Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT Lt. Guillermo Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine
Manila Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Mojica of
Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the
EN BANC Indang market (pp. 2,3, t.s.n., Oct. 30, 1971; pp. 10, 19, t.s.n., Nov. 22,
1971; p. 21, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972). While they were eating, they saw,
G.R. No. L-35156 November 20, 1981 through the glass panel of the restaurant, appellant outside the restaurant
blowing his whistle. Their attention having been drawn to what appellant
was doing, Lt. Masana then in civilian clothing, accompanied by PC
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
soldier Virgilio Fidel, went out of the restaurant, approached appellant
vs.
and asked the latter, after Identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the
FLORO RODIL defendant-appellant.
gun that was tucked in his waist had a license. Instead of answering the
question of Lt. Masana appellant moved one step backward and
attempted to draw his gun. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel immediately grabbed
appellant's gun from appellant's waist and gave it to Lt. Masana After
MAKASIAR, J.: that, Lt. Masana told the appellant to go inside the restaurant. PC soldier
Virgilio Fidel followed. Lt. Masana and the appellant occupied a separate
Accused Floro Rodil was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters from the table of Lt.
crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, for the Masana's three companions Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica (p. 10, t.s.n., Nov.
death of Lt. Guillermo Masana of the Philippine Constabulary. 22, 1971). After the two were already seated, Lt. Masana placed
Accordingly, he was sentenced to death, to indemnify the heirs of the appellant's gun on the table. After that Lt. Masana pulled out a piece of
deceased in the amount of P12,000.00, to pay the amount of P10,000.00 coupon bond paper from his pocket and wrote thereon the receipt for the
as moral damages and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and gun, and after signing it, he asked appellant to countersign the same, but
to pay the costs. appellant refused to do so. Instead, he asked Lt. Masana to return the
gun to him. Lt. Masana rejected appellant's plea, telling, the latter that
The information alleges: they would talk the matter over in the municipal building of Indang,
Cavite. When Lt. Masana was about to stand up, appellant suddenly
That on or about April 24, 1971, in the Municipality of pulled out a double-bladed dagger and with it he stabbed Lt. Masana
Indang, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the several times, on the chest and stomach causing his death several hours
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named thereafter (pp. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, t.s.n., Oct. 30, 1971; pp. 10, 11, 12, t.s.n.,
accused, armed with a double-bladed dagger, with Nov. 22, 1971).
evident premeditation and treachery, and with intent to
kill, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and While the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt.
feloniously, attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana Masana PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard Ricardo Ligsa and
while the latter was in the performance of his official policeman Felix Mojica who were all seated at a separate table about
duties, inflicting upon him stab wounds on the different one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from that occupied by the accused
parts of his body which directly caused his death. and Lt. Masana stood up to assist Lt. Masana but Chief of Police Primo
Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his lunch in the
Contrary to law same restaurant, was quicker than any of them in going near the
combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the accused from behind, and
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, We glean the following thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-appellant. Immediately
facts: thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal
building of Indang, Cavite (p. 8, t.s.n., Oct. 30, 1971; pp. 19-20, t.s.n.,
Nov. 22, 1971; pp. 26, 28, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972), while the companions of
Lt. Masana brought the latter to the V. Luna Hospital in Quezon City diaphragm and infero-medial border of the lower lobe of
where he expired several hours later as a result of the stab wounds the right lung.
inflicted by the accused (pp. 21, 22, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971). Dr. Felicisimo
del Rosario, Medico-Legal Officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, (4) Impact abrasion, right scapular region, measuring 2 by
conducted an autopsy of the cadaver of Lt. Masana and made the 0.2 cm., 12 cm. from the posterior midline, 127 cm. above
following findings, which are embodied in his Report, Exhibits "D" and "D- the heel.
1 " (pp. 88-89, rec.), and which reads as follows:
UPPER EXTREMITIES:
Postmortem findings.
(5) Incised wound, anterior aspect of the distal third of the
General: left arm, measuring 3 by 0.5 cm., just medial to its anterior
midline.
Fairly developed and nourished male subject in rigor
mortis with postmortem lividity over the dependent (6) Incised wound, posterior aspect of the proximal
portions of the body. Pupils are dilated. Finger and toe phalange of the right index finger, measuring 1 by 0.2
tips are pale. There is an exploratory laparotomy incision cm., just medial to its posterior midline.
at the abdomen, measuring 21 cm. long, 3 cm. left of the
anterior midline, with eighteen (18) stitches applied. There Five hundred (500) cc. blood and blood clots accumulated
are surgical incisions at the left and right abdomen, in the thoracic cavity.
measuring 2 cm. long, 9 cm. from the anterior midline and
2 cm. long, 6.5 cm. from the anterior midline with two (2)
There are four (4) sutures applied at a lacerated wound at
stitches applied and a rubber drain sticking out of each,
the greater curvature of the stomach.
respectively.
There is nothing remarkable in the unaffected organs
TRUNK:
internally.
(1) Stab wound, left chest, measuring 0.9 by 0.4 cm., 5
REMARKS:
cm. from the anterior midline, 128 cm. above the heel, 1
cm. deep, directed posterior wards and slightly upwards,
passing superficially between muscles and tissues. Cause of death is cardio-respiratory arrest due to severe
shock and intrathoracic hemorrhage as a result of multiple
stab wounds of the body, perforating the stomach, gastric
(2) Stab wound, left chest, measuring 1.2 by 0.4 cm., 9
vessels, liver, diaphragm and lower lobe of the right lung.
cm. from the anterior midline, 121 cm. above the heel,
5.5. cm. deep, directed posterior wards, downwards and
to the left, lacerating the muscles at the 4th intercostal Claiming self-defense, the accused, on the other hand, maintains and
space. relies on the following facts:
(3) Stab wound, abdomen, measuring 0.9 by 0.2 cm. just At about 1: 00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 24, 1971, the accused and
left of the anterior midline, 96 cm. above the heel 11 cm. his wife were in a restaurant near the market place of Indang, Cavite, in
deep, directed posterior wards, upwards and to the left, order to take their lunch. They had just come from Mandaluyong, Rizal
perforating the greater curvature of the stomach and the where they reside (pp. 21, 22, t.s.n., Dec. 10, 1971). Inside the
gastric vessels, grazing the liver, perforating the restaurant, the accused saw three persons to his right, eating, while to
his left he saw a person whom he later learned to be Lt. Guillermo
Masana drinking beer alone. While the accused and his wife were waiting t.s.n., Ibid; pp. 4, 39, 40, t.s.n., Dec. 10, 1971; p. 6, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1971;
for the food to be served, Lt. Masana approached him and asked him p. 5, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972).
whether he was Floro Rodil and whether he was a member of the Anti-
Smuggling Unit. After receiving an affirmative answer, Lt. Masana invited After due trial, the court a quo rendered a decision sentencing the
the accused to join him in his table. The accused accepted the invitation accused as heretofore stated.
so the two moved over to the officer's table where the deceased offered
beer to the accused who, however, refused saying he was still hungry. In I
the course of their conversation, Lt. Masana told the accused not to
report any matter about smuggling to the PC. The accused informed the
Self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven by clear,
officer that he had not reported any smuggling activity to the authorities.
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence (People vs. Libed 14
Lt. Masana then asked the accused for his identification card as a
SCRA 410, 413; People vs. Mendoza, 13 SCRA 11, 17; People vs.
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit, which the latter did by showing his ID
Solaa, 6 SCRA 60, 65-66; People vs. Davis, 1 SCRA 473; 477; People
card, Exhibit " 1 ", bearing his picture and indicating that he was an officer
vs. Paras, 80 Phil. 149; 152; People vs. Berio 59 Phil. 533; 536; People
of the Anti-Communist League of the Philippines (pp. 62-68, t.s.n., Dec.
vs. Gimena, 59 Phil. 509, 514). Moreover, to prove justification, the
7, 1971).
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not
Thereupon, Lt. Masana told the accused that the latter's ID was fake, and be disbelieved after the accused had admitted the killing (People vs.
after the accused insisted that it was genuine, Lt. Masana tried to take it Llamera, 51 SCRA 48, 57; People vs. Talaboc, 30 SCRA 87; People vs.
away from the accused when the latter was about to put it back in his Navarro, 25 SCRA 491; 496; People vs. Solaa, 6 SCRA 60, 65-66;
pocket. Because of his refusal to give his Id card to Lt. Masana the latter People vs. Espenilla, 62 Phil. 264, 270; People vs. Apolinario, 58 Phil
got mad and, in an angry tone of voice, demanded: "Will you give it to me 586-588; People vs. Ansoyon, 65 Phil. 7 7 2). The rationale for this
or not?" (P. 7 1, Ibid). Still the accused refused to surrender his ID to Lt. jurisprudence is that, having admitted the wounding or killing of the
Masana Thereupon, the latter pulled a gun from his waist and hit the victim, the accused must be held criminally liable for the crime unless he
accused on the head with its handle two (2) time Immediately, blood establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self-
gushed from his head and face. When Lt. Masana was about to hit the defense.
accused for the third time, the latter parried the right hand of the officer,
pulled his "pangsaksak" and stabbed the officer two or three times and
In the case at bar, the accused contends that it was the deceased, Lt.
then pushed him away from him and ran out of the restaurant (pp.
Guillermo Masana who committed unlawful aggression when the latter hit
74,75,79, Ibid).
him on his head with the handle of his gun after he refused to surrender
his (accused's) ID to him.
The accused went in the direction of the municipal building of Indang,
Cavite, where he intended to surrender to the authorities. But on his way,
This claim does not merit belief.
he met Primo Panaligan, the Chief of Police of Indang, Cavite. The Chief
of Police asked him why his head and face were bloody and he answered
that he was hit by Lt. Masana on the head with a gun (pp. 86, 89, The accused claims that after he refused to give his ID to the deceased
t.s.n., Ibid). If here upon, the Chief of Police asked somebody to because the same was his and he also spent money for it, the latter hit
accompany the accused to the municipal building. Arriving there, one him with the handle of his (deceased's) gun. WE cannot perceive how
Victor, a policeman of Indang, Cavite, accompanied him to Dr. Ruben this refusal of the accused could have provoked or enraged the deceased
Ochoa, whose clinic was just across the street where the municipal to the extent of initiating the aggression by drawing his pistol and hitting
building is located (p. 9, t.s.n., Ibid; p. 4, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1971). After he the accused with its butt, knowing that the accused was no longer armed
was given first aid treatment, he was brought back by the Indang after the latter's gun had earlier been taken away from him. Besides, an
policeman to the municipal, building where he was detained for two days agent of authority, like the deceased, ordinarily is not authorized to use
before he was picked up by the Philippine Constabulary operatives and force, except in an extreme case when he is attacked, or subject to active
transferred to the 121th PC Headquarters in Tagaytay City (pp. 90-91, resistance, and finds no other way to comply with his duty or cause
himself to be obeyed by the offender. Furthermore, the records reveal an the right side of his head and and on his right ear lobe WE find that this
unrebutted fact to the effect that the deceased was unarmed when the particular claim of the accused that it was the deceased who first hit him
incident happened, he being then on leave. As a matter of fact, he was twice with the handle of his gun before parrying the third blow and then
then in civilian clothing (pp. 29-30, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972). WE are, stabbing the latter is definitely belied not only by the location of the scar
therefore, inclined to believe that it was the accused who had every but also by the medical finding of Dr. Ochoa aforequoted. Indeed, if the
reason to be resentful of the deceased and to be enraged after the protagonists were facing each other, and it appearing that they were both
deceased refused to heed his plea that his gun be returned him; because right- handed (p. 13, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971), the blow given by one, if not
he might be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms. Accordingly, parried by the other, would perforce land on the left, and not on the right,
We are constrained to draw the inescapable conclusion that it was the side of the body of the recipient of the blow. WE, therefore, reject such
accused, not the deceased, who initiated the aggression which ended in claim for being improbable, the same being contrary to the natural course
the fatal wounding of the deceased resulting in his death. of human behavior.
The accused further claims that he was hit twice by the deceased before The fact of the matter, however, as testified to by state witness PC soldier
he parried the third blow. This claim is belied by the record. During the Virgilio Fidel, is that the victim parried with both hands the thrust of the
trial, the court a quo asked the accused to show the scar produced by the appellant with such force that appellant bumped his head on the edge of
injuries inflicted by the deceased when he refused to give his ID thus the table causing blood to ooze from the resulting injury on his head.
Court When the accused allegedly met the Chief of Police of Indang, Cavite, on
his way to the municipal building from the scene of the stabbing incident
Q Where is that scar? purportedly to surrender to the authorities, he claims that he told the
Chief of Police that Lt. Masana hit him on his head with the handle of his
(Witness showing his right side of the (Masana's) gun. On his return from the clinic of Dr. Ochoa where his
head to the Court)" injuries were treated, he was detained in the municipal building of Indang,
Cavite for two days before he was transferred to the Tagaytay PC
Headquarters. During all this time, he did not give any written statement,
[pp. 86,88, t.s.n., Dec. 7, 1971].
much less inform any PC or other police agency that he stabbed Lt.
Masana in self-defense. It was only on July 8, 1971. after the lapse of
Dr. Ruben Ochoa who treated the injuries of the accused corroborated more than two and one-half (2 1/2) months that he claimed self-defense
the foregoing testimony in his medical findings, Exhibit "3", which reads: during the preliminary investigation of the case before the municipal
judge of Indang, Cavite (pp. 44, t.s.n., Dec. 10, 1971). If the accused had
Injuries: really acted in self-defense, he would surely have so informed the Chief
of Police at the first opportunity. He only allegedly told the Chief of Police,
(1) lacerated wound 1/2 inch, parietal region. who allegedly asked him why his head and face were bloody, that Lt.
Masana hit him with a gun. He did not tell the Police Chief that he was
(2) lacerated wound, 1 1/2 inches, rt ear lobe surrendering for stabbing the deceased in self-defense. This claim of the
accused made before the municipal judge of Indang, Cavite, on July 8,
(3) contusion, right mastoid area [Exh. "3"; p. 116, rec] . 1971 aforesaid constitutes an exculpatory statement made so long after
the crime was committed on April 24, 1971. Such claim does not deserve
The record reveals that the deceased was a right-handed person (pp. 76- credence since the same is obviously an afterthought, which cannot
overthrow the straightforward testimony of prosecution witnesses PC
77, t.s.n., Dec. 7, 1971). It also shows that before the stabbing incident
soldier Virgilio Fidel and Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa both
took place, the deceased and the accused were facing each other. If that
disinterested and unbiased witnesses, whose testimony as peace
was the case, and considering that the deceased was, according to the
officers, in the absence of any showing as to any motive that would impel
accused, holding the gun with his right hand, why was the accused hit on
them to distort the truth, must be afforded full faith and credit as a whole.
The fact that the chief of police detained the accused that same day after ATTY. MUOZ
he was treated by Dr. Ochoa, confirms the testimony of the state
witnesses that the police was present during the incident between the Q You said that Floro Rodil's head was
appellant and the victim and that the police chief embraced appellant and bumped on the edge of a table and you
grabbed the knife from appellant, whom he thereafter brought to the saw blood oozing from his head, is that
municipal building. correct?
