declarations on the witness stand W W are not
su"stantial,M and do not affect her
credi"ility$
*0
9esides, her narrati#e is fully corro"orated on all su"stantial !oints "y that of her
son, 8amon$
hotogra!hs de!icting the lifeless #ictim and a !olice in#estigator at the scene of the crime,
>?4hs$ 9 and 93*@ were shown to %elomina and her son, 8amon, in the course of their testimony
and as !art thereof$ They identified the cor!se, and the !lace where he was lying, as they were
eminently ,ualified to do$ .t is claimed "y the a!!ellants howe#er that it was error for the Trial
Court to ha#e admitted the !hotogra!hs in e#idence, "ecause the !hotogra!her had not "een
!resented for cross3e4amination$ The !ictures were not !resented as inde!endent e#idence, "ut
merely as !art of the testimonies of %elomina and 8amon$ -nd since the !hotogra!her o"#iously
was not more com!etent than either %elomina or 8amon to identify and descri"e the !ersons
>li#ing or dead@ and things a!!earing in the !ictures, there was therefore no need to !resent the
!hotogra!her himself2 ,uestions regarding the identity and descri!tion of the !ersons and things
in the !hotogra!hs, and e#en as regards any seeming inconsistency "etween the !hotogra!hs and
the !ersons and things actually !hotogra!hed could #ery well "e as+ed of %elomina or 8amon as
of the !hotogra!her$
-s regards the a!!ellantsO motion for new trial, its denial "y the Trial Court was correct$ The
motion was grounded on newly disco#ered e#idence$ 9ut it is o"#ious that the e#idence the
testimony of the "arangay official to whom ?fren eKones had su!!osedly surrenderedTcannot
in any sense "e considered newly disco#ered$ .t was +nown to the a!!ellants during the trial$
Much less may it "e considered of so su"stantial a character as would Mchange the
/udgement$M
**
%or e#en if it "e conceded that ?fren eKones had indeed gi#en himself u! to that
"arangay official, this circumstance would not alter the outcome one "it$
The manner of the commission of the crime "y the four >=@ a!!ellants esta"lishes the e4istence of
a cons!iracy among them$ 9ut, as the Trial Court states, the aggra#ating circumstance of e#ident
!remeditation may not "e a!!reciated against them a"sent any !roof Mas to how and when the
!lan to +ill was hatched or what time ela!sed "efore it was carried out $$$$M
On the other hand, the ,ualifying circumstance of a"use of su!erior strength, alleged in the
information, was correctly found to "e attendant on the !er!etration of the slaying$ 'aid the
CourtA
$$$ There are four accused in this case, who relati#ely are of regular, medium "uilt >"uild@ and
size$ Two were armed with MguhiM >!iece of "am"oo, shar!ened or !ointed at one end@ and stone
and the other two with .ndian arrows$ The four were carrying "olos inside a sca""ard and tied to
the waist$ The !erson attac+ed, Tomas Oronan, was unarmed$ -lthough he had com!anions, the
latter did not do anything to hel! the #ictim$ 5nder the circumstances $$$, it is dou"tful whether
these com!anions could do anything e#en if they attem!ted to hel! the #ictim considering that
the attac+ers were four and fully armed$ The #iolence and force used "y the four accused were
e4cessi#e and out of !ro!ortion to the means of defense a#aila"le to the #ictim$ -s earlier
o"ser#ed $$$, the !ur!ose of the Oronans in going to 0inuartelan was not to see+ trou"le$ They
were there to settle things$ To find out why 8amon Oronan was chased "y his uncle and his
grandfather the day "efore$ .f otherwise, they should not ha#e re,uested for a !olice as a
com!anion$The Trial Court re,uired the a!!ellants to indemnify the heirs of Tomas Oronan in
the amount of only <B,BBB$BB$ This should "e increased to ;B,BBB$BB in line with current
doctrine$W(?8?%O8?, the /udgment of the 8egional Trial Court su"/ect of the a!!eal at "ar,
"eing in accord with the facts and the a!!lica"le law, is -%%.8M?D in toto, with the sole
modification a"o#e indicated, that the indemnity to the heirs is increased to %.%TY T(O5'-ND
?'O' >;B,BBB$BB@$
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! appellee, vs. JE6 ). #ET61$DO alias
FJEIE!G appellant.
This is an a!!eal from the Decision
6*7
of the 8egional Trial Court, Toledo City, 9ranch )C, in
Criminal Case No$ TC'3)*;< con#icting the a!!ellant Jesus I$ 8etu"ado of murder, sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua, and directing him to indemnify the heirs of the #ictim ?mmanuel
CaKon the sum of ;B,BBB$BB$
The a!!ellant was indicted for murder in an .nformation, the accusatory !ortion of which readsA
That on the ;
th
day of No#em"er, *CC< at CA<B o1cloc+ in the e#ening, more or less, at 9arangay .
o"lacion, Munici!ality of Tu"uran, ro#ince of Ce"u, hili!!ines, and within the /urisdiction of
this (onora"le Court, the a"o#e3named accused, with deli"erate intent to +ill, "y means of
treachery, e#ident !remeditation and ta+ing ad#antage of su!erior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac+, assault and shoot ?mmanuel CaKon with the use of
unlicensed re#ol#er of un+nown cali"er, there"y hitting the latter on his forehead, resulting to the
instantaneous death of the said #ictim$
CONT8-8Y TO &-W$
6)7
'hortly "efore No#em"er ;, *CC<, someone !layed a /o+e on ?dwin 8etu"ado, the a!!ellant1s
younger "rother who was mentally ill$ 'omeone inserted a lighted firecrac+er in a cigarette !ac+
and ga#e it to ?dwin$ (e "rought the cigarette home and !laced it on the dining ta"le as he was
ha#ing dinner with his father$ Momentarily, the firecrac+er e4!loded$ The sus!ect was
?mmanuel CaKon, Jr$, The CaKons and the a!!ellant were neigh"ors$ The matter was "rought to
the attention of the "arangay ca!tain who conducted an in#estigation$ .t turned out that
?mmanuel CaKon, Jr$ was not the cul!rit$ The "arangay ca!tain considered the matter
closed$ The a!!ellant, howe#er, was "ent on confronting ?mmanuel CaKon, Jr$
On No#em"er ;, *CC<, at a"out CABB !$m$, ;B3year3old ?mmanuel CaKon, 'r$, a !edica" dri#er
called it a day and decided to go home after a day1s wor+$ (e dro#e his !edica" and sto!!ed at
the /unction of 8izal and Iallardo 'treets, at the !o"lacion of Tu"uran$ The a!!ellant, who was
con#ersing with Marcial &uciKo saw him$ DNoy, why is 6it7 your son did something to my
"rotherSE ?mmanuel ignored the a!!ellant$ The a!!ellant was incensed and ran after
?mmanuel$ (e o#ertoo+ ?mmanuel, gra""ed and !ushed the !edica" which nearly fell into a
canal$ ?mmanuel again ignored the a!!ellant and !edaled on until he reached his house$ (is
wife, Nor"erta CaKon was in the "alcony of their house, a"o#e the !orch waiting for him to
arri#e$ ?mmanuel, Jr$, meanwhile, was already aslee!$ 5ndeterred, the a!!ellant continued
following ?mmanuel$
'hortly after ?mmanuel had entered his house, the a!!ellant arri#ed and tarried at the !orch$
?mmanuel suddenly o!ened the door and demanded to +now why he was "eing followed$ The
a!!ellant told ?mmanuel that he /ust wanted to tal+ to ?mmanuel, Jr$, "ut ?mmanuel told the
