11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.140545.May29,2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. IRENEO GODOY, accused

appellant.
DECISION
KAPUNAN,J.:

OnappealbeforethisCourtisthedecision,datedJune16,1998,oftheRegionalTrialCourtofLucenaCity,
Branch54,inCriminalCaseNo.94639,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thisCourtfindstheaccusedIreneoGodoyyAnialiasReneGUILTY
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofMurderdefinedandpunishedunderArticle248oftheRevisedPenal
CodeandherebysentencestheaccusedtosufferimprisonmentofRECLUSIONPERPETUAwithallthe
accessoriesofthelaw,andtopaytheheirsofthedeceasedAlexanderCarandangthefollowingamounts:
a)P50,000.00fordeathindemnity
b)P63,608.00foractualandcompensatorydamages
c)P24,000.00forlossofearningcapacity
d)P5,000.00forattorneysfeeand
e)P30,000.00formoraldamages.
Theaccusedshallalsopaythecostsofthissuit.
SOORDERED.[1]
AccusedappellantwaschargedunderanInformation,datedFebruary24,1994,whichstates:
Thatonoraboutthe29thdayofJanuary1994,atBarangayGuisguis,MunicipalityofSariaya,Provinceof
Quezon,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,Ireneo
GodoyyAnialiasRene,armedwithafanknifeandAquilinoGodoyyAnialiasNonie,conspiringand
confederatingtogetherwiththreeotherpersonswhosetruenamesandrealidentitiesarestillunknownand
whosephysicaldescriptionswerenotgivenbyavailablewitnesses,andwhoareallstillatlarge,andmutually
helpingoneanother,withintenttokill,withtreacheryandtakingadvantageoftheirsuperiorstrength,didthen
andtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandstabwithsaidfanknifeoneAlexander
Carandang,therebyinflictinguponhimastabwoundonavitalpartofhisbody,whichdirectlycausedhisdeath.
Thattheaccusedattacked,assaultedandstabbedwithsaidweaponsaidAlexanderCarandangsuddenlyand
unexpectedlywithoutgivinghimanyopportunitytodefendhimselfortoescape.[2]
OnlyIreneoGodoywasbroughttotrialastheotheraccusedremainedatlarge.OnNovember4,1994,he
pleadedNotGuiltytotheaccusation.[3]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