II A Yes, sir.
Was the crime committed murder or homicide merely or murder or Q Who bumped the head of Rodil on the
homicide complexed with assault upon an agent of authority? table?
According to the Solicitor General, the crime committed was murder A When Masana parried his stab with his
because "it was established by the prosecution that during the stabbing hands he accidentally bumped his head
incident, appellant suddenly and without giving the victim a chance to on the table.
defend himself, stabbed the latter several times with a dagger, inflicting
upon mortal wounds on the chest and stomach. ...Needless to say, such Q Is it not a fact that Floro Rodil is much
a sudden and unexpected attack with a deadly weapon on an unarmed bigger than Lt. Masana
and unsuspecting victim, which made it impossible for the latter to flee or
defend himself before the fatal blow is delivered, is alevosia or treachery"
A Yes, sir.
(p. 14, Appellee's brief).
Q You mean, by simple parrying, Floro
In support of his contention, the Solicitor General cited the cases of U.S.
Rodil was pushed to the extent that he
vs. Cornejo (28 Phil. 475); People vs. Palomo (43 O.G. No. 10, 4190).
bumped his head on the table?
WE do not agree with the Solicitor General. Alevosia or treachery is
A The force of Lt. Masana might have
belied by the following testimony of Virgilio Fidel, star witness for the
been strong in parrying.
prosecution:
xxx xxx xxx
COURT
Q When the head of Rodil bumped on the
Q What is the truth?
table, was Lt. Masana already stabbed?
A The truth is that when I saw that Floro
A It could be that he was already stabbed
Rodil stabbed Lt. Guillermo
or he was not yet stabbed.
Masana, Masana parried him and his
head (Rodil's head) bumped on the edge
of a table; that is why he sustained an pp 30-31, 33, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972; emphasis supplied].
injury and blood oozed from his head (pp.
8-9, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972; emphasis After a thorough analysis of the aforequoted portions of the testimony of
supplied). Virgilio Fidel, one of the prosecution witnesses, WE can only conclude
that the assailant and the victim were indeed face to face when the
Then, on cross-examination, the same witness testified: stabbing took place. As such the attack was not treacherous because the
victim was able to ward off the same with his hand. As a matter of fact, expressly and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the
the force he used in warding off the attack was so strong that the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge, like a qualifying
accused bumped his head on a table nearby, causing injuries to him circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as a generic
which necessitated medical treatment. In short, the attack on the victim aggravating circumstance. Applying this principle, the attack on the
was made on the spur of the moment. The suddenness of the attack victim, who was known to the appellant as a peace officer, could be
does not by itself suffice to support a finding of treachery (People vs. considered only as aggravating, being "in contempt or with insult to the
Torejas, et al., 43 SCRA 158, 167). Besides, the record failed to show public authorities" (Par. 1, Art. XIV of the Revised Penal Code), or as an
that the accused made any preparation to kill his victim so as to insure "insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of
the commission of the crime, making it at the same time possible or hard his rank, ..." (par. 3, Art. XIV, Revised Penal Code).
for the victim to defend himself or retaliate (People vs. Saez, 1 11 Phil.
546, 553, citing the case of People vs. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738). Neither It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person
does it show that the accused employed means directly and specially attacked was a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
tending to insure the killing without risk to himself. On the contrary, it duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend, injure, or
shows that the accused was easily within striking distance of his three assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in
companions, two of whom were police officers. Furthermore, there was authority (People vs. Villaseor 35 SCRA 460 [19701, People vs. Rellin
an altercation between the accused and the victim about the confiscation 72 Phil. 1038 [1947]; US vs. Alvear et al., 35 Phil. 626 [1916]).
by the latter of the gun belonging to the former, and at the moment when
the victim was about to stand up, the accused drew a knife from his In the case of People vs. Balbar (21 SCRA 1119, Nov. 29, 1967), it was
pocket and with it stabbed the victim in the chest. Clearly, therefore, the held that failure to expressly alleged in the information that the accused
impelling motive for the attack by appellant on his victim was the latter's had knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority does
performance of official duty, which the former resented. This kind of not render the information defective so long as there are facts alleged
evidence does not clearly show the presence of treachery in the therein from which it can be implied that the accused knew that the
commission of the crime. Alevosia is not to be presumed, but must be person attacked was a person in authority. Thus, the information for
proved as conclusively as the act which it qualifies (People vs. Abril, 51 Direct Assault upon a person in authority reads as follows:
Phil. 670, 675). This is so because in the explicit language of the Revised
Penal Code, alevosia or treachery exists when the offender commits any
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses
of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
Tiburcio Balbar of the crime of Assault upon a Person in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
Authority, committed as follows:
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make [Art. 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code].
That on or about the 29th day of August, 1960, in Barrio
Cumba, Municipality of Lian, Province of Batangas,
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that appellant knew because
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
the victim, who was in civilian clothing, told him that he was an agent of a
Court, the abovenamed accused did then and there
person in authority; he cannot be convicted of the complex crime of
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault Miss Ester
homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority, for the
Gonzales, a public school teacher in the school bonding
simple reason that the information does not allege the fact that the
of Lian, duly qualified and appointed as such and while in
accused then knew that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim
the performance of her official duties or on the occasion
was an agent of a person in authority. The information simply alleges that
therefor, by then and there pulling his dagger, embraced
appellant did attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter
and kissed. and repeatedly trying to embrace and kiss the
was in the performance of his official duties, ..." Such an allegation
said teacher, Miss Ester Gonzales. That the crime was
cannot be an adequate substitute for the essential averment to justify a
committed with the aggravating circumstances of having
conviction of the complex crime, which necessarily requires the
committed it inside the school building and during school
imposition of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the graver
classes.
offense. Like a qualifying circumstance, such knowledge must be
Contrary to law. That on or about the 17th day of January, 1974, at Barrio
Languyin, Municipality of Potillo, Province of Quezon,
And the ruling of the Court was: Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, Ernesto Busto, Paulo
Direct assault is committed 'by any person or persons Coralde, Dony Grande and Jose Astjada each of whom
who, without a public uprising, ... shall attack, employ was armed with a piece of wood, except Paulo Coraide
force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in conspiring and confederating together and mutually
authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such and feloniously attack, assault, box and strike with said
performance' (See Art. 148, Revised Penal Code). pieces of wood one Rufino Camonias a councilman of
barrio Languyin of said municipality, duly elected and
qualified as such while said councilman was engaged in
By express provision of law (Com. Act No. 578, now part
the actual performance of his duties.
of Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1978), "teachers, professors, and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly The trial court dismissed the same on the ground that:
recognized private schools, colleges and universities shall
be deemed persons in authority, in applying the Of importance in this case is the lack of allegation in the
provisions of article 148." This special classification is complaint or in the information that the offended party
obviously intended to give teachers protection, dignity, was an agent of a person in authority and that such fact
and respect while in the performance of their official was known to the accused. The absence of such
duties. The lower court, however, dismissed the allegation is fatal in this case."
information on the ground that there is no express
allegation in the information that the accused had The People appealed to this Court through a petition for review on
knowledge that the person attacked was a person in certiorari.
authority. This is clearly erroneous.
This Court held that the fiscal's proper course of action is not a petition
Complainant was a teacher. The information sufficiently for review on certiorari but the refiling of a valid information against the
alleges that the accused knew that fact, since she was in accused, for the following considerations:
her classroom and engaged in the performance of her
duties. He therefore knew that she was a person in The Solicitor General in his comment of November 4,
authority, as she was so by specific provision of law. It 1975 duly observed that '(I)t is patent that the acquittal of
matters not that such knowledge on his part is not the accused herein is not on the merits. There is want of
expressly alleged, complainant's status as a person in factual finding upon which their conviction or acquittal
authority being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance could have been based.'
thereof could not excuse non- compliance on his part
(Article 3, Civil Code). This article applies to all kinds of It need only be observed that contrary to the fiscal's
domestic laws, whether civil or penal (De Luna vs. contention, the information was deficient in that it did not
Linatoc, 74 Phil 15) and whether substantive or remedial allege an essential element of the crime of direct assault
(Zulueta vs. Zulueta, 1 Phil. 254) for reasons of that the accused had knowledge of or knew the position
expediency, policy and necessity. of authority held by the person attacked, viz. that of a
barrio councilman (and hence the agent of a person in
But, in the case of People vs. CFI of Quezon, Branch V (68 SCRA 305, authority under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code as
Nov. 28, 1975), the information for Direct Assault reads: amended by Republic Act No. 1978) [See U.S. vs. Alvear
35 Phil. 626; People vs. Rellin 77 Phil. 1038; Vol. 11, The ruling in the aforementioned case of People vs. CFI of Quezon,
Padilla's Revised Penal Code, 10th Ed., p. 225]. etc., supra, applies to the instant case; because the information in the
former is strikingly similar to the information in the latter and does not
What was held in People vs. Balbar 21 SCRA, 119,1123, allege facts from which inference can be deduced that the accused knew
cited by the fiscal is that it is sufficient that the information that the person assaulted is a person, or an agent of a person, in
alleged that the accused knew the position of authority, authority.
held by the offended party, in that case a public school
teacher, then engaged in the performance of her official The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated
duties, and that it is not necessary to allege further that because it is obvious that the victim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as
the accused also knew that such position was that of a a PC officer to the accused who is merely a member of the Anti-
person in authority, since 'this is a matter of law' thus: Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the
victim.
Complainant was a teacher. The
information sufficiently alleges that the The term "rank" should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such,
accused knew that fact, since she was in refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces
her classroom and engaged in the (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
performance of her duties. He therefore Unabridged, p. 1881); or to a graded official standing or social position or
knew that she was a person in authority, station (75 CJS 458); or to the order or place in which said officers are
as she was so by specific provision of law. placed in the army and navy in relation to others (Encyclopedic Law
It matters not that such knowledge on `his Dictionary, Third Edition, Walter A. Shumaker and George Foster
part is not expressly alleged, Longsdorf, p. 90); or to the designation or title of distinction conferred
complainant's status as a person in upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to other
authority being a matter of law and not of officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command
fact, ignorance whereof could not excuse or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army
non-compliance on his part (Article 3, Civil staff officers (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 2804); or to a
Code). This article applies to all kinds of grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any
domestic laws, whether civil or penal (De scale of comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of
Luna vs. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 15) and whether comparison within a position (Vol. 36, Words and Phrases, Permanent
substantive or remedial (Zulueta vs. Edition, p. 100).
Zulueta, 1 Phil, 254) for reasons of
expediency, policy and necessity. Thus, rank aggravated the killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal
(People vs. Mil 92 SCRA 89, 105-106, July 30, 1979), the killing of the
Since the 'decision' of acquittal was really a mere Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the Civil Service Commission
dismissal of the information for failure to charge an by a clerk therein (People vs. Benito, 62 SCRA 351, 357-358, Feb. 13,
offense and was not a decision on the merits with factual 1975), the murder by a pupil of his teacher (U.S. vs. Cabling, 7 Phil. 469.
findings as per the trial judge's own disavowal it is patent 474; People vs. Aragon & Lopez, 107 Phil. 706, 709), the murder of a
that the fiscal's proper course is not the present petition municipal mayor (People vs. Lopez de Leon, et al., 69 Phil. 298), the
but the refiling of a valid information against respondents- murder -of a city chief of police by the chief of the secret service division
accused, as herein indicated. (People vs. Hollero 88 Phil. 167), assault upon a 66-year old District
Judge of the Court of First Instance by a justice of the peace (People vs.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed without Torrecarreori CA 52 OG 7644), the killing of a Spanish consul by his
prejudice to the refiling of a valid information against subordinate a mere chancellor (People vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597,
respondents-accused as hereinabove indicated 606607), and the killing of an army general (People vs. Torres, et al., L-
(emphasis supplied). 4642, May 29, 1953).
As explained by Mr. Justice Mariano Albert, then of the Court of Appeals, The aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to, public authority
those "generally considered of high station in life, on account of their rank under paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise
(as well as age or sex), deserve to be respected. Therefore, whenever be appreciated in the case at bar.
there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the
offended party, this aggravating circumstance sometimes is present" The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that Chief of Police
(Albert M.A. The Revised Penal Code Annotated, 1946 Ed., p. 109). Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his lunch in the
same restaurant when the incident occurred.
The difference in official or social status between a P.C. lieutenant and a
mere member of an anti-smuggling unit, is patent. As a matter of fact, the said chief of police was the one who embraced or
grabbed the accused from behind, wrested the dagger from him and
If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder thereafter brought him to the municipal building of Indang. And appellant
with assault against an agent of a person in authority, and not merely admittedly knew him even then as the town chief of police, although he
murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank or now claims that he went to the municipal building to surrender to the chief
contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as of police who was not allegedly in the restaurant during the incident.
aggravating because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of
assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. While it is true that in the cases of U.S. vs. Rodriguez, et al. (19 Phil. 150,
But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only. 157-158), People vs. Siojo (61 Phil. 307, 317), and People vs. Verzo (21
Consequently, either aggravating circumstance should be considered in SCRA 1403), this Court ruled that the term public authority refers to a
the imposition of the penalty. person in authority and that a PC lieutenant or town chief of police is not
a public authority but merely an agent of a person in authority; there is
Thus, in the following cases where the charge was merely murder or need of re-examining such a ruling since it is not justified by the
frustrated murder, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was employment of the term public authority in aforesaid paragraph 2 of
appreciated: Article 14 instead of the term person in authority which is specifically
used in Articles 148 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no
(1) People vs. Benito, supra the appellant, a clerk in the Civil Service extended reasoning of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3)
Commission, was charged with and convicted of the murder of the cases why the phrase public authority should comprehend only persons
assistant chief of the personnel transaction of the said Commission; in authority. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term "persons in
authority" in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the same
(2) People vs. Torres, et al., supra the appellants were charged with way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 1452. The
and convicted of murder for the death of Army Col. Valentin Salgado and lawmaker must have intended a different meaning for the term public
attempted murder for the injuries inflicted on Army Gen. Mariano authority, which may however include, but not limited to persons in
Castaneda; authority.
(3) People vs. Valeriano, et al. appellants were accused and convicted Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor, barrio captain, barrio
of robbery with homicide for the killing of District Judge Bautista of the lieutenant or barangay captain is a person in authority or a public
Court of First Instance of Pampanga [90 Phil. 15, 34-35]; and authority. Even a public school teacher is now considered a person in
authority under CA 578 amending Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code
(Sarcepudes vs. People, 90 Phil 228). So is the town municipal health
(4) People vs. Hollero supra where the accused chief of the Secret
officer (People vs. Quebral et al., 73 Phil 640), as well as a nurse, a
Division of the Bacolod City Police Department was convicted of murder
municipal councilor or an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
for the killing of the chief of police.
(People vs. Yosoya, CA-GR No. 8522-R, May 26, 1955; People vs.
Reyes, et al O.G.S. 11 p. 24).