a!!ellant that his son was already aslee!$ Nor"erta went down from the "alcony and !laced her
hand on her hus"and1s shoulder to !acify him$
The a!!ellant forthwith !ulled out a handgun from under his T3shirt and shot ?mmanuel on the
forehead$ The latter fell to the floor as the a!!ellant wal+ed away from the
scene$ Nor"ertashouted for hel!$ The neigh"ors, her daughter, and her son3in3law arri#ed$ They
"rought ?mmanuel to the Tu"uran District (os!ital, "ut the #ictim died shortly thereafter$ Dr$
.#ar I$ -rellano, the Munici!al (ealth Officer, !erformed an auto!sy on the cada#er of
?mmanuel and !re!ared a re!ort thereon with the following findingsA
?4amination in DetailA
On detailed e4amination, a gunshot wound was found at the left side of the forehead, measuring
* cm$ in diameter$ -t the s+in surrounding this wound was found !owder "urns which measured
< cms$ in diameter as the s+in had "een "lac+ened and "urned "y !owder of the "ullet$ The
underlying frontal "one was fractured and de!ressed$ The underlying meninges of the "rain as
well as the frontal area of the "rain was traumatized and in/ured$ 9lood and cere"ros!inal fluid
were lea+ing from this wound$ The edges of this "ullet wound was in#erted thus this was the
gunshot entry wound$ The wound was found to "e circular in sha!e$ The e4it wound was found
at the left !arietal "one measuring *$) cm$ in size or diameter for this wound communicated with
the entry wound of the left side of the forehead$ The connection from the wound of entry to the
e4it wound measured F cms$ The !arietal "one was fractured and was de!ressed and the !arietal
!art of the "rain and meninges was traumatized$ 9lood and cere"ros!inal fluid as well as "rain
tissues lea+ed out from this wound$
ossi"le cause of deathA
*$ Iunshot wound at the head >left side@ with in/ury to "rain and meninges
)$ (y!o#olemic shoc+ secondary to loss of "lood >'e#ere loss of "lood@
>'gd$@ .#ar I$ -rellano
M5N$ (ealth Officer
6<7
Dr$ Charity atalinghug and the #ictim1s daughter &oreta C$ Claro signed ?mmanuel1s
Certificate of Death$
6=7
The a!!ellant surrendered to the !olice authorities "ut failed to surrender
the firearm he used to +ill the #ictim$ %orensic Officer Myrna $ -reola of the N 8egional
Office su"/ected the a!!ellant to !araffin tests$ The Chemical -nalysis of the !araffin casts ga#e
the following resultsA
%.ND.NI'A
*$ O'.T.J? for the !resence of gun!owder residue on his left hand cast$
)$ N?I-T.J? for the !resence of gun!owder residue on his right hand cast$
6;7
Nor"erta also testified on the e4!enses incurred "y her family due to her hus"and1s death$ No
documentary e#idence was, howe#er, offered to su!!ort the same$ 'he declared that she felt sad
and lonely as a result of her hus"andOs death$
The Case for the -!!ellant
The a!!ellant admitted shooting the #ictim "ut claimed that he was merely !erforming a lawful
act with due care2 hence, cannot "e held criminally lia"le for the #ictim1s death$ (e testified that
when he insisted that ?mmanuel wa+e u! his son, ?mmanuel went to his room and emerged
therefrom holding a handgun with his right hand$ ?mmanuel1s trigger finger was outside the
trigger guard, and he held the firearm with the muzzle facing downward$ %earing that he would
"e shot, the a!!ellant too+ hold of ?mmanuel1s right hand with his left, and !ulled the gun
towards ?mmanuel1s stomach$ The a!!ellant gra""ed ?mmanuel1s free hand with his right
hand, and the old man almost fell on his +nees to the ground$ ?mmanuel still resisted$ The
a!!ellant !ulled the gun to the le#el of ?mmanuel1s forehead, and the gun suddenly went
off$ The "ullet hit ?mmanuel1s forehead$ Nor"erta fled from the house$ %or his !art, the
a!!ellant rushed to his house to change clothes$ (e !laced the gun on the dining ta"le "efore
entering his "edroom$ When he went "ac+ to the dining room to get the gun, his younger sister,
?nrica told him that their "rother ?dwin had ta+en the gun$ (e found ?dwin outside their house
near the church, and the latter told the a!!ellant that he threw the gun into the sea$ When the
a!!ellant as+ed his "rother to show him where he threw the gun, ?dwin refused to do so$
Marcial &uciKo corro"orated the a!!ellant1s testimony$ (e testified that he was tal+ing with the
a!!ellant at around CABB !$m$ at the /unction of 8izal and Iallardo streets when the #ictim
?mmanuel !assed "y in his !edica"$ When the a!!ellant called the #ictim, the latter ignored the
call, !rom!ting the a!!ellant to chase the #ictim, and e#entually !ush the !edica" into a canal$
The a!!ellant1s father, .Kigo 8etu"ado, testified that on the e#ening of No#em"er ;, *CC<, he
was in their house with ?dwin, his son who was mentally3ill$ .t was already late when the
a!!ellant arri#ed$ The a!!ellant was dishe#eled, and laid down the gun he was carrying on the
ta"le$ The a!!ellant told his father that he would surrender to the !olice "ecause he had shot
some"ody$
6:7
The a!!ellant thereafter went to his room to change clothes while .Kigo went to the
comfort room to answer the call of nature$ When he was done, he saw the a!!ellant frantically
loo+ing for the gun$ -s ?dwin was also nowhere to "e found, .Kigo concluded that ?dwin might
ha#e ta+en the gun with him$ (e also testified on ?dwin1s mental im"alance and on the latter1s
confinement at the sychiatric De!artment of
the Don Jicente 'otto Memorial Medical Center in Ce"u City sometime in *CC*$
6G7
On No#em"er :, *CC<, the a!!ellant surrendered to the !olice authorities$ -lthough he was
re,uired "y the munici!al trial court to file his counter3affida#it, the a!!ellant refused to do so$
-fter due !roceedings, the trial court rendered /udgment in Criminal Case No$ TC'3)*;<,
con#icting the a!!ellant of murder, and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua$ The decretal !ortion of the decision readsA
W(?8?%O8?, in #iew of the foregoing, this Court finds accused I5.&TY "eyond reasona"le
dou"t of the crime of Murder under -rt$ )=F 8$$C$ and sentences the accused to the !enalty of
8eclusion er!etua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of ;B,BBB$BB$
(owe#er, accused is gi#en full credit of his !re#enti#e im!risonment$
'O O8D?8?D$
6F7
On a!!eal, the a!!ellant assails the decision of the trial court contending thatA
I %irst -ssignment of ?rror
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N NOT %.ND.NI T(? D?-T( O% T(? D?C?-'?D -'
C-5'?D 9Y M?8? -CC.D?NT W.T(O5T %-5&T O8 .NT?NT.ON O% C-5'.NI .T
W(.&? T(? -CC5'?D W-' ?8%O8M.NI - &-W%5& -CT W.T( D5? C-8? O8, .N
T(? -&T?8N-T.J?, .T ?88?D .N NOT CONJ.CT.NI (.M J5'T M?8?&Y O%
(OM.C.D? .N'T?-D O% M58D?8$
II 'econd -ssignment of ?rror
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N D.'8?I-8D.NI T(? J?8Y 8?&?J-NT -ND
M-T?8.-& CONT?NT' O% ?R(.9.T D9E O% T(? 8O'?C5T.ON 333 C(?M.'T8Y
8?O8T, -8-%%.N T?'T 33 W(.C( -8? %-JO8-9&? TO T(? -CC5'?D$
III Third -ssignment of ?rror
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N CONC&5D.NI T(-T T(? T?'T.MONY O% T(? 'O&?