1/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

Testifying for the prosecution, Marlon Leonardo, eyewitness to the incident, recalled that on January 29,
1994, he was in the house of his grandmother, Leonida Aguila, at Barangay Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon. At
aroundeightoclockintheevening,AguilarequestedhimtofetchAlexanderCarandangfromthelattersduck
farm.[4]Abouttenmetersawayfromtheduckfarm,LeonardometIreneoGodoy,AquilinoGodoy,Alexander
Carandangandthreeotherpersonswhosenameshedoesnotknow.HenoticedthatAquilinoandanotherperson
were holding both hands of Carandang and Ireneo was in front of the latter. Suddenly, Ireneo drew a bladed
weapon and stabbed Carandang. Leonardo shouted Rene, huwag but Ireneo continued stabbing Carandang,
hitting him on the chest.[5] Leonardo was about to approach the group but upon seeing that they turned his
attention to him (pinagbalingan) with the apparent intention to attack him (susugurin), he ran back to his
grandmothershouse.[6]HetoldhisgrandmotherwhathesawandhewasadvisedtogotoEddieCarandangand
accompanyhimtoBarangayPahinga,Candelaria,QuezontofetchFidelaGutierrezCarandang,themotherof
Alexander.TheyreachedtheplaceataboutelevenoclockintheeveningandtheytoldFidelaofwhattranspired.
LeonardoandEddieaccompaniedFidelainlookingforAlexanderuntiltheyreachedSariayawheretheyfound
Alexanderalreadydead.[7]
ThepostmortemexaminationconductedbyDr.CecilioMacaraeg,Jr.,RuralHealthPhysicianatSariaya,
Quezon showed that Alexander sustained a stab wound, 3.5 cm. long, 1 cm. wide and 8 cm. deep with the
directiontowardstheheart.[8]Thecauseofdeathwasshockandseverehemorrhageduetothestabwound.[9]
Dr. Macaraeg testified that the wound could have been caused by a sharp bladed instrument, possibly a fan
knife.[10]
ArcadioMarasigantestifiedthatonJanuary29,1994,ataboutfouroclockintheafternoon,hemetIreneo
Godoy and Aquilino Godoy in Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon. They asked him if he knew the whereabouts of
AlexanderandhetoldthemthathedidnotseeAlexander.[11]HelearnedthatAlexanderandtheGodoyshada
fistfightearlieratParaisobeachnearthehouseofhisgrandmother.Later,whenhesawAlexanderwhowasthen
drunk,headvisedhimnottogooutandjustsleepbecauseheknewtheGodoyswerelookingforhim.Hewent
toworkthereafterandwasinformedlaterthatAlexanderwasalreadydead.[12]
Forthedefense,IreneoGodoyassertedthathewasinBarangayMalasas,Rosario,BatangasonJanuary29,
1994.HeleftBatangasataroundfiveoclockintheafternoonandproceededtothehouseofMarianoJoyasin
Lusacan, Tiaong, Quezon to borrow money.He arrived in Tiaong at around seven oclock in the evening and
spent the night there. He left Joyas house at around six oclock in the morning of the following day and
proceededtoBarangayGuisguis,Sariaya,Quezon.HearrivedinSariayaataroundnineoclockinthemorning
andwasjustalightingfromthejeepneywhenhewashandcuffedbyTinoCarandang,apolicemaninCandelaria,
Quezon and uncle of Alexander.[13] He was brought to the Municipal Jail of Sariaya, Quezon where he was
detainedfromJanuary30,1994uptothetimeofhistrial.Helaterlearnedthatthepolicewerealsolookingfor
hisbrotherAquilino.HedeniedthathewaswithAquilinoandthattheyhadafistfightwithAlexanderatParaiso
beachnorwashewithAquilinowhenAlexanderwasstabbed.[14]
ThestatementofIreneowascorroboratedbyMarianoJoyaswhotestifiedthatwhenhearrivedathishouse
fromManilaonJanuary29,1994,Ireneowasalreadytherewaitingforhim.[15]HestatedthatheleftManilaat
around seven oclock in the evening of January 29, 1994 and arrived in Tiaong at around ten oclock in the
evening.[16] HehadachatwithIreneountiltheysleptataroundtwelvemidnight.[17] Ireneospentthenightin
hishouseandleftinthemorningofJanuary30,1994.[18]
Aftertrial,judgmentwasrenderedfindingIreneoGodoyguiltyascharged.
Hence,thisappeal,onthefollowinggrounds:
I

THECOURTAQUOERREDINGIVINGFULLFAITHANDCREDENCETOTHETESTIMONIESOF
PROSECUTIONWITNESSESWHOARERELATEDBYBLOODTOVICTIM.
II
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

2/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

THECOURTAQUOERREDINFINDINGACCUSEDAPPELLANTGUILTYBEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBTOFTHECRIMEOFMURDER.
III