The chief of police should therefore be considered a public authority or a I concur with the judgment's imposition of the maximum penalty for
person in authority; for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to homicide, although I join Mme. Justice Herrera's partial dissent insofar as
maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and she holds that the aggravating circumstance of contempt of or insult to
to apprehend violators of the laws and municipal ordinances, more than the public authorities may not be appreciated. However, disregard of rank
the aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute and who are not even was properly appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance, and
enjoined to arrest malefactors although specifically mentioned as persons hence the maximum penalty for homicide is properly imposed in the
in authority by the decided cases and by Article 152 of the Revised Penal absence of any mitigating circumstance.
Code as amended by R.A. 1978 of June 22, 1957. The town chief of
police heads and supervises the entire police force in the municipality as Barredo, J., concur.
well as exercises his authority over the entire territory of the municipality,
which is patently greater than and includes the school premises or the MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
town clinic or barrio, to which small area the authority or jurisdiction of the
teacher, nurse, or barrio lieutenant, respectively, is limited.
I believe that neither the aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or
insult to the public authorities under Article 14, par. 2 of the Revised
With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the Penal Code, nor that of insult or disregard of the respect due to the
appellant should therefore be condemned to suffer the maximum period offended party on account of his rank under Article 14, par. 3 of the same
of reclusion temporal the penalty prescribed for homicide. Code, is applicable to the present case.
WHEREFORE, HAVING BEEN FOUND GUILTY BEYOND 1. For the circumstance of contempt of, or with insult to, public authorities
REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE AGGRAVATED BY CONTEMPT to be considered aggravating, it is essential (a) that the crime is
FOR OR INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR DISREGARD OF THE committed in the presence of a public authority, not a mere agent of the
RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS authorities (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307 [19351; People vs. Verzo, et al
RANK, APPELLANT FLORO RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO 21 SCRA 1403 [1967]; and (b) that the public authority is engaged in the
SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT RANGING exercise of his functions and is not the person against whom the crime is
FROM 12 YEARS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM. committed (People vs. Siojo, citing U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150 [191];
Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated January 24, 1881, 1 Viada
THUS MODIFIED, THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS HEREBY 310), nor the one injured by the commission of the offense (People vs.
AFFIRMED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568 [1947]).
Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur. In this case, Lt. Guillermo Masana of the Philippine Constabulary is not a
public authority nor a person in authority as these terms are defined by
Fernando, C.J., concur in the result. Article 152, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code for he is not directly vested
with jurisdiction, that is, power or authority to govern and execute the
laws or to hear and decide a cause; he is a mere agent of a person in
authority as defined by Article 152, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, he
being a member of the Philippine Constabulary which is a government
military agency in charge of the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of fife and property. In fact, the Decision itself
Separate Opinions
calls him an agent of a person in authority (p. 13).
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty in both cases. The two (2) criminal Immediately after promulgation of the decision, appellant signified his
cases were consolidated upon motion of the prosecution and tried jointly. intention to appeal to this Court, although the same was subject to
On 31 July 1986, the trial court rendered a decision 3 convicting appellant automatic review by this Court.
under both informations. The dispositive portion of the decision read as
follows:
In his brief, appellant assigned the following as errors allegedly
committed by the trial court:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered,
decision is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No. 4007
I. The lower court erred in believing the prosecution's
finding the accused Renato Tac-an y Hipos GUILTY
version of the case instead of according full faith and
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of
credence to the defendant's version.
Firearms and Ammunitions qualified with Murder under
Section 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Presidential Decree No.
1866 and hereby sentences said Renato Tac-an y Hipos II. The trial court erred in not holding that Renato Tac-an
to suffer the penalty of DEATH. Further, decision is also was justified in shooting the deceased.
rendered in Criminal Case No. 4012 finding the same
III. The trial court erred in not holding that in (sic) the least classroom, deprecating the Bronx gang and describing Renato as
the defendant acted in incomplete self-defense in "bayot" (homosexual) 5 Renato attributed the graffiti to Francis.
shooting the deceased.
At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 14 December 1984, Renato
IV. The trial court erred in not holding that P.D. 1866 is entered Room 15 of the high school building to attend his English III
inapplicable to the defendant inasmuch as said decree class. Renato placed his scrapbook prepared for their Mathematics class
was enforceable only during the existence of the Martial on his chair, and approached the teacher, Mrs. Liliosa Baluma, to raise a
Law Regime. question. Upon returning to his chair, he found Francis sitting there, on
the scrapbook. Renato was angered by what he saw and promptly kicked
V. The trial court erred in not holding that the defendant the chair on which Francis was seated. Francis, however, explained that
was placed twice in jeopardy for having been prosecuted he had not intentionally sat down on Renato's scrapbook. A fistfight
for violation of P.D. 1866 despite his being prosecuted for would have ensued but some classmates and two (2) teachers, Mrs.
murder in an information which alleges that the accused Baluma and Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, intervened and prevented them from
used an unlicensed firearm in killing the deceased. assaulting each other. After the two (2) had quieted down and apparently
shaken hands at the instance of Mrs. Baluma, the latter resumed her
VI. The trial court erred in not adjudging the defendant English III class. Francis sat on the last row to the extreme right of the
innocent of murder. teacher while Renato was seated on the same last row at the extreme left
of the teacher. While the English III class was still going on, Renato
slipped out of the classroom and went home to get a gun. He was back at
From the record, the facts may be collated and summarized as follows:
the classroom approximately fifteen (15) minutes later. 6
Appellant Renato Tac-an, then eighteen (18) years and seven (7) months
The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas scheduled for 3:00
of age, and the deceased Francis Ernest Escano III, fifteen (15) years
p.m. had just started in Room 15 when Renato suddenly burst into the
old, were classmates in the third year of high school of the Divine Word
room, shut the door and with both hands raised, holding a revolver,
College in Tagbilaran City. They were close friends, being not only
shouted "Where is Francis?" Upon sighting Francis seated behind and to
classmates but also members of the same gang, the Bronx gang. Renato
the light of student Ruel Ungab, Renato fired at Francis, hitting a
had been to the house where Francis and his parents lived, on one or
notebook, a geometry book and the armrest of Ruel's chair. Francis and
two occasions. On those occasions, Francis' mother noticed that Renato
Ruel jumped up and with several of their classmates rushed forward
had a handgun with him. Francis was then advised by his mother to
towards the teacher's platform to seek protection from their teacher.
distance himself from Renato. 4
Renato fired a second time, this time hitting the blackboard in front of the
class. Francis and the other students rushed back towards the rear of the
Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang. The relationship between Renato room. Renato walked towards the center of the classroom and fired a
and Francis turned sour. Sometime in September 1984, Renato and third time at Francis, hitting the concrete wall of the classroom. Francis
Francis quarrelled with each other, on which occasion Francis bodily and a number of his classmates rushed towards the door, the only door
lifted Arnold Romelde from the ground. Arnold was friend and companion to and from Room 15. Renato proceeded to the teacher, s platform
to Renato. The quarrel resulted in Renato and Francis being brought to nearest the door and for the fourth time fired at Francis as the latter was
the high school principal's office. The strained relationship between the rushing towards the door. This time, Francis was hit on the head and he
two (2) erstwhile friends was aggravated in late November 1984 when fell on the back of Ruel and both fell to the floor. Ruel was pulled out of
Francis teamed that Renato, together with other members of the Bronx the room by a friend; Francis remained sprawled on the floor bleeding
gang, was looking for him, apparently with the intention of beating him profusely. 7
up. Further deterioration of their relationship occurred sometime in the
first week of December 1984, when graffiti appeared on the wall of the
Renato then went out of Room 15, and paced between Rooms 14 and
third year high school classroom and on the armrest of a chair in that
15. A teacher, Mr. Pablo Baluma, apparently unaware that it was Renato
who had gunned down Francis, approached Renato and asked him to
help Francis as the latter was still alive inside the room. Renato appellant. The trial court took into account, inter alia, the positive and
thereupon re-entered Room 15, closed the door behind him, saying: "So, direct testimony of:
he is still alive. Where is his chest?" Standing over Francis sprawled face
down on the classroom floor, Renato aimed at the chest of Francis and 1. Mrs. Liliosa Baluma who testified as to, among other
fired once more. The bullet entered Francis' back below the right things, the events which took place inside her English III
shoulder, and exited on his front chest just above the right nipple. 8 classroom immediately before the shooting;
Renato then left with two (2) remaining students and locked Francis 2. Ruel Ungab a fifteen (15) year old classmate of
alone inside Room 15. Renato proceeded to the ground floor and entered Renato and Francis, who had fallen on the floor with
the faculty room. There, he found some teachers and students and Francis when the latter was finally hit by Renato;
ordered them to lock the door and close the windows, in effect holding
them as hostages. He also reloaded his gun with five (5) bullets. After 3. Damaso Pasilbas the Mathematics teacher who was
some time, a team of Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. holding his class when Renato had burst into Room 15
Larino Lazo arrived and surrounded the faculty room. With a hand-held and started firing at Francis; and
public address device, Capt. Lazo called upon Renato to surrender
himself Renato did not respond to this call. Renato's brother approached
4. Napoleon Jumauan another sixteen (16) year old,
Capt. Lazo and volunteered to persuade his brother to give up. Renato's
classmate of Renato and Francis who was inside the
father who, by this time had also arrived, pleaded with Renato to
classroom when Renato had started firing at Francis and
surrender himself Renato then turned over his gun to his brother through
who was only about a foot away from the head of Francis
an opening in the balustrade of the faculty room. Capt. Lazo took the gun
when Renato, having re-entered Room 15, had fired at
from Renato's brother, went to the door of the faculty room, entered and
Francis as the latter was sprawled on the floor of the
placed Renato under arrest. 9
classroom.
Meantime, as soon as Renato left Room 15, some teachers and students
After careful examination of the record, we find no reason to disagree
came to rescue Francis but could not open the door which Renato had
with the conclusion of the trial court that Renato had indeed shot and
locked behind him. One of the students entered the room by climbing up
killed Francis under the circumstances and in the manner described by
the second floor on the outside and through the window and opened the
these witnesses.
door from the inside. The teachers and students brought Francis down to
the ground floor from whence the PC soldiers rushed him to the Celestino
Gallares Memorial Hospital. 10 Francis died before reaching the hospital. 1. The claim of self-defense.
Capt. Lazo brought Renato to the PC Headquarters at Camp Dagohoy, Renato claimed that he was acting in self-defense, or at least in
Tagbilaran City. The officer deposited the revolver recovered from incomplete self-defense, when he shot Francis. For a claim of self-
Renato which was an Airweight Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver, defense to be sustained, the claimant must show by clear and convincing
with Serial No. 359323, as well as the five (5) live bullets removed from evidence that the following requisites existed:
the said revolver, and the five (5) empty cartridges which Renato had
turned over to him. Ballistic examination conducted by Supervising a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
Ballistician, Artemio Panganiban, National Bureau of Investigation, Cebu,
showed that the empty cartridge cases had been fired from the revolver b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the
recovered from Renato. 11 accused to repel the aggression; and
Appellant at the outset assails the trial court for having believed the c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
prosecution's version of the facts instead of the version offered by the accused. 12
Testifying in his own behalf, Renato said that a few minutes before the We note at the outset that there was no evidence before the Court,
end of Mrs. Baluma's English III class, Francis had approached him: except Renato's own testimony, that Francis had uttered the above
statements attributed to him by Renato. Although there had been about
(Atty. Seno, Defense Counsel) twenty-five (25) other students, and the teacher, in the classroom at the
time, no corroborating testimony was offered by the defense. In the
Q: How did it happened (sic) that you had second place, assuming (arguendo merely) that Francis had indeed
a conversation with Francis? made those statements, such utterances cannot be regarded as the
unlawful aggression which is the first and most fundamental requirement
of self-defense. Allegedly uttered in a high school classroom by an
(Renato)
obviously unarmed Francis, such statements could not reasonably inspire
the "well grounded and reasonable belief" claimed by Renato that "he
A: While the class was going on, Mrs. was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm." 14 Unlawful aggression
Baluma was writing on the blackboard. refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the
very least is clearly imminent: it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely
Q: Then what happened? threatening stance or posture. 15Further as pointed out by the Solicitor
General, Francis was obviously without a firearm or other weapon when
A: While our teacher was writing on the Renato returned and burst into Room 15 demanding to know where
blackboard Francis suddenly got near me. Francis was and forthwith firing at him repeatedly, without the slightest
regard for the safety of his other classmates and of the teacher. There
Q: And what happened when Francis being no unlawful aggression, there simply could not be self-defense
approached you? whether complete or incomplete, 16 and there is accordingly no need to
refer to the other requirements of lawful self-defense.
A: He said, 'So you are brave now you
had a (sic) guts to fight against me.' 2. The claim that P.D. No. 1866 is inapplicable.
Q: And what else did he say? As pointed out at the outset, appellant was charged with unlawful
possession of an unlicensed firearm, a Smith and Wesson Airweight.38
A: He said, 'Go home, get your firearm caliber revolver with five (5) spent bullets and five (5) live ones and with
because I will go home to get a gun.' having used such firearm and ammunition to shoot to death Francis
Ernest Escano III, in violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866.
Q: Was that all that he told you?
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 provides, in relevant part, that:
A: He further said, 'You go home get your
firearm, if you won't go home and get a Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
gun, I will go to your place and kill you Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or
including your parents, brothers and Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the
sisters.' Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. The penalty
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
Q: And after that where did Francis go? perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose,
or possess any firearms, part of firearm, ammunition, or
A: Before the bell rang he went ahead. 13 machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used
in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition.