W.TN?'' O% T(? 8O'?C5T.ON .' '-T.'%-CTO8Y -ND '5%%.C.?NT TO CONJ.CT
T(? -CC5'?D O% M58D?8$
I( %ourth -ssignment of ?rror
T(? &OW?8 CO58T ?88?D .N %-.&.NI TO CON'.D?8 T(-T T(? -CC5'?D (-'
?R&-.N?D W(Y (? %-.&?D TO '588?ND?8 T(? I5N W(.C( (? IOT %8OM T(?
D?C?-'?D$
6C7
The a!!ellant asserts that he was merely !erforming a lawful act of defending himself when he
gra""ed the #ictim1s hand which held the gun$ The gun accidentally fired and the "ullet hit the
#ictim1s forehead$ The accident was not the a!!ellant1s fault$ The a!!ellant asserts that when he
wrestled with the #ictim for the !ossession of the gun, he was merely defending himself$ (e
contends that he had no intention of +illing the #ictim, as he merely wanted to tal+ to his son$ .f
he had wanted to +ill the #ictim, he could ha#e easily done so when he met the latter for the first
time that fateful night of No#em"er ;, *CC<$ Moreo#er, the a!!ellant su"mits, he did not commit
any felony2 hence, under !aragra!h = of -rticle *) of the 8e#ised enal Code, he is not
criminally lia"le for the death of the #ictim$
6*B7
.n the alternati#e, the a!!ellant asserts that he
should "e con#icted only of the crime of homicide under -rticle )=C of the 8e#ised enal Code,
since the ,ualifying circumstance of treachery is wanting$ (e and the #ictim had a heated
e4change of words "efore they gra!!led for the !ossession of the gun$ 'uch heated discussion
had already forewarned the #ictim and !laced him on guard2 thus, treachery cannot "e legally
considered$
The contention of the a!!ellant has no merit$ -rticle **, !aragra!h = of the 8e#ised enal Code
readsA
-8T$ **$ ?usti%ying circu"stances$ L
$$$
=@ -ny !erson who, in order to a#oid an e#il or in/ury, does an act which causes damage to
another !ro#ided that the following re,uisites are !resentA
%irst$ That the e#il sought to "e a#oided actually e4ists2
'econd$ That the in/ury feared "e greater than that done to a#oid it2
Third$ That there "e no other !ractical and less harmful means of !re#enting it$
The !ro#ision was ta+en from -rticle F, !aragra!h G of the '!anish enal Code, which readsA
=)-I,<09 $.
D. Al 6ue para evitar un "al e2ecuta un !ec!o 6ue produzca da> en la propiedad a2ena, sie"pre
6ue concurran las circu"stancias siguientes:
Pri"era. )ealidad del "al 6ue se trata de evitar.
'egunda. Euesea "ayor 6ue el causado para evitarlo.
-ercera. Eue no !aya otro "edio practicable y "enos
per2udicial para i"pedirlo.
-rticle **, !aragra!h = of the 8e#ised enal Code is not an accurate translation of the '!anish
enal Code$ The !hrase Dan in/uryE does not a!!ear in the first !aragra!h in the '!anish enal
Code$ Neither does the word Din/uryE a!!ear in the second su"!aragra!h of the '!anish enal
Code$
The /ustification is what is referred to in the '!anish enal Code as el estado de necessidadA
As una situacion de peligro, actual o i""ediato para bienes, 2uridica"ente protegides 6ue solo
puede ser evitada "ediante, la lesion de bienes, ta"bien 2uridica"ento protegidos,
pertenecientes a otra personas$
6**7
The !hrase Dstate of necessityE is of Ierman origin$ Countries which ha#e em"raced the
classical theory of criminal law, li+e .taly, do not use the !hrase$ The /ustification refers to a
situation of gra#e !eril (un "al), actual or imminent (actual o i""inente)$ The
word propiedad co#ers di#erse /uridical rights (bienes 2uridicos) such as right to life, honor, the
integrity of one1s "ody, and !ro!erty (la vida, la integridad corporal, el pudor, el !onor, bienes
patri"oniales) "elonging to another$
6*)7
.t is indis!ensa"le that the state of necessity must not "e "rought a"out "y the intentional
!ro#ocation of the !arty in#o+ing the same$
6*<7
- num"er of legal scholars in ?uro!e are of the #iew that the act of the accused in a state of
necessity is /ustifying circumstance2 hence, lawful$ 5nder -rticle *), !aragra!h = of the 8e#ised
enal Code, a Dstate of necessityE is a /ustifying circumstance$ The accused does not commit a
crime in legal contem!lation2 hence, is not criminally and ci#illy lia"le$ Ci#il lia"ility is "orne
"y the !ersonQ!ersons "enefited "y the act of the accused$ Crimes cannot e4ist unless the will
concurs with the act, and when, says 9lac+stone, Da man intending to do a lawful act, does that
which is unlawful, the deed and the will act se!aratelyE and there is no con/unction "etween
them which is necessary to constitute a crime$
6*=7
Others are of the #iew that such act is a cause
for e4clusion from "eing meted a !enalty2 still others #iew such act as a case of e4cluding the
accused from cul!a"ility$
-ccording to Iroizard, rights may "e !re/udiced "y three general classes of acts, namely, >a@
malicious and intentional acts2 >"@ negligent or rec+less acts2 >c@ acts which are neither malicious,
im!rudent nor negligent "ut ne#ertheless cause damages$
8uestra propiedad puede ser per2udicada, puede su%rir detri"entos por tres clases de
!ec!os. Por actos "aliciosos, intencionales, enca"inados directa"ente a causarnos da>oF por
actos 6ue, sin llevar ese "alicioso %in y por %alta de prudencia, por culpa o te"eridad del 6ue
los e2ecuta, den ese "is"o resultado, y por actos 6ue, sin concurrir en su e2ecucion un proposito
doloso, ni culpa, ni negligencia sin e"bargo produzcan "enocabo en nuestros bienes$
6*;7
The defense of a state of necessity is a /ustifying circumstance under -rticle *), !aragra!h = of
the 8e#ised enal Code$ .t is an affirmati#e defense that must "e !ro#ed "y the accused with
clear and con#incing e#idence$ 9y admitting causing the in/uries and +illing the #ictim, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own e#idence and not on the wea+ness of the e#idence
of the !rosecution "ecause if such e#idence is wea+ "ut the accused fails to !ro#e his defense,
the e#idence of the !rosecution can no longer "e dis"elie#ed$ Whether the accused acted under a
state of necessity is a ,uestion of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court$ The legal a!horism is that the findings of facts "y the trial court, its cali"ration of the