THECOURTAQUOERREDINORDERINGACCUSEDAPPELLANTTOPAYTHEHEIRSOFTHE
VICTIMP50,000.00DEATHINDEMNITYP63,608.00FORACTUALANDCOMPENSATORY
DAMAGESP24,000.00FORLOSSOFEARNINGCAPACITYP5,000.00FORATTORNEYSFEESAND
P30,000.00FORMORALDAMAGES. [19]
Weaffirmtheconvictionofaccusedappellant.
Itisasettledrulethatthefactualfindingsofthetrialjudgeisentitledtorespectifnotfinality,considering
that the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses. In People vs. Villaver,[20] the
Courtreiterated:
Inresolvinganissueonthecredibilityofawitness,theCourtmustyieldtotheoftrepeatedrulewhichholds
thatthetrialcourtsevaluationofthetestimonyofawitnessisaccordedgreatweight.TheCourt,morethan
once,hasexplainedthatitshouldrightlygivethetrialcourtawidelatitudeofassigningvaluestotestimonial
evidencebecauseofitsuniqueopportunitytosoobservethewitnessesonthestandastheytestify.Thetrial
courtisaidedbyvariousindiciathatcouldnotbereadilyseenonrecord.Thewitnessmannerofgivingan
answer,likethehesitantpause,thenervousvoice,theundertone,thebefuddledlook,thehonestgaze,the
modestblush,ortheguiltyblanch,somehowcanrevealifreallythewitnessistellingthetruthorweavingaweb
oflies.Unless,then,anyfactorcircumstanceofsignificanceandinfluenceappearstohavebeenoverlookedor
misconstrued,itsfindingsonthecredibilityofwitnessesshouldnotbeinterferedwith.
The Court finds no reason to reverse the factual findings of the lower court. The testimony of Marlon
Leonardo,straightandcategorical,isworthyofcredence,thus:
ATTY.LASCIERAS:
QUESTION:
IntheeveningofJanuary29,1994moreorlessatabout8:00oclock,doyourememberwherewereyou?
ANSWER:
IwasinthehouseofmygrandmotherLeonidaAguilaatBarangayGuisguis,Sariaya,Quezon,sir.
Q:WhileyouwereinthehouseofyourgrandmotheratBarangayGuisguis,Sariaya,Quezonatabout8:00oclockin
theevening,doyourememberifyourgrandmothertoldyouanything?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:WhatwastoldtoyoubyyourgrandmotherLeonidaAguila?
A:IwasrequestedbymygrandmothertofetchAlexanderCarandang,sir.
Q:DidyourgrandmothertellyouwheretofetchAlexanderCarandang?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Where?
A:Attheduckfarm,sir.
Q:Whereisthatduckfarmbeingreferredtobyyourgrandmother?
A:TheduckfarmlocatedatBarangayGuisguis,Sariaya,Quezon,sir.
COURT:
Whoownedthatduckfarm?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

3/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

WITNESS:
ItwasAlexanderCarandang,YourHonor.
ATTY.LASCIERAS:
Q:WhenyourgrandmotherrequestedyoutofetchAlexanderCarandangathisduckfarm,whatdidyoudo? [21]
Q:Whenyousaidyouwenttotheduckfarm,wereyouabletoreachsaidduckfarm?
A:No,sir.
Q:Why?
A:OnmywaytotheduckfarmImetIreneoGodoy,AquilinoGodoy,AlexanderCarandangandthreeotherpersons
whomIdidnotknow,sir.
COURT:
HowfarwastheduckfarmofAlexanderCarandangfromthehouseofyourgrandmother?
WITNESS:
Halfkilometer,yourHonor.
COURT:
How far were you from the duck farm ofAlexander Carandang when you met the group of Godoy, Carandang
andothers?
WITNESS:
Aroundtenmetersawayfromtheduckfarm,YourHonor.
COURT:
Wastherearoadgoingtotheduckfarm?
WITNESS:
Apathway,YourHonor.
ATTY.LASCIERAS:
Q:WhenyoumetthegroupofIreneoGodoytogetherwithAlexanderCarandang,whathappened?
WITNESS:
IsawAquilinoGodoyandanotherpersonholdingbothhandsofAlexanderCarandang,sir.
Q:WhenyousawthatAlexanderCarandangwasbeingheldbyAquilinoGodoyandtheotheronewhomyoudonot
know,wherewasIreneoGodoy?
A:HewasinfrontofAlexanderCarandang,sir.
Q:WhatwasIreneoGodoydoinginfrontofAlexanderCarandang?
A:IsawhimdrewabladedweaponandstabbedAlexanderCarandang,sir.
Q:WhenyousaidthatAlexanderCarandangwasstabbedbyIreneoGodoy,whatdidyoudo?
A:IshoutedRene,huwag,buthecontinuedstabbingAlexanderCarandang,sir.
Q:WasAlexanderCarandanghitbythestabofIreneoGodoy?
ATTY.MARTINEZ:
Leading,YourHonor.
COURT:
Mayanswer.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