(Emphasis supplied)
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm penalized under a special
unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be statute, while the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 4012 was that of
imposed. (Emphasis supplied) murder punished under the Revised Penal Code. It would appear self-
evident that these two (2) offenses in themselves are quite different one
Appellant urges that P.D. No. 1866 is inapplicable to him "considering from the other, such that in principle, the subsequent filing of Criminal
that the reason for its [P.D. No. 1866] issuance no longer exists." He Case No. 4012 is not to be regarded as having placed appellant in a
argues that P.D. No. 1866 was enforceable only during the existence of prohibited second jeopardy.
martial law, and that when martial law was "lifted in 1979," the reason for
the "existence" of P.D. No. 1866 faded away, with the result that the We note that the information in Criminal Case No. 4007 after charging
"original law on firearms, that is, Section 2692 of the [Revised] appellant with unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm and
Administrative Code, together with its pre-martial law amendments, came ammunition, went on to state that said firearm and ammunition had been
into effect again thereby replacing P.D. No. 1866." 17 used to shoot to death Francis Ernest Escao III. We note also that the
amended information in Criminal Case No. 4012 after charging appellant
There is nothing in P.D. No. 1866 (which was promulgated on 29 June with the unlawful killing of Francis Ernest Escao III, stated that the killing
1983) which suggests that it was intended to remain in effect only for the had been done with the use of an unlicensed firearm. We believe these
duration of the martial law imposed upon the country by former President additional allegations in the two (2) informations did not have the effect of
Marcos. Neither does the statute contain any provision that so prescribes charging appellant with having committed the same offense more than
its lapsing into non-enforceability upon the termination of the state or once.
period of martial law. On the contrary, P.D. No. 1866 by its own terms
purported to "consolidate, codify and integrate" all prior laws and decrees However, in sentencing Renato to suffer the penalty of death for the
penalizing illegal possession and manufacture of firearms, ammunition crime of murder, the trial court did take into account as a "special
and explosives in order "to harmonize their provisions as well as to aggravating circumstance" the fact that the killing of Francis had been
update and revise certain provisions and prior statutes "in order to more done "with the use of an unlicensed firearm." In so doing, we believe and
effectively deter violators of the law on firearms, ammunitions and so hold, the trial court committed error. There is no law which renders the
explosives." 18 Appellant's contention is thus without basis in fact. use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in homicide
or murder. Under an information charging homicide or murder, the fact
3. The claim of double jeopardy. that the death weapon was an unlicensed firearm cannot be used to
increase the penalty for the second offense of homicide or murder to
It is also contended by appellant that because he had already been death (or reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution). The essential
charged with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition in Criminal point is that the unlicensed character or condition of the instrument used
Case No. 4007, aggravated by the use of such unlicensed firearm to in destroying human life or committing some other crime, is not included
commit a homicide or murder, he was unconstitutionally placed in in the inventory of aggravating circumstances set out in Article 14 of the
jeopardy of punishment for the second time when he was charged in Revised Penal Code. 19
Criminal Case No. 4012 with murder "with the use of an unlicensed
[firearm]," in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation In contrast, under an information for unlawful possession (or
to Section 17 of B.P. Blg. 179. manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition) of a firearm or
ammunition, P.D. No. 1866 authorizes the increase of the imposable
It is elementary that the constitutional right against double jeopardy penalty for unlawful possession or manufacture, etc. of the unlicensed
protects one against a second or later prosecution for the same firearm where such firearm was used to destroy human life. Although the
offense, and that when the subsequent information charges another and circumstance that human life was destroyed with the use of the
different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts, there unlicensed firearm is not an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of
is no prohibited double jeopardy. In the case at bar, it appears to us quite the Revised Penal Code, it may still be taken into account to increase the
clear that the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 4007 is that of penalty to death (reclusion perpetua, under the 1987 Constitution)
because of the explicit provisions of P.D. No. 1866. As noted earlier, the
unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition is an offense 6. The deceased was not armed. He was totally
punished under a special law and not under the Revised Penal Code. defenseless. He was absolutely not aware of any coming
attack. 21
4. The claim that there was no treachery.
The Court also pointed out that Renato must have known that Francis
Appellant contends that there was no treachery present because before while inside Room 15 had no means of escape there being only one (1)
any shot was fired, Renato had shouted "where is Francis?" Appellant in door and Room 15 being on the second floor of the building. Renato in
effect suggests his opening statement was a warning to Francis and that effect blocked the only exit open to Francis as he stood on the teacher's
the first three (3) shots he had fired at Francis were merely warning platform closest to the door and fired as Francis and Ruel sought to dash
shots. Moreover, building upon his own testimony about the alleged through the door. Renato's question "where is Francis?" cannot
threat that Francis had uttered before he (Renato) left his English III class reasonably be regarded as an effort to warn Francis for he shot at
to go home and get a gun, appellant argues that Francis must have Francis the instant he sighted the latter, seated and talking to Ruel
anticipated his return and thus had sufficient time to prepare for the Ungab. That Renato fired three (3) shots before hitting Francis with the
coming of the appellant. 20 Appellant's contention, while ingenious, must fourth shot, can only be ascribed to the indifferent markmanship of
be rejected. The trial court made a finding of treachery taking explicit Renato and to the fact that Francis and the other students were scurrying
account of the following factors: from one part of the room to the other in an effort to evade the shots fired
by Renato. The cumulative effect of the circumstances underscored by
1. Room 15 of the Divine Word College High School the trial court was that the attack upon Francis had been carried out in a
Department Tagbilaran City, is situated in the second manner which disabled Francis from defending himself or retaliating
floor of the building. It is a corner room and it has only against Renato. Finally, the circumstance that Renato, having been
one (1) door which is the only means of entry and exit; informed that Francis was still alive, re-entered Room 15 and fired again
at Francis who lay on the floor and bathed with his own blood, manifested
Renato's conscious choice of means of execution which directly and
2. At the time of the attack, the deceased was seated on
especially ensured the death of his victim without risk to himself. 22 We
his chair inside his classroom and was writing on the
are compelled to agree with the trial court that treachery was here
armrest of his chair and also talking to Ruel Ungab and
present and that, therefore, the killing of Francis Ernest Escao III was
while their teacher, Mr. Damaso Pasilbas was checking
murder.
the attendance. The deceased was not aware of any
impending assault neither did he have any means to
defend himself; 5. The claim that there was no evident premeditation.
3. The accused used an airweight Smith & Wesson .38 The trial court also found the presence of evident premeditation and
caliber revolver in shooting to death the defenseless and appreciated the same as a generic aggravating circumstance. Here, it is
helpless Francis Ernest Escao; the urging of the appellant that the requisites of evident premeditation
had not been sufficiently shown. In order that evident premeditation may
be taken into account, there must be proof of (a) the time when the
4. The attack was so sudden and so unexpected. the
offender formed his intent to commit the crime; (b) an action manifestly
accused consciously conceived that mode of attack;
indicating that the offender had clung to his determination to commit the
crime; and (c) of the passage of a sufficient interval of time between the
5. The accused fired at Francis again and again and did determination of the offender to commit the crime and the actual
not give him a chance to defend himself. After the execution thereof, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
deceased was hit on the head and fell to the floor while act. 23 The defense pointed out that barely fifteen (15) minutes had
he was already sprawled and completely defenseless the elapsed from the time Renato left his English III class and the time he
accused fired at him again and the deceased was hit on returned with a gun. While there was testimony to the fact that before that
the chest; fatal day of 14 December 1984, anger and resentment had welled up
between Francis and Renato, there was no evidence adequately showing In the absence of medical evidence, the Court took into account certain
when Renato had formed the intention and determination to take the life detailed factors as circumstantial evidence supporting the testimony of
of Francis. Accordingly, we must discard evident premeditation as an Orlando Balaba. These circumstances were:
aggravating circumstance.
The circumstance of place where the killing was
6. The claim that the killing was not done under the committed, the circumstance of the manner of the attack,
influence of a dangerous drug. the circumstance of holding hostage some teachers and
students inside the faculty room, the circumstance of
Section 17 of B.P. Blg. 179 which was promulgated on 2 March 1982 terrifying an entire school, the circumstance that sitting on
provides as follows: a scrapbook is too insignificant as to arouse passion
strong enough to motivate a killing, are circumstantial
SEC. 17. The provisions of any law to the contrary evidences that gave the court no room for doubt that
notwithstanding, when a crime is committed by an prosecution witnesses Orlando Balaba, Benjamin Amper
offender who is under the influence of dangerous drugs, and Allan de la Serna truthfully told the court that they
such state shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating saw the accused smoking marijuana inside the comfort
circumstance in the definition of a crime and the room at 1:45 in the afternoon of December 14, 1984. ... . 26
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code. The above circumstances pointed to by the trial court may be indicative
of passionate anger on the part of Renato; we do not believe that they
The trial court found that Francis was killed by Renato while the later was necessarily show that Renato had smoked marijuana before entering his
under the influence of a dangerous drug, specifically marijuana, and took English III class. In the absence of competent medical or other direct
that into account as a "special aggravating circumstance". No medical evidence of ingestion of a dangerous drug, courts may be wary and
evidence had been submitted by the prosecution to show that Renato critical of indirect evidence, considering the severe consequences for the
had smoked marijuana before gunning down Francis. Fourteen (14) days accused of a finding that he had acted while under the influence of a
had elapsed after December 14, 1984 before Renato was medically prohibited drug. The Court considers that the evidence presented on this
examined for possible traces of marijuana; the results of the examination point was simply inadequate to support the ruling of the trial court that
were negative. Defense witness Dr. Rogelio Ascona testified that in order Renato had shot and killed Francis while under the influence of a
to have a medically valid basis for determining the presence of marijuana prohibited drug.
in the human system, the patient must be examined within twenty-four
(24) hours from the time he is supposed to have smoked 7. The claim that appellant had voluntarily surrendered.
marijuana. 24 The prosecution had presented Orlando Balaba, a student at
the Divine Word College, High School Department, who testified that he Appellant contends that he had voluntarily surrendered and that the trial
found Renato and one Jaime Racho inside the men's room of the High court should have considered that mitigating circumstance in his favor.
School Department sucking smoke from a hand-rolled thing that look like The trial court did not, and we consider that it correctly refused to do so.
a cigarette, that he had asked Renato what that was and that Renato had Firstly, Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, 27 by handing over the
replied damo (marijuana). 25 While the testimony of Orlando Balaba was weapon through the balustrade of the faculty room. Secondly, he
corroborated by two (2) other prosecution witnesses, we believe that surrendered the gun to his brother, who was not in any case a person in
Orlando Balaba's testimony was incompetent to show that what Renato authority nor an agent of a person in authority. 28 Thirdly, Renato did not
and Jaime Racho were smoking inside the men's room was indeed surrender himself he was arrested by Capt. Lazo. The fact that he did not
marijuana. It was pointed out by apellant that Orlando Balaba had never resist arrest, did not constitute voluntary surrender. 29 Finally, if it be
smoked nor smelled marijuana. assumed that Renato had surrendered himself, such surrender cannot be
regarded as voluntary and spontaneous. Renato was holed up in the
faculty room, in effect holding some teachers and students as hostages.
The faculty room was surrounded by Philippine Constabulary soldiers
and there was no escape open to him. He was not entitled to the who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. deemed an agent of a person in authority.
8. Whether or not the crime was committed in contempt of In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this
or with insult to the public authorities. Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private
The trial court held that the shooting to death of Francis had been done schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the
"in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities: actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
Under Republic Act 1978, as amended, a teacher of a in authority. (As amended by P.D. No. 299, September
public or private school is considered a person in 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).
authority. The fact that Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, the teacher
in mathematics, was already checking the attendance did Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a
not deter the accused from pursuing his evil act, The teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed
accused ignored his teacher's presence and pleas. Not to be a "person in authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only
yet satisfied with the crime and terror he had done to for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person
Francis and the entire school, the accused entered the in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in
faculty room and held hostage the teachers and students authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised Penal Code. In
who were inside that room. To the court, this act of the marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not identify
accused was an insult to his teachers and to the school, specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for the application of which
an act of callus disregard of other's feelings and safety any person "directly vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in
and completely reprehensible. 30 authority." Because a penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and
broader scope than is called for by the ordinary meaning of the ordinary
We believe the trial court erred in so finding the presence of a generic words used by such statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do
aggravating circumstance. Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as not believe that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private
amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 299, school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the meaning of
provides as follows: paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, 31 the provision the
trial court applied in the case at bar.
Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in
authority. Who shall be deemed as such. In ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court dated 31 July 1986 is
applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles hereby MODIFIED in the following manner and to the following extent
of this Code, any person directly vested with only:
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or government corporation, board, or 1. In Criminal Case No. 4007, appellant shall suffer the
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A penalty of reclusion perpetua;
barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be
deemed a person in authority. 2. In Criminal Case No. 4012 (a) the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and of having
A person who by direct provision of law or by election or acted with contempt of or insult to the public authorities
by appointment by competent authority, is charged with shall be DELETED and not taken into account; and (b)
the maintenance of public order and the protection and the special aggravating circumstances of acting while
security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, under the influence of dangerous drugs and with the use
barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person of an unlicensed firearm shall similarly be DELETED and
not taken into account. There being no generic
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances present, the
appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
As an aftermath of the aforesaid shooting incident, three Criminal Cases IN FINDING THAT NATIVIDAD GRULLA WITNESSED
were filed before the then Court of First Instance of Sorsogon-Branch III, THE SHOOTING OF SALVACION GRULLA AND
against appellant PACITO STO. TOMAS. One for PARRICIDE under CONSOLACION VDA. DE GRULLA;
Criminal Case No. 22, for the death of Salvacion Grulla; another one for
MURDER under Criminal Case No. 23, for the death of appellant's III
mother-in-law Consolacion Belmonte Vda. de Grulla; and the third one for
FRUSTRATED MURDER under Criminal Case No. 29, for the near fatal IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY ACCOMPANIED THE
shooting of Natividad Grulla, appellant's sister-in-law. SHOOTING OF NATIVIDAD GRULLA;
That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock 3. That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and
in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini, Province of Bohol, their companions, who were fully armed, being numerically
Philippines, the above-named accused and five (5) other persons superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and
whose true names are not yet known (they are presently known defenseless.
only with their aliases of Bernabe Miano, Rudy, Angel-Angi,
Romeo and Tony) and who are still at large (they will be charged When the case was called for trial on August 9, 1961, Atty. Tirol informed
in separate information or informations as soon as they are the court a quo that he was appearing also for Apduhan, but only as
arrested and preliminary proceedings in Crim. Case No. 176 counsel de oficio. In view of this manifestation, the trial court appointed
completed before the Justice of the Peace Court), all of them
Atty. Tirol as counsel de oficio for the said accused. Forthwith, Atty. Tirol A. I have proposed to enter the plea of guilty even before.
manifested that Apduhan would change his former plea of not guilty to a
plea of guilty. The record discloses that after the trial, judge had Q. Now the Court warns you again. Are you conscious of the fact
repeatedly apprised Apduhan of the severity of the offense for which he that notwithstanding your plea of guilty the Court may impose
was indicted and the strong possibility that the capital penalty might be upon you the penalty of death?
imposed upon him despite a plea of guilty, Apduhan persisted in his
intention to plead guilty with the request, however, that the death penalty A. I will just enter the plea of guilty, at the discretion of the Court.
be not imposed. Then after hearing the arguments of Provincial Fiscal
Jesus N. Borromeo and Atty. Tirol on the effect of articles 295 and 296 of
Q. Even with all those dangers mentioned by the Court to you? .
the Revised Penal Code on the case at bar, the trial judge advised the
herein accused anew that he could be sentenced to death
notwithstanding his projected plea of guilty, but the latter reiterated his A. Yes, Sir. (t.s.n. pp. 23-25).
desire to confess his guilt on the specific condition that he be sentenced
to life imprisonment. Eventually, however, Apduhan desisted from Subsequently the prosecuting fiscal and the counsel de oficio resumed
pleading guilty and let his previous plea stand on record after further their oral arguments regarding the effect on the instant case of articles
warnings that he faced the grave danger of being sentenced to death in 295 and 296, particularly the use of unlicensed firearm as a special
view of the circumstances of his case. But the aforesaid desistance was aggravating circumstance under the latter article. Also discuss were the
merely momentary as it did not end the accused's equivocation on the existence and effect of the alleged mitigating and aggravating
matter of his plea. After a five-minute recess requested by Atty. Tirol in circumstances. All of these points will be later analyzed.
order to confer with the accused, the former informed the court a quo that
his client would insist on entering a plea of guilty. The following appears When the lower court subsequently reviewed the proceedings, it found
on record: that the accused's plea of guilty was ambiguous. Hence, on August 30,
1961, the case was reopened with respect to Apduhan, and on said date
Atty. D. TIROL: the latter entered a categorical plea of guilty, as evidenced by the record:
Your Honor, please, I had a conference with the accused and I COURT (To Accused Apduhan, Jr.):
apprised him with the situation of the case and after hearing our
apprisal he manifested that he will insist on his entering a plea of The Court reopened this case because after a review of the proceedings
guilty, Your Honor. I made it clear to him that we are not forcing it found that your plea was not definite. In answer to a question of the
him to enter the plea of guilty. Court you simply said "I will just enter the plea of guilty". The Court wants
to know whether you enter the plea of guilty of the crime charged in the
COURT (To accused Apolonio Apduhan, Jr.) second amended information.