testimony of the witnesses of the !arties and of the !ro"ati#e weight thereof as well as its
conclusions "ased on its own findings are accorded "y the a!!ellate court high res!ect, if not
conclusi#e effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misa!!lied cogent facts and
circumstances of su"stance which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case$ We ha#e
meticulously re#iewed the records and find no "asis to de#iate from the findings of the trial court
that the a!!ellant was the !ro#ocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the author of a deli"erate and
malicious act of shooting the #ictim at close range on the forehead$
%irstA When Nor"erta heard her hus"and and the a!!ellant arguing with each other in the !orch
of their house, she went down from the "alcony towards her hus"and and !laced her hand on the
latter1s shoulders$ 'he was shoc+ed when the a!!ellant !ulled out his handgun and deli"erately
shot the #ictim on the forehead, thusA
Q Now, you said that when your hus"and was a"out to go out again in order to see
his trisicad and as he o!ened the door he saw Jesus 8etu"ado near the door$ What ha!!ened
after thatS
- (e as+ed Jesus 8etu"ado why Jesus 8etu"ado chased him when he was dri#ing his trisicad$
Q Now, as your hus"and was as+ing this ,uestion to the accused Jesus 8etu"ado what was the
distance to your hus"and at the timeS
- Just #ery near to him$
Q -nd you to the accused at that #ery moment what was more or less your distanceS
- -"out an armslength$
Q When your hus"and as+ed Jesus 8etu"ado why the latter chased him while your hus"and
was dri#ing his trisicad what was the answer of Jesus 8etu"ado, if anyS
- My hus"and as+ed the accused Jesus 8etu"ado what is his grudge to him and Jesus
8etu"ado answered that it is not you who has a grudge to me "ut it is your son$
Q When Jesus 8etu"ado uttered that statement what trans!ired after thatS
- (e immediately !ointed his firearm that he was "ringing >sic@ to my hus"and ?mmanuel
CaKon$
Q 9y the way considering that you were /ust near to "oth your hus"and and the accused where
did that firearm that you said was !ointed "y the accused to your hus"and come >sic@ fromS
- While the accused was standing in front of our door his hands were !laced inside his T3shirt
co#ered "y his T3shirt$
-tty$ e!itoA
We mo#e to stri+e out the answer$ .t is not res!onsi#e, Your (onor$ The ,uestion was,
where did it come fromS
CO58TA
&et the answer stay in the record "ut let the witness answer again$
- %rom the hands of accused Jessie$
%iscal ansoyA
Q Now, /ust a while ago you were ma+ing a motion using your hand !laced inside your T3
shirt$ Now, when you saw the firearm for the first time where did you saw >sic@ the firearm for
the first time where did the firearm come from as you saw it from the hands of the accusedS
-tty$ e!itoA
-lready answered$ .t came from the hands of the accused$
%iscal ansoyA
. will reform$
Q 9efore you saw the firearm in the hands of the accused where did the firearm come fromS
-tty$ e!itoA
'he is incom!etent$ We o"/ect$
CO58TA
8eform the ,uestion$
%iscal ansoyA
Q Now, Mrs$ Witness, "efore this ,uestion was as+ed to you as to where the firearm came
from you were ma+ing a motion "y !lacing your hands inside your shirt when you were only
as+ed as to where the firearm came fromS
- That was what the !osition of the accused when he was standing in front of our door and .
do not +now what was inside his T3shirt$ . only +now that he was carrying a firearm when it
fired$
Q Now, when the accused !ointed the firearm to your hus"and and fired the same more or less
what was the distance "etween the accused and your hus"and at the #ery !recise time when the
firing was madeS
- .t was /ust #ery near "ecause his hand did not "end$ >Witness demonstrating "y !ointing to
her forehead@$
Q Now, more or less, descri"e to the Court the a!!ro4imate distance "etween the firearm that
was !ointed to your hus"and and the forehead of your hus"and at the time when the firing was
doneS
- .t touched the forehead of my hus"and$
Q That was the #ery time that you heard the gun"urstS
- Yes$
Q When the accused fired the firearm that was carried "y him, what ha!!ened to your
hus"andS
- My hus"and fell down "ac+ward to the ground inside the house$
Q 9y the way, what was the flooring of your house where your hus"and fell "ac+ward to the
groundS
- Cemented$
Q 9y the way considering that you were /ust #ery near to where the incident occurred can you
descri"e the length of the firearm that was used "y the accused in firing your hus"andS
- .t was a short firearm a"out : inches$
Q Now, as your hus"and fell down to the floor where did the accused !roceed and what did the
accused doS
- (e was /ust casually wal+ing away as if nothing had ha!!ened$
Q Now, what did you do to your hus"and, if any, after he fell down to the floorS
- . ha#e done nothing "ecause . was somewhat shoc+ed$ . could not mo#e "ecause . was
shoc+ed$
6*:7
'econdA -fter shooting the #ictim, the a!!ellant fled from the situs cri"inis$ (e surrendered to
the !olice authorities only on No#em"er :, *CC<, "ut failed to surrender the gun he used to +ill
the #ictim$ The a!!ellant1s claim that he !laced the gun on the dining ta"le "efore entering his
"edroom to change his clothes is incredi"le$ There is no e#idence that the a!!ellant informed the
!olice authorities that he +illed the #ictim in a state of necessity and that his "rother, ?dwin,
threw the gun into the sea$ The a!!ellant ne#er !resented the !olice officer to whom he
confessed that he +illed the #ictim in a state of necessity$
ThirdA The a!!ellant had the moti#e to shoot and +ill the #ictim$ The #ictim ignored the
a!!ellant as the latter tal+ed to him at the /unction of 8izal and Iallardo streets, in the !o"lacion
of Tu"uran$ The a!!ellant was incensed at the effrontery of the #ictim, a mere !edica"
dri#er$ The a!!ellant followed the #ictim to his house where the a!!ellant again confronted
him$ The a!!ellant insisted on tal+ing with the #ictim1s son "ut the #ictim refused to wa+e u!