4/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

WITNESS:
Yes,sir.
ATTY.LASCIERAS:
Q:CanyoutelluswhichpartofthebodyofAlexanderCarandangwashitbythestabofIreneoGodoy?
A:Inthechest,sir.
Q:Andafterseeingthisincident,whatelsedidyoudo?
A:IwasabouttoapproachthembuttheyturnedtheirattentionatmesoIranbacktothehouseofmygrandmother,
sir.
ATTY.LASCIERAS:
Werequest,yourHonor,thatthewordinthevernacular,Pinagbalinganbeplacedonrecord.
A:IwasabouttoapproachthembutIwastheonewhomtheypinagbalingantheirattentionsoIranbacktothehouse
ofmygrandmother,sir.
COURT:
Whenyouusedthewordpinagbalinganwhatdoyoumeanbythat?
WITNESS:
Susugurinponilaako,YourHonor.[22]

Accusedappellantassailsthecredibilityofthewitnesseswhoareallrelatedtothevictim.However,mere
relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not impair their credibility as to render their testimonies
unworthy of credence where no improper motive can be ascribed to them for so testifying.[23] Indeed, the
witnessrelationshiptothevictimwouldevenmakehistestimonymorecredibleasitwouldbeunnaturalfora
relativewhoisinterestedinvindicatingacrimetoaccusesomebodyotherthantherealculprit.[24]
In defense, accusedappellant could only offer denial and alibi. However, denial is an intrinsically weak
defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of culpabilities to merit credibility.[25] Likewise, the
defenseofalibishouldalwaysbereceivedwithcautionnotonlybecauseitisinherentlyweakandunreliablebut
alsobecauseitcaneasilybefabricated.[26]Bothalibianddenialcannotprevailoverthepositiveidentification
oftheaccusedastheperpetratorofthecrime.[27]Inthiscase,accusedappellantnotonlyfailedtosubstantiate
hisdefenseofdenial and alibi.ThetestimoniesofMariano Joyas also contradicted the testimony of accused
appellant in important points. Accusedappellant maintained that he went to the house of Joyas to borrow
money.AccusedappellantstatedthatJoyaswasalreadyinthehousewhenhearrivedataroundsevenoclockin
theevening.[28]HealsostatedthathewasnotabletoborrowmoneyfromJoyas.[29] Ontheotherhand,Joyas
testified that he came from Manila on that day and that he arrived in his house at around ten oclock in the
evening.[30] Joyas also testified that when he arrived at his house, accusedappellant was already there.[31]
Joyas,likewise,declaredthathewasabletolendmoneytoaccusedappellant.[32]Theseinconsistenciesaretoo
glaringtoignoreandtheyonlycastdoubtontheveracityofthetestimonies.
The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery against accusedappellant.
There is treachery when the offender commits the crime by employing means and methods or forms in the
executionthereofwhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoinsureitsexecution,withoutrisktohimselfarisingfrom
thedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.[33] However,eveniftheattackwassuddenandunexpected
andgavethevictimnoopportunitytodefendhimself,treacherycouldnotbeappreciatedabsentanyevidence
thatthemodeofexecutionwasdeliberatelyandconsciouslyadoptedbytheperpetrators.[34]Further,theCourt
notesthatthevictimwasforewarnedthataccusedappellantandhiscompanionswerelookingforhim,andhe
wasevenadvisednottogooutonthatday.[35]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