Q. Is it true that you are withdrawing your plea of not guilty? ACCUSED APDUHAN:.
A. I will just enter the plea of guilty. I enter the plea of guilty.
Q. Have you been forced to enter the plea of guilty by your COURT (To same accused Apduhan):
lawyer?.
Q. Therefore, you admit that you have committed the crime
A. No, Sir. charged in the second information?
Q. And why do you said "I will JUST enter the plea of not guilty"? A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Is it necessary for you that the second amended information accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by
be read again? reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of article 263
A. No more; it is not necessary. shall have been inflicted.
Q. Do you want that the second amended information be read to 3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or
you again? on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
A. No more, Your Honor. (t.s.n. pp. 50-51). next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
On the same day, the court a quo rendered its decision, the pertinent 4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
dispositive portion of which reads:. to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence
or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery
shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court renders judgment finding
for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of
accused Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior guilty of the complex
the execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any
crime of robbery with homicide, punished by Article 294 of the
person not responsible for its commission any of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 296 of the game Code,
physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said
as amended, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of death.
article 263.
Considering that Apduhan had voluntarily confessed his guilt in open
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
court, then the only aspect of the case properly subject to review is the
period to prision mayor in its medium period in other
correctness of the penalty imposed by the court a quo. In this respect, the
cases. (As amended by Rep. Act 18.).
appreciation of the use of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating
circumstance (art. 296) in fixing the appropriate penalty for robbery with
homicide (Art, 294 [1]) committed by a band with the use of unlicensed ART 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an
firearms, and the interplay and counter-balancing of the attendant uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, would determine the severity street, road or alley. If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions
of the penalty imposable. three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been
committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a
moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering
The disposition of the question at hand necessitates a discussion of the
the passengers' compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking
interrelation among articles 294, 295 and 296 of the Revised Penal Code.
the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
For this purpose the said articles are hereunder quoted:
conveyances, or on a street, road highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties. (As
persons Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use amended by Rep. Acts Nos. 12 and 373.) (Emphasis supplied) .
of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
ART. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by members thereof. When more than three armed malefactors
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to
homicide shall have been committed. have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in
the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm the
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the
to reclusion perpetua, when the robbery shall have been
maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without mandate of the law, we cannot escape the arduous task of imposing the
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such death penalty." Subscribing to the said position, the Solicitor General
unlicensed firearm. adds that the "penalty for robbery under the circumstances mentioned in
Articles 294, paragraph 1, and 296 of the Code is the maximum of
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a reclusion perpetua to death, or the supreme penalty of death. This is
robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the mandatory." .
assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same. (As amended by Rep. Act No. On the other hand, Atty. Alberto M. Meer, the accused's counsel de oficio
12). (Emphasis supplied). in the present review, contends that the use of unlicensed firearm, if ever
appreciated in the case at bar, must be considered a generic aggravating
The afore-quoted art. 294 enumerates five classes of robbery factor which "may be off-set by the existence of mitigating circumstances
with violence against or intimidation of persons and prescribes so that the penalty to be imposed should be the penalty of reclusion
the corresponding penalties. The case at bar falls under art. perpetua." .
294(1) which defines robbery with homicide and fixes the penalty
from reclusion perpetua to death. Both the foregoing contentions are untenable.
Article 295 provides, inter alia, that when the offenses described in After a perceptive analysis of the provisions of art. 296, we reach the
subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of art. 294 are committed by a band, the proper considered opinion that the said article is exclusively linked and singularly
penalties must be imposed in the maximum periods. The circumstance of applicable to the immediately antecedent provision of art. 295 on robbery
band is therefore qualifying only in robbery punished by subdivisions 3, 4, in band, as the latter article, in turn, is explicitly limited in scope to
and 5 of art. 294. Consequently, art. 295 is inapplicable to robbery with subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294. Consequently, although the use of
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, and lesiones graves resulting in unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance under art. 296,
insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness. If the foregoing classes of as amended by Rep. Act 12, 3 it cannot be appreciated as such in
robbery which are described in art. 294(1) and (2) are perpetrated by a relation to robbery with homicide, described and penalized under
band, they would not be punishable under art. 295, but paragraph 1 of art. 294.
then cuadrilla would be a generic aggravating under Art. 14 of the
Code.1 Hence, with the present wording of art. 2952 there is no crime as As previously stated, art. 295 provides that if any of the classes of
"robbery with homicide in band." If robbery with homicide is committed by robbery described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294 is committed by
a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as "robbery with a band, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
homicide" under art. 294(1), but the element of band, as stated above, proper penalty. Correspondingly, the immediately following provisions of
would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. art. 296 define the term "band", prescribe the collective liability of the
members of the band, and state that "when any of the arms used in the
Article 296, as quoted above, defines "band", creates the special commission of the offense be in unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm, and provides the imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the
criminal liability incurred by the members of the band. The ascertainment corresponding penalty provided by law." Viewed from the contextual
of the definite function and range of applicability of this article in relation relation of articles 295 and 296, the word "offense" mentioned in the
to articles 294 and 295 is essential in the disposition of the case at bar. above-quoted portion of the latter article logically means the crime of
robbery committed by a band, as the phrase "all the malefactors"
In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appears to have accorded indubitably refers to the members of the band and the phrase "the
validity to the Provincial Fiscal's contention that in robbery with homicide corresponding penalty provided by law" relates to the offenses of robbery
committed by a band, the use of unlicensed firearm must be appreciated described in the last three subdivisions of art. 294 which are all
as a special aggravating circumstance pursuant to art. 296. Thus encompassed within the ambit of art. 295. Evidently, therefore, art. 296 in
convinced, the trial judge stressed in his decision that "under the express its entirety is designed to amplify and modify the provision on robbery in
band which is nowhere to be found but in art. 295 in relation to
subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294. Verily, in order that the aforesaid amendment did not only jettison the first two subdivisions of art. 294 from
special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm may be the periphery of art. 295 but also removed the said subdivisions (which
appreciated to justify the imposition of the maximum period of the proper pertain, inter alia, to the offense of robbery with homicide) from the
penalty it is a condition sine qua non that the offense charged be robbery effective range of art. 296.
committed by a band within the contemplation of art. 295. To reiterate,
since art. 295, does not apply to subdivision 1 and 2 of art. 294, then the Notwithstanding that the special aggravating circumstance of use of
special aggravating factor in question, which is solely applicable to unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated in the instant case, we are
robbery in band under art. 295, cannot be considered in fixing the penalty constrained, in the final analysis, to observe that the imposition of the
imposable for robbery with homicide under art. 294(1), even if the said death penalty on the accused Apduhan would appear to be a logical legal
crime was committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms. consequence, because as against the attendant mitigating circumstances
the aggravating circumstances numerically and qualitatively
The legislative intent of making art. 296 corollary to art. 295 with respect preponderate.
to robbery in band was unmistakably articulated by Congressman Albano
in his sponsorship speech on H. B. No. 124 (subsequently enacted as After Apduhan had pleaded guilty, the defense counsel offered for
Rep. Act No. 12, amending, among others, articles 295 and 296 of the consideration three mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty,
Revised Penal Code). Said Congressman Albano: "Article 296 as a intoxication, and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
corollary of Article 295 would change the definition heretofore known of Subsequently, however, the defense withdrew the last mentioned
the term "band" under the law. The purpose of this amendment is to inject mitigating circumstance after the prosecution had withdrawn the
therein the element of aggravation, when any member of the band carries aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The following
an unlicensed firearm . ." 4. manifestations appear on record: .
Anent the plea of guilty, we believe that under art. 13 (7) its "But do you prefer to admit that mitigating circumstance or you
appreciation in the case at bar is beyond controversion. need that evidence be presented to that effect? "FISCAL
BORROMEO: .
However, apropos the alternative circumstance of intoxication, we
find no evidence on record to support the defense's claim that it "Inasmuch as we do not have strong evidence to contradict that
should be considered as a mitigating factor. This absence of circumstance in fairness to the accused, we would rather submit.
proof can be attributed to the defense's erroneous belief that it
was not anymore its burden to establish the state of intoxication "COURT (To the Fiscal): .
of the accused when he committed the offense charged since
anyway the prosecution had already admitted the attendance of "The attendance of the mitigating circumstance of non-habitual
the said mitigating circumstance on the ground that the State did intoxication? .
not have strong evidence to overthrow the accused's claim of
non-habituality to drinking. The record discloses the following
"FISCAL BORROMEO: .
pertinent discussion: .
"Yes, Your Honor." (t.s.n. pp. 7-9) (Emphasis supplied) .
"COURT (To Fiscal Borromeo):.
From the above proceedings in the trial court, it would appear that what
"Do you agree, Mr. Fiscal, that the non-habitual intoxication of the
the prosecution actually intended to admit was the non-habituality of the
accused be also taken into account in his favor as a mitigating
accused to drinking liquor, not as a matter of fact, but due to the State's
circumstance? "FISCAL BORROMEO: .
inability to disprove the same. The prosecution apparently did not
concede the actual intoxication of the accused. We are of the firm
"We have no evidence exactly to know at this time that the conviction that, under the environmental circumstances, the defense was
accused was intoxicated, but his affidavit states that before the not relieved of its burden to prove the accused's actual state of
commission of the crime they took young coconuts and there is intoxication. Otherwise, to appreciate the attendance of a mitigating
no mention about the taking of any liquor, so that, as it is now, we factor on the mere allegation of the accused, coupled with the dubious
are constrained to object. acquiescence of the prosecution, would open wide the avenue for
unscrupulous and deceitful collusion between defense and prosecution in
"COURT (To the Fiscal): . order to unduly and unjustly minimize the penalty imposable upon the
accused.
"But do you have evidence to counteract that allegation? .
The last paragraph of art. 15 of the Code provides:.
"FISCAL BORROMEO: .
"The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a the circumstances of band and abuse of superiority are separate and
mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a distinct legal concepts. The element of band is appreciated when the
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan offense is committed by more than three armed malefactors regardless of
to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it the comparative strength of the victim or victims. Hence, the
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (Emphasis indispensable components of cuadrilla are (1) at least four malefactors
supplied). and (2) all of the four malefactors are armed. On the other hand, the
gravamen of abuse of superiority is the taking advantage by the culprits
Under the foregoing provision, intoxication is mitigating when it is not of their collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victim or
habitual or intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the victims. Hence, in the latter aggravating factor, what is taken into account
crime. However, to be mitigating the accused's state of intoxication must is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed, but their
be proved. 6 Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, 7 relative physical might vis-a-vis the offended party.
then in the absence of proof to the contrary" it is presumed to be non-
habitual or unintentional. 8 . Granting, however, that the said withdrawal was valid, there still remain
three aggravating circumstances which render inutile the solitary
In People vs. Noble 9 the defendant testified that before the murder he extenuating circumstance of plea of guilty. The prosecution does not
took a bottle of wine and drank little by little until he got drunk. The need to prove the said three circumstances (all alleged in the second
policeman who arrested the accused testified that the latter smelled wine amended information) since the accused by his plea of guilty, has
and vomited. The Court held that the evidence presented was not supplied the requisite proof. 13 Hence, we will not belabor our discussion
satisfactory to warrant a mitigation of the penalty. Intoxication was of the attendance aggravating circumstances.
likewise not competently proved in a case 10 where the only evidence
was that the defendant had a gallon of tuba with him at the time he The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or
committed the crime. intimidation of persons, 14 like the offense at bar. The rationale behind
this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed
In the case at bar the accused merely alleged that when he committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is
the offense charged he was intoxicated although he was "not used to be inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than
drunk," 11This self-serving statement stands uncorroborated. Obviously, in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited
it is devoid of any probative value. house. 15 This Court in People vs. Pinca, 16 citing People vs. Valdez, 17
ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not
To recapitulate, the accused has in his favor only one mitigating inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery with
circumstance: plea of guilty. As aforementioned, the defense withdrew its violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with
claim of "lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong" and failed to homicide) the authors thereof could have committed it without the
substantiate its contention that intoxication should be considered necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon
mitigating. opines that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows
greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm. 18.
While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it at the same time
constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the Nocturnity is aggravating when it is purposely and deliberately sought by
information, including the aggravating circumstances therein recited. 12 the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime 19 or to prevent
The four aggravating circumstances are (1) band; (2) dwelling; (3) their being recognized or to insure unmolested escape. 20 Nocturnidad
nighttime; and (4) abuse of superior strength. The circumstance of abuse must concur with the intent and design of the offender to capitalize on the
of superiority was, however, withdrawn by the prosecution on the ground intrinsic impunity afforded by the darkness of night. 21 In the case at bar,
that since the offense of robbery with homicide was committed by a band, the affidavit (exh. I-1) of the accused Apduhan shows that he and his co-
the element of cuadrilla necessarily absorbs the circumstance of abuse of malefactors took advantage of the nighttime in the perpetration of the
superior strength. We believe that said withdrawal was ill-advised since offense as they waited until it was dark before they came out of their
hiding place to consummate their criminal designs.
In his decision, the trial judge recommends to, the President of the demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra
Republic the commutation of the death sentence which he imposed on solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he
the accused to life imprisonment. The Solicitor General supports this understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable
recommendation for executive clemency. conviction.
We find no compelling reason to justify such recommendation. Contrary As a final commentary on the criminal conduct of the accused herein, it
to the trial judge's observation, the accused's plea of guilty was far from must be emphasized that the instant review was delayed for several
"spontaneous" and "insistent". It will be recalled that his initial plea was years because he escaped from the New Bilibid Prisons on June 17,
one of not guilty. Later, he changed his plea but with the persistent 1963, less than six months after he was committed to the said
condition that he be sentenced to life imprisonment, not death. It was penitentiary. He was recommitted on July 10, 1964 with a new mittimus
only after much equivocation that he finally decided to "just" plead guilty. from the Court of First Instance of Leyte for robbery in band in criminal
Because his plea was still ambiguous, the court a quo had to reopen the case 10099, for which he was sentenced to serve a prison term of from 8
case to ascertain its real nature. Conceding, however, that his plea was years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day commencing on October 31,
"spontaneous" and "insistent," such manifestation of sincere repentance 1963. 22 His recommitment was reported to this Court only on July 5,
cannot serve to obliterate the attendant aggravating circumstances which 1966.
patently reveal the accused's criminal perversity.