the latter$ The a!!ellant, e4as!erated at the #ictim1s intransigence, !ulled out a gun from under
his shirt and shot the #ictim on the forehead$ .t was im!ossi"le for the #ictim to sur#i#e$ With
the a!!ellant1s admission that he shot the #ictim, the matter on whether he used his right or left
hand to shoot the latter is inconse,uential$
We agree with the contention of the 'olicitor Ieneral that there is no treachery in the !resent
case to ,ualify the crime to murder$ To a!!reciate treachery, two >)@ conditions must "e !resent,
namely, >a@ the em!loyment of the means of e4ecution that gi#e the !erson attac+ed no
o!!ortunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and >"@ the means of e4ecution were deli"erately or
consciously ado!ted$
6*G7
The !rosecution failed to adduce an iota of e#idence to su!!ort the
confluence of the a"o#ementioned conditions$ Thus, the a!!ellant is guilty only of homicide
under -rticle )=C of the 8e#ised enal Code$ -lthough the .nformation alleges that the
a!!ellant used an unlicensed firearm to shoot the #ictim, the !rosecution failed to !ro#e that the
a!!ellant had no license to !ossess the same$ (ence, the aggra#ating circumstance of the use of
an unlicensed firearm to commit homicide should not "e a!!reciated against the a!!ellant$
The a!!ellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of #oluntary surrender$ (e turned
himself in to the !olice authorities !rior to the issuance of any warrant for his arrest$
The trial court awarded ;B,BBB$BB as ci#il indemnity
6*F7
to the heirs of the deceased$ .n
addition, the heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of ;B,BBB$BB
6*C7
and the
tem!erate damages in the amount of );,BBB$BB since no sufficient !roof of actual damages was
offered$
6)B7
"HE#EFO#E, the a!!ealed /udgment is -%%.8M?D with MOD.%.C-T.ON$ The a!!ellant
Jesus I$ 8etu"ado alias DJessieE is found I5.&TY "eyond reasona"le dou"t of homicide defined
in and !enalized "y -rticle )=C of the 8e#ised enal Code and is here"y sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of ten >*B@ years of prision "ayor, in its medium !eriod, as minimum, to
fifteen >*;@ years of reclusion te"poral, in its medium !eriod, as ma4imum, and to !ay the heirs
of the #ictim, ?mmanuel CaKon, ;B,BBB$BB as ci#il indemnity2 ;B,BBB$BB as moral damages2
and );,BBB$BB as tem!erate damages$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
DIE)O 1$LONDO! defendant3a!!ellant$
The Court of %irst .nstance of &eyte found the defendant Diego 9alondo guilty of the crime of
murder and sentenced him to suffer the e4treme !enalty of death$ This case is now "efore this
Court on automatic re#iew of the decision of the trial court$
On Octo"er )*, *C:: the ro#incial %iscal of &eyte filed the following information against the
defendantA
The undersigned ro#incial %iscal accuses Diego 9alondo of the crime of murder, committed as
followsA
That on or a"out the )Cth day of 'e!tem"er, *C::, in the munici!ality of 0awayan, 'u"!ro#ince
of 9iliran, ro#ince of &eyte, hili!!ines, and within the /urisdiction of this (onora"le Court,
the a"o#e3named accused, with deli"erate intent to +ill, with treachery and e#ident
!remeditation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac+, assault and
strangle one Iloria 9ulasa and inflicting u!on the said Iloria 9ulasa the following in/uries, to
witA
*$ &i#er mortis of the face, anterior a"dominal wall, and anterior chest wall2
)$ 'emi3circular mar+s at the lateral !ortion of the nec+, "oth sides2
<$ Circular incision around the u!!er third of the thigh at the le#el of the inferior "order of the
gluteal muscles of "oth thighs2
=$ Com!lete loss of the soft tissues of the thighs and legs in such manner that only the "ones of
the !arts mentioned were left2
;$ 9oth feet were missing from the an+le /oints downwards2
:$ -ll digits of the left hand were missing from the car!al3metacar!al /oints downward2
G$ .ncised wound from the left shoulder along the medial "order of the left sca!ula to the inferior
angle of the right sca!ula, u!wards along its lateral "order to the right shoulder, medially
towards the "ase of the nec+ !osteriorly to the left shoulder, with loss of the s+in and the
underlying tissues$
thus causing the instantaneous death of the aforementioned Iloria 9ulasa$
That the crime was committed with the aggra#ating circumstances of a"use of su!erior strength2
that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deli"erately augmented "y causing
another wrong not necessary for its commission2 that means was em!loyed or circumstances
"rought a"out which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act2 that the act was committed in
utter disregard of se42 and also the aggra#ating circumstance of relationshi!, the #ictim "eing the
niece of the accused$
Contrary to -rticle )=F of the 8e#ised enal Code$
The record shows that when this defendant was a!!rehended after the disco#ery of the dead "ody
of Iloria 9ulasa, u!on "eing in#estigated "y the Chief of olice of 0awayan, he readily
admitted ha#ing +illed Iloria 9ulasa$ (is admission was reduced to writing in the Jisayan
dialect understood "y him, and signed "y him$ 'u"se,uently, a more lengthy in#estigation was
conducted "y the Chief of olice, and again the defendant admitted ha#ing +illed Iloria 9ulasa
and narrated in detail how he +illed Iloria 9ulasa and what he did with the "ody of Iloria
9ulasa$ The defendant was ta+en to the !lace where the crime was committed and he e#en
reenacted what he did with the deceased Iloria 9ulasa$ The statements made "y the defendant in
this detailed e4amination "y the Chief of olice, including his statements during the reenactment
of the crime, were reduced to writing, and were su"scri"ed and sworn to "y him "efore the
munici!al Judge of 0awayan$ The statements made "y the defendant in his written admissions
were corro"orated in im!ortant details "y Meliton 9ulasa, father of the #ictim and "y -natalio
9ulasa, an uncle of the #ictim who "oth signed sworn statements "efore the munici!al /udge$
- post "orte" e4amination of the "ody of the deceased Iloria 9ulasa was made "y Dr$ Jose J$
Tu!az, the munici!al health officer of 0awayan, and the in/uries found "y the medical officer on
the "ody of the deceased indicated the "rutal acts committed "y the defendant on his #ictim, as
narrated "y the defendant himself in his sworn statements$
The corres!onding criminal com!laint was filed "y the Chief of olice of 0awayan, &eyte,
"efore the munici!al court of the said munici!ality$ During the !reliminary in#estigation of the
case, the defendant !leaded guilty to the charge of murder when he was arraigned$ (e not only
admitted his guilt, "ut he narrated "efore the munici!al /udge the circumstances attending the
+illing of Iloria 9ulasa$
On Octo"er )=, *C:: the defendant was arraigned "efore the Court of %irst .nstance of &eyte$
The trial court a!!ointed -tty$ Delia Tantuico counsel de o%%icio for the defendant$ -tty$
Tantuico conferred with the defendant, and after the conference the counsel manifested "efore
the court that the defendant was ready for arraignment$ The information was read to the
defendant in the local dialect, called the Waray3Waray dialect, which is understood "y the
defendant$ -fter the reading of the information the defendant #oluntarily !leaded guilty to the
charge of murder alleged in the information$ Thereafter, the trial court rendered the decision
which is now "efore this Court on re#iew$
We ha#e carefully e4amined the record of this case, and We fully agree with the findings and
o"ser#ations of the trial court in its decision, as followsA
%rom the records and #aried written admissions of the accused, Diego 9alondo, that on 'e!t$ )C,
*C::, at a"out :ABB oOcloc+ a$m$, he was in his farm in the "arrio of 9alacson, 0awayan,
'u"!ro#ince of 9iliran, &eyte$ That he stayed in his farm for a"out three hours clearing his