5/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

Nevertheless, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength could be appreciated against
accusedappellant. In one case,[36] the Court stated that where there was no proof as to how the attack
commenced,andtreacherywasnotproved,thefactthattherewerethree(3)armedassailantswouldconstitute
abuseofsuperiorstrength.Here,itwasestablishedthatfivepersons,includingaccusedappellant,gangedupon
thevictimandwhileitwasnotproventhatallofthemwerearmed,Aquilinoandanotherpersonheldbothhands
ofCarandangbeforeaccusedappellantstabbedhim.Clearly,theaggressorstookadvantageoftheircombined
strengthtooverpowerthevictim.
The trial court correctly held that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime. Proof of a previous
agreementtocommitafelonyisnotnecessarytoestablishconspiracy.[37]Conspiracymaybededucedfromthe
modeandmannerinwhichtheoffensewascommittedandtheconcertedactsoftheaccusedtoobtainacommon
criminal objective signify conspiracy.[38] The acts of the accused, collectively and individually, demonstrated
theexistenceofacommonobjectiveaimedtowardstheexecutionoftheircommonpurpose.
TheCourt,however,mustmodifytheawardofdamagestotheheirsofthevictim.
ThetrialcourtcorrectlyawardedP50,000.00ascivilindemnity.Consistent with recent jurisprudence, the
awardofmoraldamagesshouldbeincreasedtoP50,000.00.[39]However,thecourtcannotrelyonconjectureor
guesswork on the fact and extent of damages.[40] The amount of actual damages must be proved with a
reasonabledegreecertainty[41]andmustbepremiseduponcompetentproofandonthebestevidenceobtainable
bytheinjuredparty.[42]Hence,theawardofactualdamagesmustbereducedtoP26,500.00whichistheamount
substantiatedbyreceipts.[43]Anenttheamountoflostincome,theformulaforitscomputationis
NetEarningCapacity=[2/3x(80ageattimeofdeath)x(grossannualincomereasonableand
necessarylivingexpenses)][44]
Intheabsenceofproofoflivingexpensesofthedeceased,netearningsarecomputedatfifty(50%)percent
ofthegrossearnings.[45]Thedeceasedwastwentyseven(27)yearsoldatthetimeofhisdeath.[46] Priortohis
death,hewasraisingducksinhisduckfarmandearningP400.00daily.[47]Followingtheabovecomputation,
theawardoflostincomeshouldbeincreasedtoP70,666.66.[48]TheCourtsustainstheawardofP5,000.00 as
attorneysfees.[49]
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofLucenaCity,Branch54,inCriminalCaseNo.
94639, finding accusedappellant Ireneo Godoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and
imposingonhimthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaisherebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONbyordering
accusedappellant to pay the heirs of Alexander Carandang the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, P26,500.00 as actual damages, P70,666.66 for lost income and P5,000.00 as
attorneysfees.Costsagainstaccusedappellant.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Puno,YnaresSantiago,andAustriaMartinez,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,p.25.
[2]Id.,at56.
[3]Records,p.27.
[4]TSN,01February1995,p.4.
[5]Id.,at57.
[6]Id.,at7.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

6/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

[7]Id.,at79.
[8]Records,p.115.
[9]Id.
[10]TSN,17November1995,at5.
[11]TSN,07February1996,at3.
[12]Id.,at45.
[13]TSN,19February1997,at57.
[14]Id.,at79.
[15]TSN,01October1997,p.4.
[16]Id.,at5.
[17]Id.,at6.
[18]Id.,at4.
[19]Rollo,p.49.
[20]G.R.No.133381,27November2001.
[21]TheanswertothisquestionwasnotreflectedintheTSN.
[22]TSN,01February1995,at37.
[23]Peoplevs.Dumayan,G.R.No.116280,21May2001.
[24]Peoplevs.Villanueva,302SCRA380(1999).
[25]Peoplevs.Maglente,306SCRA546(1999).
[26]Peoplevs.Andales,312SCRA738(1999).
[27]Peoplevs.Enoja,321SCRA7(1999)Peoplevs.Ocumen,319SCRA539(1999).
[28]TSN,19February1997,p.5.
[29]Id.,at6,11.
[30]TSN,01October1997,p.5.
[31]Id.,at4.
[32]Id.
[33]Peoplevs.Botona,304SCRA611(1999)Peoplevs.Elijorde,306SCRA188(1999).
[34]Peoplevs.Molina,312SCRA130(1999).
[35]TSN,07February1996,at5.
[36]Peoplevs.Silva,321SCRA647(1999).
[37]Peoplevs.Antonio,303SCRA414(1999).
[38]Peoplevs.Estapano,307SCRA701(1999).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

7/8

11/10/2016

PeoplevsGodoy:140545:May29,2002:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

[39]Peoplevs.Cabangcala,G.R.No.135065,08August2001Peoplevs.Pascua,Jr.,G.R.No.130963,27November2001.
[40]Peoplevs.Ponseca,G.R.No.10094041,27November2001.
[41]Peoplevs.Acosta,G.R.No.140386,29November2001.
[42]Peoplevs.Busnag,G.R.No.13751415,16January2002.
[43]Records,at111,113.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/140545.htm

8/8