Notwithstanding the foregoing disquisition, for failure to secure the
It appears from a cursory reading of the decision under review that the required number of votes, the penalty of death cannot be legally
trial judge also anchored his recommendation on the ground that there is imposed. The penalty next lower in degree - reclusion perpetua - should
"the possibility that the firearm was used in order to counteract the consequently be imposed on the accused.
resistance of the deceased." This is no justification at all for executive
clemency. Firstly, the above observation is a mere conjecture - in the ACCORDINGLY, with the modification that the death sentence imposed
language of the presiding judge, a "possibility." Secondly, even granting upon Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. by the court a quo is reduced to reclusion
that the said observation relates to the actual happening, to employ a perpetua, the judgment a quo is affirmed in all other respects, without
firearm in subduing the lawful resistance of innocent persons is a criminal pronouncement as to costs.
act by any standard.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Even as we purge the decision under review of its errors, we must hasten Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
to commend the trial judge, the Hon. Hipolito Alo, for his earnest and
patient efforts to forestall the entry of an improvident plea of guilty by the
accused Apduhan, notwithstanding that the latter was already
represented by a counsel de oficio and hence presumed to have been
advised properly. Judge Alo made sure that the accused clearly and fully
understood the seriousness of the offense charged and the severity of
the penalty attached to it. When the accused proposed to confess his
guilt, Judge Alo repeatedly warned him that the death penalty might be
imposed despite his plea of guilty. As aforementioned, when it appeared
that Apduhan's plea of guilty was ambiguous, Judge Alo reopened the
case to determine with definitiveness the nature of his plea.
During her residence at Pasay City, her brother Apolonio visited her When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters
family for about twenty times. Sometimes her brother would stay instead away, she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat him.
at their parents' house at Muntinlupa, Rizal. He usually spent his Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately
weekends in his residence at Bo. Balubad, Porac, Pampanga. Apolonio afterwards, the group scampered away in different directions. Antonio
and her husband were very close to each other; whenever Apolonio paid was left behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio,
stabbing the latter in the back with his long knife. Corazon was not able
to observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to witness even attempt to present any evil motive on the part of the witness," the
the scene. court concluded that "the two accused took part in the perpetuation of the
crime charged." It gave short shrift to the defense of alibi presented by
When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw the two accused, noting that, by their own admission, the two accused
that he was bathed in a pool of his own blood. The incident threw her in a were residents of the vicinity of the crime.
state of nervous confusion, and she resolved to report the incident to her
younger sister, who lived at Lakandula Street, Pasay City. Her sister in In respect of the circumstances attending the crime it said:
turn decided to break the news to their father at Muntinlupa.
But considering the aggravating circumstances of
Subsequently, Corazon learned that the police authorities were searching nighttime; superior strength; and treachery, which three
for her brother's gangmates for having killed him. She also learned that aggravating circumstances had been sufficiently
the suspects were in hiding. On the same day October 19, 1968 established by the prosecution, the same cannot be offset
accompanied by her family, she went at 2:00 p.m. to the Police by said voluntary surrender to a person in authority of his
Department to inquire about her brother's corpse. They were directed to agent, plus the uncontested fact that deceased, Apolonio
the Funeraria Popular, where an autopsy was held. Sometime later, on Dioquino, Jr. suffered no less than 22 stab wounds,
November 1, 1968, she transferred residence to Quezon City. convincing evidence of the apparent criminal perversity of
the accused, the court, therefore, has no alternative but to
Dr. Mariano Cueva, Jr. testified that he conducted a post- impose the supreme penalty.
mortem examination on the cadaver of the decedent Apolonio, and that
he prepared the corresponding Necropsy Report. Dr. Cueva found that And rendered judgment as follows:
the deceased suffered 22 stab wounds in the different portions of his
hips; in the front portion of the chest and neck; in the back portion of the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the
torso; and in the right hand. He testified that the wounds sustained by the accused, Antonio Garcia v Cabarse and Reynaldo Arviso
deceased brought about a massive hemorrhage which caused death. He y Rebelleza, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the
also testified that it is possible that the instrument marked as Exhibit "B" crime of Murder under Article 248, of the Revised Penal
could have been used in inflicting the multiple stab wounds sustained by Code, as charged under Article 248, of the Revised Penal
the deceased, except the stab wounds on the neck. Code, as charged in the information, and considering the
aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission
Both the accused took refuge in the defense of alibi. Antonio Garcia of the crime, each one of them is hereby sentenced to
claimed that at that time of the incident starting with the chase and suffer the penalty of DEATH.
ending with the victim's death in the morning of October 19, 1968, he
was at a place called Pacita's Canteen which adjoins Bill's Place at M, de The two accused are further ordered to indemnify, the
la Cruz Street. Reynaldo Arviso claimed that in the evening of the heirs of the deceased, Apolonio Dioquino, Jr. in the
preceding night (October 18, 1968) he went on a drinking spree with his amount of TWELVE 'THOUSAND (P12,000,00) PESOS,
friends at Pacita's Canteen. He went home at 10:30 p.m. and slept up to jointly and severally and to pay their proportionate share
7:00 a.m. of October 19, 1968. From 7:00 a.m. of that day, he performed of the costs.
his duties as a bus conductor by calling for passengers near Pacita's
Canteen. In their Brief, the accused contended that the lower court erred: in not
considering nighttime and superior strength as absorbed in treachery: in
The trial court pinpointed the issue as revolving around the Identity of the finding nighttime as an aggravating circumstance despite absolute
persons who participated in the killing of the deceased. it banked on the absence of evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to insure the
testimony of the witness, Corazon Dioquino, who positively Identified the execution of the crime; in finding superior strength as an aggravating
accused as participants in the attack. Noting that "the defense did not circumstance despite absence of evidence to sustain such a finding; in
finding treachery as an aggravating circumstance despite absence of that she saw the incident from 20 meters. The witness claimed she hid
evidence to that effect; in not stating the qualifying circumstance of the after hearing the shot at a point which is 170 meters from the scene of
alleged crime; in holding that the accused Reynaldo Arviso stabbed and the crime. The defense argued that she could not have covered the
hit the victim when there is no evidence as to the participation of the said distance in such a short time, and that this belies her claim that she was
accused Arviso in the execution of the alleged crime; and in failing to only 20 meters from the scene of the crime. The defense pointed out that
consider the material inconsistencies, prejudice and other circumstances Arriola's sketch (Exhibit "2") shows that the school is 135 meters from the
in the uncorroborated testimony of the only eyewitness, rendering said scene of the crime, and the point where the witness claimed she viewed
testimony not worthy of belief. the crime is 170 meters from the scene of the crime thus giving the lie to
her claim that she was 20 meters away.
The assignment of errors by the accused is anchored on their attempt to
discredit the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, a function which, if The alleged inconsistencies in Corazon's testimony which the defense
successfully undertaken, would totally obliterate the nexus between the makes much of are not irreconcilable with the physical facts, At the
accused and the crime. The defense vigorously maintained that the outset, it should not be overlooked that Corazon was testifying as an
testimony of the only eyewitness is a fabrication, and that she was in fact eyewitness to the traumatic incident by which her brother met a violent
absent from the scene which she described in both her sworn statement death at the hands of a mob. Naturally, Corazon can not be expected to
and in her testimony at the trial. deliver a testimony which passes microscopic scrutiny and scrupulous
armchair analysis of the facts, conducted under circumstances far
The defense asserted that Corazon Dioquino's testimony was riddled by removed from the turbulence and emotional color of the event as it
material inconsistencies. The defense sought to capitalize on the actually transpired. Al contrario, if Corazon's testimony were meticulously
discrepancy of a sketch made by Corazon and the sketch made by accurate with respect to distance covered and the time taken to negotiate
Pasay City Electrical Engineer Jaime Arriola. Corazon's sketch shows it, an impartial observer would wonder whether such exactitude were not
Juan Sumulong Elementary School to be right in front of P.C. Santos the product of previous rehearsal, if not of fabrication. In times of stress,
Street; while Arriola's sketch shows that the school is about 135 meters the human mind is frequently overpowered by the ebb and flow of
from the corner of the street. The defense contended that the emotions in turmoil; and it is only judicious to take into consideration the
discrepancy was a deliberate falsehood on the part of the witness, natural manifestations of human conduct, when the physical senses are
subdued by the psychological state of the individual.
Corazon testified that she was near the corner of P.C. Santos Street
when she saw her brother under chase in front of the school, and that Corazon was a resident of Pasay City for only about five months. She
she met the group in front of the school in a matter of five seconds, more testified that she is not familiar with the streets along M. de la Cruz
or less. The defense assailed her testimony on this point as incredible on Street. Moreover, Corazon did not categorically testify that she covered
the ground that the distance between the point where she saw her the distance of 135 meters in five seconds. Mole accurately, she testified
brother being chased, up to the point where she met them, is 135 meters, that she walked for a period of from five to ten seconds, more or less. Put
and no human being can cover that distance in five seconds. Moreover, in this way, the period was sufficient to allow her to negotiate the
Corazon testified that she was 20 meters away from the place where the distance. Moreover, Corazon did not stay rooted to one spot while the
accused caught up with her brother. Again, the defense criticized her incident was taking place, but surreptitiously edged her way up to
testimony in this respect by pointing out that the true distance is 175 Magtibay Street, which is closer to the place of the killing.
meters.
The defense also claims that the delay which Corazon allowed to
The defense insisted that Corazon's sketch of the locale of the crime transpire, before reporting the crime to the authorities and giving her
(Exhibit "1") constitutes "the high point of falsity of her testimony." The sworn statement (on November 3, 1968), is indicative of fabrication. The
defense sought to substantiate this claim by arguing that from her sketch, killing took place before dawn of October 19, 1968, In the afternoon of
it appears that she never crossed paths with her brother or his pursuers. the same day, Corazon and her family went to the Police Department to
The witness testified that she saw her brother at the point which is four to inquire about the remains of her brother. Corazon already knew that the
five meters from the corner of P.C. Santos Street. Yet she also testified police were taking steps to round up the killers. She incurred no fault in
waiting until the culprits were arrested before confronting them and giving murder is committed and are present at the time and place of the
her statement. It would have been the better part of legal procedure if she commission of the crime, thus contributing by their presence to augment
had given her statement earlier; but since she was only a 22-year old the power of the band and to aid in the successful realization of the
housekeeper at that tune, she can not be held to a higher standard of crime, are guilty as principals even if they took no part in the material act
discretion. of killing the deceased. (US v. Abelinde, No. 945, Dec. 10, 1902, 1 Phil.
568; People v. Carunungan, L-13283, Sept. 30, 1960, 109 Phil. 534). To
The defense further contends that the failure to present Corazon's establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to previous
husband in court indicates that Corazon was not actually at the scene of agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient that the malefactors have
the crime at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It the defense felt that the acted in concert, pursuant to the same objective. (PP vs. San Luis, L-
husband had a contribution to make in the cause of truth, there was 2365, May 29, 1950, 86 Phil. 485).
nothing which prevented them from compelling his process by summons.
This they failed to do; and their omission should not be taken to reflect Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged,
adversely on the prosecution, who evidently believed that the husband's but may and generally must be proven by a number of indefinite acts,
testimony was unnecessary, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purpose to be
accomplished. If it be proved that two or more persons aimed by their
Finally, the defense claims that it was unnatural for Corazon, after acts towards accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a
viewing her brother's body, to proceed to her sister's house one kilometer part. so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
away, instead of returning to her own house, which was just a block or so connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
away. It is not unnatural for a witness to a gruesome event, to choose to association and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy maybe inferred
confer with a person bound to her by ties of consanguinity, even if such a though no actual meeting among them to concert is proven (PP v.
conference necessitates that she traverse a longer distance. The Colman L-6652-54, Feb. 28, 1958, 103 Phil. 6). A conspiracy may be
exercise of judgment, on the spot, should not be gauged by reason entered into after the commencement of overt acts leading to the
applied in hindsight with a metrical yard stick. consummation of the crime. (PP v. Barredo, L-2728, Dec. 29, 1950, 87
Phil. 800). Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in
The next major burden which the defense undertook to assume was to every detail of execution (PP v. Carbonel, L-24177, March 15, 1926, 48
contend that the accused Reynaldo Arviso is innocent because there is Phil. 868; PP v. Danan, L-1766, March 31, 1949, 83 Phil. 252).
no evidence as to his participation in the execution of the crime. It is
claimed that there is absolute absence of evidence to show that When a group of seven men, more or less, give chase to a single
Reynaldo was a direct participant and that the only evidence against him unarmed individual running for his life, and they overtake him and inflict
is that he was seen pursuing the victim. However, the finding of wounds on his body by means of shooting, stabbing, and hitting with
Reynaldo's guilt stems, not from his direct participation in the criminal pieces of wood, there is conspiracy to kill; and it does not detract from
execution, but from his participation in the conspiracy to kill the their status as conspirators that there is no evidence of previous
deceased. His participation in the conspiracy is supported by Corazon's agreement, it being sufficient that their wills have concurred and they
testimony that he and Antonio were the leaders of the pack following labored to achieve the same end.
closely at the heels of the victim.
The defense submits that the failure of the lower court to specify the
It is well established that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the qualifying circumstance in the crime of murder is violative of the
accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint purpose and design. Constitution and the Rules of Court. We find no such infirmity. Since the
A concerted assault upon the victim by the defendants may indicate principle concerned is "readily understood from the facts, the conclusion
conspiracy. (PP v. Monroy & Idica, L-11177, Oct. 30, 1958, 104 Phil. and the penalty posed., an express specification of the statute or
759). Conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, exposition of the law is not necessary." (People vs. Silo, L-7916, May 25,
the defendants had the same criminal purpose and were united in its 1956, 99 Phil. 216). In the absence of a specification by the trial court,
execution. (PP v. Datu Dima Binahasing, L-4837, April 28, 1956, 98 Phil. the defense surmised that the qualifying circumstance in this case is
902). Those who are members of the band of malefactors by which a evident premeditation: but the defense argued that evident premeditation
was not shown. We agree. Under normal conditions, conspiracy We find that abuse of superiority attended the offense, following a long
generally presupposes premeditation. But in the case of implied line of cases which made this finding on parallel facts Our jurisprudence
conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the is exemplified by the holding that where four persons attacked an
absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was unarmed victim but there was no proof as to how the attack commenced
hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it can not and treachery was not proven, the fact that there were four assailants
be determined if the accused had "sufficient time between its inception would constitute abuse of superiority. (People vs. Lasada, No. 6742, Jan.
and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and accept the 26, 1912, 21 Phil. 287; US v. Banagale, No. 7870, Jan. 10, 1913, 24 Phil.
consequences." There should be a showing that the accused had the 69). However, the information does not allege the qualifying circumstance
opportunity for reflection and persisted in executing his criminal design. of abuse of superiority; hence, this circumstance can only be Created as
(PP v. Custodia, L-7442, October 24,1955, 97 Phil. 698; PP v. Mendoza generic aggravating. (People v. Acusar, L-1798, Dee. 29, 1948, 82 Phil.
and Sinu-ag, L-4146 and L-4147, March 28, 1952, 91 Phil. 58; PP v. 490; People v. Beje, L-8245, July 19, 1956, 99 Phil. 1052; People v.