camote !lantation2 that at a"out CABB oOcloc+ in that same day, he went home to ta+e his
"rea+fast2 that at a"out *ABB oOcloc+, he saw Iloria 9ulasa going to the direction of the ni!a
groo#es of the -yono -silo, "ehind the -gli!ayan church2 that u!on seeing her, he followed
"ehind surre!titiously2 that u!on seeing her cutting the "anana lea#es he told her, Mwhy, you are
here again to cut the "anana lea#esSM, that the late Iloria 9ulasa answered, Oit is none of your
"usiness for itOs the !ro!erty of the go#ernmentO2 that he got furious and immediately gra""ed her
"y his left hand strangled her "y the nec+ and !ushed her #iolently to the ground face downward2
that he firmly held her left arm and nec+2 rode on her "ac+ and !inned her down with his +nees
and then continuously lifting her head and smashed her face against the mud2 that he cho+ed and
"uried her face in the mud for a"out an hour until she died$
-nd that when she was already dead, he lifted her from the mud and laid her flat on her "ac+,
and then he held her "y the feet, dragged her to a !lace from where he +illed her, at a distance of
thirty "razas2 that he co#ered the "ody with ni!a lea#es to +ee! her from the sunlight2 that the
deceased was carrying a +nife for cutting the "anana lea#es, and she was a niece of the accused
from a second degree cousin2 that he sliced and too+ the flesh from the thighs, legs and shoulder
"y the use of the +nife of Iloria 9ulasa "ecause his "olo was dull, after which he threw the +nife
away2 that he cut away also the feet2 that he intended to slice all the flesh of the cada#er "ut he
was caught "y the dar+ness of the night2 that he !ut the sliced flesh with a !iece of rattan, tied it
and "rought it to his farm2 that u!on reaching his farm, he started to "uild a fire and "ar"ecued
the sliced !ieces of human flesh >roasted it@ and he ate the "ar"ecued !ieces of human flesh and
used it as a #iand for the roasted "anana fruits2 that the taste of the human flesh was "itter and
!oignant li+e a gall "ladder2 that he +illed Iloria 9ulasa first to taste the human flesh if its good2
that after doing all those atrocious acts, he went home at a"out GABB oOcloc+ in that e#ening$
444 444 444
.n !assing /udgment to the accused, Diego 9alondo, the Court has this lamenta"le o"ser#ation
with this !eculiar case$
The s!ectacle of +nowing a human "eing +illed and slaughtered in this island, su"!ro#ince of
9iliran, &eyte, for un+nown moti#ation is not a news at all in this /urisdiction "ecause such
incidents are too common and numerous for the court to recall$ 9ut when one, li+e in this case,
cho+ed a maiden to death /ust *: years old for the sim!le reason that she was getting lea#es from
the "anana !lants of the accused to wra! local coo+ies, the said accused after +illing her, sliced
the flesh of the legs, shoulder and the thigh, coo+ed those human flesh2 de#oured them li+e an
ancient canni"al2 the accused, Diego 9alondo went "izarrely "eyond the e4treme of a
carni#orous wild "east$
Counsel de o%%icio, -tty$ Justo 8$ -l"ert, in his "rief for the defendant, urges that the trial court
should ha#e su"/ected the defendant to some !sychiatric test to determine his sanity "efore
rendering /udgment, and !rays this Court Mthat the /udgment of the lower court "e set aside and
this case "e remanded for trial with admonition to the lower court to order the su"mission of the
accused to a !sychiatric test to determine his sanity$M We do not find merit in the !lea of
counsel de o%%icio$ We find in the record sufficient /ustification for the conclusion that the
defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime$ The defendant had made
se#eral statements, which were reduced to writing and duly signed "y him$ We find that the facts
and circumstances narrated "y the defendant in those different statements tally in im!ortant
details$ The defendant #oluntarily admitted his guilt "efore the munici!al court during the
!reliminary in#estigation$ (e li+ewise #oluntarily !leaded guilty when arraigned "efore the trial
court$ Considering that the defendant is charged of ha#ing +illed Iloria 9ulasa way "ac+ on
'e!tem"er )C, *C:: T or more than three years ago T it is not !ossi"le now to ascertain the
mental condition of the defendant as of the time when he committed the crime of which he is
charged$
The trial court has correctly found that in +illing the deceased Iloria 9ulasa, the defendant had
ta+en ad#antage of his su!erior strength$ This attendant circumstance ,ualifies the crime
committed as murder, defined in -rticle )=F of the 8e#ised enal Code$
We agree with the trial court that the commission of the crime "y the defendant was attended "y
the aggra#ating circumstances of >*@ disregard of the res!ect due the offended !arty on account
of her se4, and >)@ that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deli"erately
augmented "y causing other wrong not necessary for its commission$
The trial court, howe#er, erred when it declared that two other aggra#ating circumstances
attended the commission of the crime2 namely, that means was em!loyed or circumstance
"rought a"out which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, and that the #ictim was the
niece of the accused$ We find nothing in the record which shows that "efore the deceased Iloria
9ulasa died she was su"/ected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering$
5nder -rticle *; of the 8e#ised enal Code, the alternati#e circumstance of relationshi! shall "e
ta+en into consideration only when the offended !arty is the s!ouse, ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural or ado!ted "rother or sister, or relati#e "y affinity in the same degree of the
offended >5$'$ #s$ .nsierto, *; hil, <;F@$
One mitigating circumstance can "e considered in fa#or of the defendant, namely, the
circumstance of his ha#ing made a #oluntary !lea of guilt in court "efore the !resentation of
e#idence "y the !rosecution$
We, therefore, find that the defendant had committed the crime of murder, with two aggra#ating
circumstances that should "e counted against him, and one mitigating circumstance in his fa#or$
(owe#er, for lac+ of the re,uired num"er of #otes "y the mem"ers of the Court, for the
im!osition of the ma4imum !enalty of death, the Court has resol#ed to modify that !ortion of the
/udgment of the trial court which im!oses the !enalty of death, "y im!osing on the defendant the
!enalty of reclusion perpetua$
W(?8?%O8?, the decision of the lower court is modified$ The defendant is sentenced to
reclusion !er!etua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Iloria 9ulasa in the sum of
*),BBB$BB, and to !ay the costs$ .t is so ordered$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
)ET6LIO P$NTOJ$, defendant3a!!ellant$
This murder case is "efore us for re#iew of the sentence of death !assed u!on the accused "y the
Court of %irst .nstance of Quezon$
&ate in the night of June )F, *C;G, in the 4arrio of Malinao, -timonan, Quezon, a grou! of
se#en young men serenaded the house, where ?stelita ?rotes li#ed$ .n#ited to come u!, the
young men acce!ted the in#itation$ When Wenceslao (ernandez was seated "eside ?stelita, an
unin#ited hili!!ine -rmy 'ergeant, Ietulio anto/a, in T3'hirt, came u! and as+ed (ernandez
to allow him to sit "eside ?stelita, "ut (ernandez refused the re,uest$ The time was a"out *A<B
-$M$, June )C$ anto/a said nothing and showed no sign of anger$ (owe#er, he immediately left
and went to his cam! a"out half a +ilometer distant, !ut on his fatigue uniform, got a rifle went
"ac+ to the house and stationed himself on the stairway$ The time was a"out )ABB -$M$ -t this
time, the serenaders left the house to go to and serenade another house in the Northern !art of
the 4arrio$ anto/a followed the grou!$ When the serenaders had wal+ed a distance of a"out
thirty meters with anto/a following them at a distance of a"out fi#e meters, anto/a suddenly
shouted M-no yanS -no yanSM Turning their heads "ac+ they saw anto/a raise the garand rifle