Yturiaga, L-2816, May 31, 1950, 86 Phil. 534; PP v. Lozada, No. 46998, Bautista, L-23303, May 20, 1969, 28 SCRA 184).
Nov. 16, 1940, 70 Phil. 525; PP v. Upao Moro, L-6771, May 28, 1957,
Phil. 101 Phil. 1226; PP v. Sakam, No. 41566, Dec. 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27: The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be
PP v. Peralta, L-19069, Oct. 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759; PP v. Pareja, L- said that it was committed at night, which covers the period from sunset
21937, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 693). to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code, Article 13. Is this basis for
finding that nocturnity is aggravating? The Revised Penal Code, Article
Even in the absence of evident premeditation, the crime of murder in this 14, provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when the crime is
case might still be qualified by treachery, which is alleged in the committed in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may facilitate the
information. But the defense argued that treachery was not present. We commission of the offense. There are two tests for nocturnity as an
are so convinced. It is an elementary axiom that treachery can in no way aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is
be presumed but must be fully proven. (US v. Asilo, No. 1957, Jan. 30, aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense; and
1905, 4 Phil, 175; US v. Arciga, No. 1129, April 6, 1903, 2 Phil. 110; PP the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was
v. Durante, No. 31101, Aug. 23, 1929, 53 Phil. 363; PP v. Pelago, L- purposely sought by the offender. These two tests should be applied in
24884, Aug. 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 1027), Where the manner of the attack the alternative.
was not proven, the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt,
and the crime should be considered homicide only. (Carpio, 83 Phil. 509; In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no
Amansec, So Phil, 424). showing that the accused purposely sought the cover of night time. Next,
we proceed and apply the objective test, to determine whether nocturnity
In People vs. Metran (L-4205, July 27, 1951, 89 Phil. 543). the facilitated the killing of the victim. A group of men were engaged in a
aggravating circumstances of aid of armed men, abuse of superiority, drinking spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased by seven
and nocturnity, were considered as constituting treachery, which qualified others. The criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by
the crime as murder, since there was no direct evidence as to the manner nocturnal cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and
of the attack. However, in this case we believe that the correct qualifying encouraged impunity by persuading the malefactors that it would be
circumstance is not treachery, but abuse of superiority. Here we are difficult to determine their Identity because of the darkness and the
confronted with a helpless victim killed by assailants superior to him in relative scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances combine to
arms and in numbers. But the attack was not sudden nor unexpected, pass the objective test, and e find that nocturnity is aggravating because
and the element of surprise was lacking. The victim could have made a it facilitated the commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with
defense; hence, the assault involved some risk to the assailants. There the lust to kill to follow their impulses with the false courage born out of
being no showing when the intent to kill was formed, it can not be said the belief that they could not be readily Identified.
that treachery has been proven. We believe the correct rule is found in
People vs. Proceso Bustos (No. 17763, July 23, 1923, 45 Phil. 9), The information alleges that the crime of murder was attended by the two
where alevosia was not appreciated because it was deemed included in qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Neither
abuse of superiority. of these qualifying circumstances was proved; hence, the killing can not
be qualified into murder, and constitutes instead the crime of homicide,
which is punished by reclusion temporal. It is not controverted that the
accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; they are therefore
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. This lone
mitigating circumstance offset by the two generic aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superiority and nocturnity, produces the result
that in the crime of homicide, one aggravating circumstance remains.
SO ORDERED.
TORRES, J.: When Manalinde was arrested he pleaded guilty and confessed that he
had perpetrated the crime herein mentioned, stating that his wife had
Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909, died about one hundred days before and that he had come from his
while Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of home in Catumaldu by order of the Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who had
Sousa's store in Cotabato, Moro Province, he suddenly received a wound directed him to go juramentado in Cotabato in order to kill somebody,
on the head delivered from behind and inflicted with a kris. Ricardo because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge against a
Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was standing behind the counter, lieutenant and a sergeant, the said datto further stating that if he,
upon hearing the noise and the cry of the wounded man, ran to his Manalinde, was successful in the matter, he would give him a pretty
assistance and found him lying on the ground. Meanwhile the aggressor, woman on his return, but that in case he was captured he was to say that
the Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was he performed the killing by order of Maticayo, Datto Piang, Tambal and
passing along the street, and just as the latter was putting down his load Inug. In order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the town of
in front of the door of a store and was about to enter, attacked him with Cotabato he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana
the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound in the left shoulder, on leaves, and, traveling for a day and a night from his home, upon reaching
account of which he fell to the ground. The Moro, who came from the the town, attacked from behind a Spaniard who was seated in front of a
rancheria of Dupit and had entered the town carrying his weapon store and, wounding him, immediately after attacked a Chinaman, who
wrapped up in banana leaves, in the meantime escaped by running away was close by, just as the latter was placing a tin that he was carrying on
from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman and the Spaniard, the ground and he was about to enter a store near by, cutting him on the
were taken to the hospital, where the former died within an hour, the left shoulder and fleeing at once; he further stated that he had no quarrel
record not stating the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan with the assaulted persons.
Igual.
From the statements made by the accused his culpability as the sole-
In view of the above a complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal with the confessed and self-convicted author of the crime in question has been
district court charging Manalinde with the crime of murder, and unquestionably established, nor can his allegation that he acted by order
proceedings having been instituted, the trial judge, in view of the of Datto Mupuck and that therefore he was not responsible exculpate
evidence adduced, rendered judgment on the 5th of February of said him, because it was not a matter of proper obedience. The excuse that
year, sentencing the accused to the penalty of death, to indemnify the he went juramentado by order of the said datto and on that account killed
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs. The only two persons, whereas if he had taken the oath of his own volition he
case has been submitted to this court for review. would have killed many more, because it is the barbarous and savage
custom of a juramentado to kill anyone without any motive or reason crime. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed
whatever, can not under any consideration be accepted or considered with deliberate intent, the crime is considered a premeditated one as the
under the laws of civilized nations; such exhibitions of ferocity and firm and persistent intention of the accused from the moment, before said
savagery must be restrained, especially as the very people who up to the death, when he received the order until the crime was committed in
present time have been practicing such acts are well aware that the manifestly evident. Even though in a crime committed upon offer of
established authorities in this country can never allow them to go money, reward or promise, premeditation is sometimes present, the latter
unpunished, and as has happened a number of times in towns not being inherent in the former, and there existing no incompatibility
where juramentados are in the habit of appearing, the punishment of the between the two, premeditation can not necessarily be considered as
author has followed every crime so committed. included merely because an offer of money, reward or promise was
made, for the latter might have existed without the former, the one being
In the commission of the crime of murder the presence of aggravating independent of the other. In the present case there can be no doubt that
circumstances 3 and 7 of article 10 of the Penal Code should be taken after the crime was agreed upon by means of a promise of reward, the
into consideration in that promise of reward and premeditation are criminal by his subsequent conduct showed a persistency and firm intent
present, which in the present case are held to be generic, since the crime in his plan to carry out the crime which he intentionally agreed to execute,
has already been qualified as committed with the treachery, because the it being immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not conceive the
accused confessed that he voluntarily obeyed the order given him by crime, once Manalinde obeyed the inducement and voluntarily executed
Datto Mupuck to go juramentadoand kill some one in the town of it.
Cotabato, with the promise that if he escaped punishment he would be
rewarded with a pretty woman. Upon complying with the order the The facts in this case are quite different from those in the proceedings
accused undoubtedly acted of his own volition and with the knowledge instituted by the United States vs. Caranto et al., wherein the decision on
that he would inflict irreparable injury on some of his fellow-beings, page 256 of Volume IV of the Philippine Reports was rendered, as may
depriving them of life without any reason whatever, well knowing that he be seen from the mere perusal of the statement of facts. It is also
was about to commit a most serious deed which the laws in force in this different from the case where a criminal who has made up his mind to kill
country and the constituted authorities could by no means permit. Datto a certain individual kills a person other than the object of his criminal
Mupuck, who ordered and induced him to commit the crimes, as well as intent. On going to Cotabato the Moro Manalinde intended to and did kill
the accused knew perfectly well that he might be caught and punished in the first two persons he encountered, and the fact that the victim was not
the act of committing them. predetermined does not alter the nature, conditions, or circumstances of
the crime, for the reason that to cause the violent death of a human being
As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, without any reasonable motive is always punishable with a more or less
upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply grave penalty according to the nature of the concurrent circumstances.
therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully
meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, For the above reasons and in view of the fact that no mitigating
under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and circumstance is present to neutralize the effects of the aggravating ones,
to that end provided himself with a weapon, concealing it by wrapping it it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed with
up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of costs provided however, that the penalty imposed on the culprit shall be
taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with executed in accordance with the provisions of Acts. Nos. 451 and 1577,
whom he had never had any trouble; nor did there exist any reason and that in the event of a pardon being granted he shall likewise be
which, to a certain extent, might warrant his perverse deed. The fact that sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties imposed by article 53 of the
the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing Penal Code. So ordered.
of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the
consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.
circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit,
and the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the
victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the
EN BANC circumstance. The Court hereby imposes upon the accused
Sueene Discalsota the penalty of DEATH.
The accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum
[G.R. No. 136892. April 11, 2002]
of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral damages,
and P25,000.00 as actual expenses for the wake and funeral, and
costs.[2]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SUEENE
DISCALSOTA y JUGAR, appellant. The Information[3] against appellant reads as follows:
Pedro and Rowell recognized the attacker as the one who Dr. Hildegard B. Madalag conducted the autopsy on the body
earlier shouted at them while they were still inside the house of of the victim and submitted a Report of his findings (Exhibit
Mrs. Del Rosario. They stayed for about an hour inside the D). He confirmed his findings in open court and further
house of their friend where they sought refuge and there they testified that upon examination, he found the kidney of the
learned that the man who chased them and struck the victim victim completely transacted or totally cut. The knifes entry
was known by the nickname, Yawa and is also known as point was at the back, a direct and straight thrust which went
Ronnie de la Pea although his real name is Sueene through three (3) vital organs pancreas, stomach and the
Discalsota. Much later, when the police finally came and kidney, causing massive gastric spillage. He gave the cause of
investigated them, Pedro was shown pictures of the suspects death in the Certificate of Death (Exhibit E) as Hypo-volemic
and he picked out the picture of accused-appellant. shock.
Louie Gregorio, a reluctant witness who testified only on pain Despite lack of cooperation from the residents of the area where the
of arrest for contempt of court, declared that he was a live-in incident happened, the police authorities were able to arrest accused-
appellant on the identification of Pedro Ramos and Rowell Lavega.[7]
partner of Nieves del Rosario; that while resting at the house
of Nieves del Rosario around 4:00 P.M. of January 24, 1996,
he confirmed that the victim and three (3) others were at the Version of the Defense
house and that no untoward incident happened while they were
inside the house. Several minutes after the boys were escorted
On the other hand, the Public Attorneys Office narrated appellants
out of the house by four (4) barangay tanods, he learned that a
version of the incident as follows:[8]
stabbing incident happened outside and when he went out to
investigate, he saw accused-appellant running towards the SUEENE DISCALSOTA, denied that he was [the] one who
house of his girlfriend. He was only about five (5) armslength stabbed and killed Herbert Suarnaba. He testified that in the
from accused-appellant who was carrying a bloodied long afternoon of January 24, 1996, he was in their house at Purok
Kingfisher, Libertad Baybay, Bacolod City, from 3:00 to 5:00 his wife at her house in Purok Tulinaw, which was just about
P.M. He was tending their store where he acted as cashier. His 30 meters away from the house of Nieves del Rosario.
companion thereat were older sister Aileen and younger sister
Yvette. He never left their store even after 5:00 P.M. When his He denied membership [in] any fraternity, much less U-2. He
mother Lilia Discalsota arrived from the Central Market she declared that Yawa, x x x Ming, Michael Bartolo, Da-dan,
took over the chores in the store. He only learned that there were not his neighbors, but admitted they were residents of the
was a stabbing incident on the following day (January 25, place. These persons are members of Red-O
1996). fraternity. He denied knowing Ulysses Tonggoy. He admitted
knowing x x x Alfonso one of the CVOs mentioned by
He learned that he was charged [with] Murder on April 7, prosecutions [witness] Alfonso de la Cruz. He mentioned that
1997, when he was arrested by policemen in the house of his he [was] not Yawa but one Stephen.
wife, Christina at Purok Tulihaw, Brgy. 16, Bacolod City. He
was surprised when the policemen presented a warrant for his EVETTE DISCALSOTA corroborated the testimony of
arrest. The policemen told him that he was involved in a Suenne Discalsota. She testified that she was tending their
murder case in Libertad, Baybay, Bacolod City in January store the whole day of January 24, 1996. Her companions
1996. He did not want to go with the policemen, but it was a thereat were her brother, Sueene[;] and sister, Aileen. Their
certain Tiyo Erwin who prevailed upon him to go with the store opened at 7:00 A.M. and closed on that particular day, at
arresting officers. He was then brought to Bac[k]-up I and later 9:00 P.M. her brother Sueene never left the store from 7:00
to headquarters. He was subsequently detained at the Lock-up. A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Sueene was then acting as the cashier of
their store.
He further testified that he [did] not know Louie Gregorio, one
of the witnesses for the prosecution. He [did] not know She also testified that she did not know that her brother Sueene was
whether Louie Gregorio [was] the common law husband of charged in court. When her brother was arrested she went to the police
station and inquired why Sueene was detained and she was told he had
Nieves del Rosario but he met her only at the City jail, when
a case. She then told the police that on the day the alleged stabbing
she visited her common-law husband Marcial Flores, in was committed Sueene was not able to leave the house the whole
January 1998. Marcial Flores [was] his neighbor at Libertad, day.[9]
Baybay.
Discalsota also denied leaving Libertad, Baybay, Bacolod City Ruling of the Trial Court
after the incident. He was there on January 25, 1996, and he
was even able to leave their house that day. He continued The RTC ruled that appellant had positively been identified by the
staying in their house x x x until April 1996. Eventually their prosecution witnesses as the culprit responsible for the death of Herbert
house was demolished in 1997 and his family transferred to Suarnaba. It gave no credence to the denial and alibi proffered by
Tangub. He nevertheless, remained in the area and stayed with appellant. It also appreciated evident premeditation and treachery as
qualifying and aggravating circumstances, respectively, and thus The prosecution witnesses were one in identifying appellant as the
sentenced him to death. person who had wielded a knife and stabbed the victim. Appellant had
nothing to offer in his defense but an alibi corroborated by his two
Hence, this automatic review before us.[10]
sisters. A careful scrutiny of the records shows no reason to disbelieve
the prosecution witnesses and to overturn the court a quos finding that
they were credible.