and aim at them$ 9efore any of them could run away, anto/a fired two shots in ra!id succession$
The first shot hit -ngel Marasigan who instantly fell on his "ac+$ The second shot hit Wenceslao
(ernandez who fell down$ The other serenaders scam!ered away for safety$ anto/a, who had
wal+ed nearer, then fired one more shot at the !rostrate "ody of Marasigan and four more shots
at the !rostrate "ody of (ernandez$
The accused, testifying in his own defense, admitted that the shots he fired from the garand rifle
+illed Marasigan and (ernandez$ The auto!sy re!ort attri"uted the deaths to internal hemorrhage
and the destruction of #ital organs$
The lower court found the defendant guilty of dou"le murder, that is, of a com!le4 crime, and
sentenced him to the !enalty of death$
We immediately noted that the lower court erred in finding the a!!ellant guilty of a com!le4
crime$ -!!ellantOs "rief, howe#er, does not contain an assignment of this error$ This
notwithstanding, we can consider the error, the case under re#iew "eing a criminal case$
.t is well +nown to students of criminal law, as early as thirty3fi#e years ago, that, according to
-rticle =F as amended, of the 8e#ised enal Code, there are two classes of com!le4 crimes$ The
first class com!rises cases where a single act constitutes two or more crimes$ The second class
co#ers cases where one crime is the necessary means for committing the other$ The case at "ar
does not fall under the first class "ecause in this case there were two acts, two shots, one +illing
Marasigan, and the other +illing (ernandez$ .f there were only one shot +illing "oth Marasigan
and (ernandez, there would ha#e "een a com!le4 crime, dou"le murder$ The second class,
o"#iously, does not co#er the case at "ar$ We are of the considered o!inion that the a!!ellant is
guilty of two se!arate and distinct murders and that he should suffer the !enalty for each murder$
-!!ellant contends that the ,ualifying circumstances of e#ident !remeditation and treachery did
not e4ist$ The contention is tena"le with res!ect to e#ident !remeditation "ecause the a!!ellant
only had a"out half an hour >*A<B to )ABB -$M$@ for meditation and reflection from the time he
left the house, went to his cam!, !ut on his fatigue uniform, got a garand rifle and returned to
said house, followed the serenaders a short distance and then fired the two shots$ The time in the
circumstances was insufficient for full meditation and reflection$ .t was insufficient, in the
/uridical sense, for his conscience to o#ercome the resolution of his will had he desired to
hear+en to its warning$ The contention is untena"le with res!ect to treachery$The a!!ellant
followed the serenaders as they wal+ed, made no indication that he would shoot, and then
suddenly fired from "ehind two shots in ra!id succession at Marasigan and (ernandez from a
distance of a"out fi#e meters$ 5nder the circumstances, clearly there was treachery$
-!!ellant contends that the generic aggra#ating circumstances of a"use of !u"lic !osition and
ignominy were not !resent$ The contention is meritorious$There is nothing to show that the
a!!ellant too+ ad#antage of his "eing a sergeant in the hili!!ine -rmy in order to commit the
crimes$ The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not
sufficient to esta"lish that he misused his !u"lic !osition in the commission of the crimes$ With
regard to ignominy the mere fact that the a!!elant fired one more shot at the !rostrate "ody of
Marasigan and four more shots at the !rostrate "ody of (ernandez is not sufficient to show the
e4istence of said aggra#ating circumstance$
-!!ellant contends that he should "e gi#en the "enefit of the mitigating circumstance of
#oluntary surrender$ The contention is tena"le$ The e#idence shows that immediately after the
commission of the murders, the a!!ellant #oluntarily surrendered to his detachment cam!
commander to whom he also surrendered the garand rifle, and that he was ordered confined in
the stoc+ade$
The !enalty for murder is reclusion te"poral in its ma4imum !eriod to death >-rt$ )=F,8e#ised
enal Code@$ There "eing one mitigating circumstance, #oluntary surrender, the !enalty for each
murder should "e reclusion te"poral in its ma4imum !eriod in relation to the .ndeterminate
'entence &aw$
The a!!ellant contends that the lower court erred in re/ecting his defense of insanity$ The
contention lac+s merit$ The legal !resum!tion of sanity is reinforced "y the e#idence showing
that when he committed the crimes, a!!ellant was calm and collected, and did not show any sign
of anger$ The fact that he fired four more shots at the !rostrate "ody of (ernandez, who had
refused his re,uest to "e allowed to sit "eside ?stelita, shows that re#enge was in his heart$ The
re!ort of Dr$ Cesar Catindig of the J$ &una Ieneral (os!ital where a!!ellant was confined for
one month "y order of the trial court does not show that a!!ellant was insane$ .t merely shows
that he was suffering from !sychoneurotic de!ressi#e reaction and !sychoneurotic dissociati#e
reaction$ The re!ort, howe#er, concludesA
.n the a"sence of relia"le information it could not "e ascertained whether the crime im!uted to
him was committed when he was in such a state of mind$
That !art of the /udgment "elow awarding com!ensatory damages in the amounts of :,BBB to
the heirs of -ngel Marasigan and :$BBB to the heirs of Wenceslao (ernandez should "e
modified$ .n *C=G, when the ro/ect of Ci#il Code was drafted, the Code Commission fi4ed the
sum of <,BBB as the minimum amount of com!ensatory damages for death caused "y a crime
or 6uasi3delict$ The ro/ect of Ci#il Code was a!!ro#ed "y "oth (ouses of the Congress in *C=C
as the New Ci#il Code of the hili!!ines, which too+ effect in *C;B$ .n *C=F in the case of
eo!le #s$ -mansec, FB hil$ =)=, the 'u!reme Court awarded :,BBB as com!ensatory damages
for death caused "y a crime Mconsidering the difference "etween the #alue of the !resent
currency and that at the time when the law fi4ing a minimum indemnity of ),BBB was enacted$M
The law referred to was Commonwealth -ct No$ )F= which too+ effect in *C<F$ .n *C=F, the
!urchasing !ower of the hili!!ine !eso was one3third of its !re3war !urchasing !ower$ .n *C;B,
when the New Ci#il Code too+ effect, the minimum amount of com!ensatory damages for death
caused "y a crime or 6uasi3delict was fi4ed in -rticle ))B: of the Code at <,BBB$ The article
re!ealed "y im!lication Commonwealth -ct No$ )F=$ (ence, from the time the New Ci#il Code
too+ effect, the Courts could !ro!erly ha#e awarded C,BBB as com!ensatory damages for death
caused "y a crime or6uasi3 delict$ .t is common +nowledge that from *C=F to the !resent >*C:F@,
due to economic circumstances "eyond go#ernmental control, the !urchasing !ower of the
hili!!ine !eso has declined further such that the rate of e4change now in the free mar+et is 5$'$
X*$BB to almost =$BB hili!!ine !esos$ This means that the !resent !urchasing !ower of the
hili!!ine !eso is one3fourth of its !re3war !urchasing !ower$ We are, therefore, of the
considered o!inion that the amount of award of com!ensatory damages for death caused "y a
crime or 6uasi3delict should now "e *),BBB$
arenthetically, we should !oint out that, in !ro!er cases, "esides com!ensatory damages in the
sum of *),BBB, the courts may also award additional sums as further com!ensatory damages for
loss of earnings and for su!!ort$ The courts may li+ewise award additional sums as moral
damages and as e4em!lary damages$ >-rts ))B: and ))<B, New Ci#il Code$@
8?M.'?' CON'.D?8?D, the /udgment of the court "elow is here"y modified "yA *$
'entencing the a!!ellant for each murder to an indeterminate !enalty of from *; years to )B
years2 )$ Ordering the a!!ellant to !ay the heirs of -ngel Marasigan the sum of *),BBB as
com!ensatory damages, and to !ay the heirs of Wenceslao (ernandez the sum of *),BBB as
com!ensatory damages$ Costs against a!!ellant$
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE IL$ND! !laintiff3a!!ellee,
#s$
D$26) and 1$NN$I$N! defendants3a!!ellants$
(ILL$5#E$L! J.:
This a!!eal was ta+en "y the Igorrotes 0alingas Dayug and 9annaisan from the /udgment of the
Court of %irst .nstance of the Mountain ro#ince, finding each of them guilty of the crime of
dou"le murder, with the ,ualifying circumstance of e#ident !remeditation, and sentencing them,
in #iew of the aggra#ating circumstance of treachery and that the crime was committed in an
uninha"ited !lace, which circumstances are offset "y the s!ecial e4tenuating circumstance
!ro#ided in article ** of the enal Code, as amended, to suffer life im!risonment, with the
accessories of the law, each to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of *,BBB, and to
!ay one3half of the costs$
The attorney de o%icio a!!ointed "y this court, in com!liance with his duty, has !resented a
statement in which he declares that after a careful e4amination of the e#idence contained in the
record he can find no reason /ustifying the re#ocation of the a!!ealed /udgment$
The facts !ro#e at the trial, "eyond a reasona"le dou"t, are as followsA
The Igorrotes 0alingas and Ium!ad were !re#iously accused, con#icted, and sentenced to life
im!risonment for ha#ing +illed the family of another 0alinga Igorrote named 'uguian$ The
herein accused are relati#es of 'uguian and wanted to re#enge the death of the family of their
relati#e$ (a#ing "een informed that 0alinga Dau!an, a relati#e of -"auag and Ium!ad, and
0alinga ana"ang had gone to the "arrio of &aya, and Igorrote woman named 9anayan told
them to interce!t the tra#ellers on the road$ On January ;, *C):, the accused started out ahead of
them and u!on arri#ing at the "arrio of a+i+ waited in am"ush$ -t a"out noon Dau!an and
ana"ang !assed "y them$ The accused followed them at a distance of a"out FB yards, trying not
to "e seen$ -t 9elen they o#ertoo+ them, Dayug attac+ing ana"ang and "annaisan attac+ing
Dau!an, each using his res!ecti#e "olo$ Dayug first wounded ana"ang on the right shoulder and
later in the "ac+$ ana"ang started to run away, Dayug !ursuing him and when he o#ertoo+ him,
ana"ang faced him$ Dayug then ga#e him a third "low with the "olo which !enetrated the
a"domen$ -s ana"ang again attem!ted to run away, Dayug ga#e him the fourth "low which
struc+ his right leg a"o#e the +nee, causing him to fall face downward on the ground when he
again sta""ed him in the "uttoc+$ ana"ang died instantly$ -fter his death Dayug searched his
clothes and found *F, consisting of *B sil#er !esos, = one3!eso "ills and ) two3!eso "ills, in a
!urse wra!!ed ina hand+erchief$ (e also found fi#e sil#er rings on the !erson ana"ang$ While
Dayug was engaged with ana"ang, 9annaisan !ursued the IgorroteDau!an, inflicting a wound
in her a"domen, another in the right lum"ar region, another across the left chee+ and another in
the right "uttoc+$ The accused di#ided the money and the rings, 9annaisan ta+ing the *B in
sil#er and three rings and Dayug the rest$
The facts a"o#e related were freely and #oluntarily confessed "y the accused$ 5ndou"tedly the
accused, urged "y the mem"ers of their tri"e and following their traditional custom, wanted to
a#enge the death of the family of a relati#e of 9annaisan who had "een murdered "y -"auag and
Ium!ad$ -s they were una"le to ta+e re#enge on the latter "ecause of their im!risonment, they
selected Dau!an, a relati#e of -"uag and Ium!ad, and ana"ang as their #ictims and too+
ad#antage of the occasion when they set out for &aya$ There ha#ing "een a concert of mind and
unity of !ur!ose, each of the accused carrying out his !art of the !lan, each is lia"le for the death
of the two #ictims$ The crime committed "y them is dou"le murder with the ,ualifying
circumstance of e#ident !remeditation, as shown "y the fact that they agreed to +ill the two
#ictims, started out ahead of them and waylaid them in the road$
The trial court has held that the crime was committed with the generic aggra#ating circumstance
of treachery, with which the -ttorney3Ieneral agrees$ The rule of !rocedural law is that the
aggra#ating circumstances must "e conclusi#ely !ro#en$ -ccording to the accused Dayug, he
and his coaccused were !ursuing their #ictims and it was during the !ursuit that they wounded
them$ The fact that a !erson is "eing !ursued "y another does not sa#e the latter from all danger
that might arise from a resistance on the !art of the former, "ecause during the !ursuit it might
occur to the !ursued to turn u!on his !ursuer and suddenly attac+ him$ The wounds on the "ac+
and shoulders of the #ictims alone are not sufficient to legally esta"lish the e4istence of the
aggra#ating circumstance of treachery, inasmuch as it is necessary to !ro#e that the aggressor did
not run any ris+ which might ha#e arisen from a defense on the !art of the offended !arty$
The -ttorney3Ieneral is of the o!inion that the aggra#ating circumstance of a"use of su!erior
strength should "e ta+en into account$ -s we ha#e seen, the fight was single3handed and there is
no e#idence in the record to slow that the aggressors, indi#idually and collecti#ely, were greatly
su!erior in strength to the offended !arties$
.n regard to the accused 9annaisan, the aggra#ating circumstance of disregard of se4 must "e
ta+en into consideration inasmuch as his #ictim was a woman$
The -ttorney3Ieneral is also of the o!inion that the aggra#ating circumstance of cruelty should
"e ta+en into account$ This circumstances has its own #alue and meaning in law$ There is cruelty
when the cul!rit en/oys and delights in ma+ing his #ictim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary moral and !hysical !ain in the consummation of the criminal act which he
intends to commit$ The mere fact of inflicting #arious successi#e wounds u!on a !erson in order
to cause his death, no a!!recia"le time inter#ening "etween the infliction of one wound and that
of another to show that he had wanted to !rolong the suffering of his #ictim, is not sufficient for
ta+ing this aggra#ating circumstance into consideration$
9riefly, the only aggra#ating circumstances in regard to the two accused which, in our o!inion,
can !ro!erly "e considered are, the uninha"ited !lace and the disregard of se4 in res!ect to the
accused 9annaisan, all of which are offset "y the s!ecial e4tenuating circumstance !ro#ided in
article ** of the enal Code, as amended "y -ct No$ )*=), more es!ecially in regard to the
mem"ers of the non3Christian Tri"es, to whom, due to their custom and traditions, it is second
nature to re#enge the death of a relati#e, which only instruction and education can eradicate$
%or the foregoing, we ha#e arri#ed at the conclusion that each of the accused is guilty of the
crime of dou"le murder and there "eing no circumstance to modify the criminal lia"ility, the
!enalty !ro#ided "y law of cadena te"poral in its ma4imum degree to death, must "e im!osed in
its medium degree, or life im!risonment$ 9ut inasmuch as each of the accused must suffer two
life im!risonments, the total duration of which is si4ty years, and, also, according to article FF of
the enal Code, when a !erson is guilty of two or more crimes, all of the !enalties corres!onding
to the se#eral #iolations shall "e im!osed, the same to "e simultaneously ser#ed, if !ossi"le, and
when not, the court can only im!ose the tri!le !enalty corres!onding to the gra#est crime, in
accordance with article FC of the enal Code, "ut ne#er e4ceeding forty years$ The duration of
the two !enalties of cadena perpetua must ne#er e4ceed forty years$ >eo!le vs. Ca"rera, =<
hil$, := and F)$@
.n #iew of the foregoing, with the sole modification that the /oint duration of the !enalties
im!osed u!on each of the accused shall not e4ceed forty years of cadena perpetua, the /udgment
a!!ealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the a!!ellants$ 'o ordered$