Assignment of Errors
Basic is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed
In his Brief, appellant faults the trial court with the following on appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked,
alleged errors: misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
I and substance.[12]
Also, the RTC was correct in disregarding the alibi of appellant. As
The trial court gravely erred in finding accused-appellant it aptly ruled, his defense of alibi crumbles in the face of the positive
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses as being present
charged in the information despite the failure of the in the scene of the crime.[13]
prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery.
First Issue:
II Evident Premeditation and Treachery
The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty upon the
Appellant contends that evident premeditation should not have
accused-appellant.[11] been appreciated by the trial court as a qualifying circumstance.
It is settled that qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but
The Courts Ruling must be established by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively
as the killing itself.[14]
The appeal is partly meritorious. [F]or evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be
proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself of the
following elements thereof, viz: (a) the time when the accused
Preliminary Matter
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and
Appellant no longer questions the finding of the RTC that he (c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
stabbed and killed Herbert Suarnaba. However, an appeal in a criminal execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of
case opens the whole case to review. Thus, we shall still pass upon the
his act.[15]
matter.
In this case, the first two elements of evident premeditation are There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
present. As found by the RTC, the time appellant determined to commit against persons employing means, methods, or forms of attack that tend
the crime was when he started shouting at the victim and the latters directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk
companions: You, there, get out and we will kill you! By staying outside arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[23]
the house and following the victims companions when they came out,
For treachery to exist, two essential elements must concur: (a) the
he manifestly indicated that he clung to his determination.
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
As for the third element, the prosecution evidence shows that opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b) the said means of
appellant started shouting outside Mrs. del Rosarios house at 3:30 execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[24] Treachery cannot
p.m.[16] When the victims group left the house, it was not yet dark;[17] it be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as
was only past four oclock in the afternoon.[18] The police received conclusively as the killing itself.[25]
information on the stabbing incident at 4:30[19] p.m. on the same day. It
In the present case, the victim had the opportunity to escape or to
took less than an hour from the time appellant evinced a desire to
defend himself. Before he and his group left the house of Mrs. del
commit the crime, as manifested by his shouts outside the house, up to
Rosario, they had already been forewarned of violent aggression from
the time he stabbed the victim. The span of less than one hour could not
appellant, whose words and stance while outside the house made its
have afforded the former full opportunity for meditation and reflection
imminence clear. The mode of attack adopted by appellant was not
on the consequences of the crime he committed.
without risk to himself; neither was it sudden. When he began his
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal menacing approach, he was visible to the victim and the latters
act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection on the resolution to companions. Appellant was out in the open and thus at risk from any
carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive defense which the group might make. The presence of such risk and the
at a calm judgment.[20] existence of ample opportunity for the victim to escape or defend
himself negated treachery.
To justify the inference of deliberate premeditation, there must
be a period sufficient in a judicial sense to afford full
opportunity for meditation and reflection and to allow the Second Issue:
conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution of his will if Proper Penalty
he desires to hearken to its warning.[21]
In his Brief, appellant further claims to have been a minor at the
Where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable from the time of the commission of the crime. This matter was, however, not
determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident raised during the trial. Furthermore, in his direct examination held on
premeditation cannot be appreciated.[22] Hence, the lower court erred in June 11, 1998, he stated for the record that he was a 20-year-old married
holding that evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder. man. Hence, we cannot agree to appreciate minority as a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
No Treachery
Absent any qualifying circumstance, appellant may be convicted of
Appellant also argues that treachery did not attend the commission
homicide only. Considering further the absence of any aggravating or
of the crime.
mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty of reclusion
temporal should be in the medium period[26] and encompassed by the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Damages
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
CALLEJO, SR., J.: the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the
passengers seats, while Victor stood by the door in the
Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another
property. Nevertheless, treachery is a generic aggravating passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of
circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on
treacherously. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled. So his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was
does the Court rule in this case, as it had done for his service gun bearing Serial Number 769806. Every now
decades. and then, Rodolfo looked at the side view mirror as well
as the rear view and center mirrors installed atop the
Before the Court on automatic review is the drivers seat to monitor any incoming and overtaking
Decision of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of
[1]
vehicles and to observe the passengers of the bus.
Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 443-M-97 convicting
accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor The lights of the bus were on even as some of the
Acuyan of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, passengers slept. When the bus was travelling along the
meting on each of them the supreme penalty of death, and highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly
ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim, SPO1 Jose stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a
C. Manio, Jr., the total amount of P300,000.00 by way of holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror
actual and moral damages and to pay to Five Star Bus, towards the passengers seat and saw Juan and Victor
Inc., the amount of P6,000.00 by way of actual damages. armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to
awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor followed suit
and fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then accosted Tolentino, the Municipal Health Officer of Mabalacat,
the passengers and divested them of their money and Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the
valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had police officer. The doctor prepared and signed an autopsy
collected from the passengers. The felons then went to report detailing the wounds sustained by the police officer
the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he and the cause of his death:
show them his identification card and wallet. Manio, Jr.
brought out his identification card bearing No. Body still flaccid (not in rigor mortis) bathed with his own
00898. Juan and Victor took the identification card of the
[3] blood. There were 6 entrance wounds and 6 exit wounds. All
police officer as well as his service gun and told the entrance were located on his right side. An entrance (0.5
him: Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo cm x 0.5 cm.) located infront of the right ear exited at the left
rin and papatay sa iyo. The police officer pleaded for side just below the ear lobe. Another entrance through the
mercy: Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya mouth exited at the back of the head fracturing the occiput
ako. However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the with an opening of (1.5 cm x 2 cm). Blood CSF and brain
police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest tissues came out. Another fatal bullet entered at the upper right
and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six cornea of the sternum, entered the chest cavity pierced the
entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus.Victor and heart and left lung and exited at the left axillary line. Severe
Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated hemorrhage in the chest cavity came from the heart and left
themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain lung. The other 3 bullets entered the right side and exited on
the speed of the bus. Rodolfo heard one of the felons the same side. One entrance at the top of the right shoulder
saying: Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang exited at the medial side of the right arm.The other entered
pumapatay ng manok. The other said: Ayos na naman above the right breast and exited at the right lateral abdominal
tayo pare. Malaki-laki ito. Victor and Juan further told wall travelling below muscles and subcutaneous tissues
Rodolfo that after they (Victor and Juan) shall have without entering the cavities. Lastly another bullet entered
alighted from the bus, he (Rodolfo) should continue above the right iliac crest travelled superficially and exited
driving the bus and not report the incident along the above the right inguinal line.
way. The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will
follow their instructions, he will not be harmed. Victor and Cause of Death:
Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass
in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the Shock, massive internal and external hemorrhage, complete
bus. The robbery was over in 25 minutes. brain destruction and injury to the heart and left lung caused
by multiple gunshot wounds. [4]
their plea of not guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter evidence in his behalf.
ensued. After the prosecution had rested its case on
August 26, 1998, Juan escaped from the provincial
jail. The trial court issued a bench warrant on September
[12] The Verdict of the Trial Court
22, 1998 for the arrest of said accused-appellant. In the
[13]
meantime, Victor adduced his evidence. On March 11, 1999, the trial court rendered its
Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense Decision judgment finding Juan and Victor guilty beyond
of alibi. He testified that in 1996, he worked as a tire man reasonable doubt of the crime charged, meted on each of
in the vulcanizing shop located in Banga I, Plaridel, them the penalty of death and ordered them to
Bulacan owned by Tony Boy Negro. On one occasion, pay P300,000.00 as actual and moral damages to the
Ilarde Victorino, a customer of Tony Boy Negro, ordered heirs of the victim and to pay the Five Star Bus Company
Victor to sell a tire. Victor sold the tire but did not turn over the amount of P6,000.00 as actual damages.The decretal
the proceeds of the sale to Ilarde.The latter hated Victor portion of the decision reads:
for his misdeed. The shop was later demolished and after
two months of employment, Victor returned to Barangay WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused, Juan Gonzales
Muwal-Buwal, Laoang, Northern Samar. On September Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond reasonable
26, 1996, at 9:30 p.m., Victor was at the town fiesta in doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294
Laoang. Victor and his friends, Joseph Iringco and Rickey of the Revised Penal Code as amended and hereby sentences
Lorcio were having a drinking spree in the house of both to suffer the supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify
Barangay Captain Ike Baluya. At 11:30 p.m., the three left the heirs of the late SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., the amount of
the house of the barangay captain and attended the public P300,000.00 as actual and moral damages and to pay the Five
dance at the town auditorium. Victor and his friends left Star Bus P6,000.00 as actual damage.
the auditorium at 5:30 a.m. of September 27, 1996. Victor
likewise testified that he never met Juan until his arrest SO ORDERED. [15]
AROUND 3:00 OCLOCK IN THE EARLY MORNING OF statutory right found in Section 1(f), Rule 115 of the
SEPTEMBER 28, 1996. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that
the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine
II the witnesses against him at the trial. However, the right
has always been understood as requiring not necessarily
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TWO (2) an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to
ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. What is
[18]
relying on the testimony of Rodolfo, the bus conductor, for the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine wholly
convicting them of the crime charged. They aver that or in part the witnesses against him, his right to cross-
although their counsel was able to initially cross-examine examine is impliedly waived. The testimony given on
[21]
Rodolfo, the former failed to continue with and terminate direct examination of the witness will be received or
his cross-examination of the said witness through no fault allowed to remain in the record. [22]
of the crime. They argue that the police investigators November 18, 1997. The counsel of Juan and Victor
never conducted a police line-up for the identification of forthwith commenced his cross-examination of the
the authors of the crime. witness but because of the manifestation of said counsel
that he cannot finish his cross-examination, the court
ordered the continuation thereof to December 5, examination of his own witnesses because it is not his
1997. On December 5, 1997, Rodolfo did not appear
[24]
obligation to ensure that his deponents are cross-
before the court for the continuation of his cross- examined. Having presented his witnesses, the burden shifts to
examination but Rosemarie Manio, the widow of the victim his opponent who must now make the appropriate
did. The prosecution presented her as witness.Her move. Indeed, the rule of placing the burden of the case on
testimony was terminated. The court ordered the plaintiffs shoulders can be construed to extremes as what
continuation of the trial for the cross-examination of happened in the instant proceedings. [27]
on January 20, 1998, Rodolfo was present but accused- The trial was reset to March 31, April 17 and 24, 1998,
appellants counsel was absent. The court issued an order all at 8:30 a.m. because of the non-availability of the other
declaring that for failure of said counsel to appear before witnesses of the prosecution. On March 31, 1998, the
[28]
the court for his cross-examination of Rodolfo, Victor and prosecution presented Dr. Alejandro Tolentino, PO2 Rene
Juan waived their right to continue with the cross- de la Cruz and Romulo Digap. During the trial on April 17,
examination of said witness. During the trial set for
[26] 1998, the counsel of Juan and Victor failed to appear. The
February 3, 1998, the counsel of Juan and Victor trial was reset to June 3, 19 and 26, 1998. The trial
[29]
appeared but did not move for a reconsideration of the scheduled on June 3, 1998 was cancelled due to the
courts order dated January 20, 1998 and for the recall of absence of the counsel of Juan and Victor. The court
Rodolfo Cacatian for further cross-examination. It issued an order appointing Atty. Roberto Ramirez as
behooved counsel for Juan and Victor to file said motion counsel for accused-appellants. [30]
and pray that the trial court order the recall of Rodolfo on During the trial on August 26, 1998, Atty. Ramirez
the witness stand. Juan and Victor cannot just fold their appeared in behalf of Juan and Victor. The prosecution
arms and supinely wait for the prosecution or for the trial rested its case after the presentation of SPO2 Romeo
court to initiate the recall of said witness. Indeed, the Court Meneses and formally offered its documentary
held in Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, et al: evidence. The next trial was set on September 23, 1998
xxx at 8:30 a.m. On November 11, 1998, Juan and Victor
[31]
imposed on the party who wishes to exercise said right. This is 27, 1999 without any evidence adduced by Juan.
so because the right, being personal and waivable, the
Juan and Victor did not even file any motion to reopen
intention to utilize it must be expressed. Silence or failure to
the case before the trial court rendered its decision to
assert it on time amounts to a renunciation thereof. Thus, it
allow them to cross-examine Rodolfo. They remained
should be the counsel for the opposing party who should move
mute after judgment was rendered against them by the
to cross-examine plaintiffs witnesses. It is absurd for the
trial court. Neither did they file any petition for certiorari
plaintiff himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-
with the Court of Appeals for the nullification of the Order shooting, the latter collapsed on the floor. The two (2) then
of the trial court dated January 20, 1998 declaring that went back at the front portion of the bus behind the drivers seat
they had waived their right to cross-examine Rodolfo. It and were overheard by the bus driver, Cacatian, talking how
was only on appeal to this Court that Juan and Victor easy it was to kill a man. The robbery and the killing were over
averred for the first time that they were deprived of their in 25 minutes. Upon reaching the Mexico overpass of the
right to cross-examine Rodolfo. It is now too late in the day Expressway in Pampanga, the two (2) got off the bus. The
for Juan and Victor to do so. The doctrine of estoppel driver drove the bus to the Mabalacat Police Station and
states that if one maintains silence when in conscience he reported the incident. During the investigation conducted by
ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when the police, it was found out that the slain passenger was a
in conscience he ought to remain silent. He who remains policeman, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. of the Caloocan City
silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak Police Department.
when he should be silent. [33]
Q If you will look at your center mirror you will only see the A Yes, sir.
aisle and you will never see any portion of the body of Q And as a driver, Mr. witness, you do not used (sic) your
your passengers? mirror to identify the person particularly when you are
A Yes, sir. crossing (sic) at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour?
A It is only focus (sic) on the middle aisle sir. Q How long Mr. witness can you focus your eyes on any of
these mirror before getting back your eyes into the main
road?
A Seconds only, sir. Q And while you were at the precise moment, Mr. witness, you
were being instructed to continue driving, you were not
Q When you said seconds, for how long the most Mr. witness
looking to anybody except focus yours eyes in front of the
that you can do to fix your eyes on any of your mirrors and road?
the return back of (sic) your eyes into the main road?
Fiscal:
A Two seconds, sir.
May I request the vernacular. Nakikiramdam ako.
Q At that time Mr. witness, that you were travelling at about 70
kilometers you were glancing every now and then on any Atty. Osorio:
of your mirrors at about two seconds, correct?
(to the witness)
A Yes, sir.
Q Thats what you are doing?
Q And when you heard the announcement of hold-up your
natural reaction is to look either at the center mirror or rear A During the time they were gathering the money from my
mirror for two seconds, correct? passengers, that is the time when I look at them, sir.
Q And you were instructed Mr. witness to even accelerate A Yes, sir.
your speed upon the announcement of hold-up? Q Which of the four (4) mirrors that you are looking at within
A No sir, they just told me to continue my driving, sir. two seconds, Mr. witness you said you are
nakikiramdam?
Fiscal:
A The rear view mirror, sir.
May I request the vernacular alalay ka lang, steady ka lang.
Q The Bus that you were driving is not an air con bus?
Atty. Osorio:
A Ordinary bus, sir.
(to the witness)
Q And at what time your passengers, most of your passengers
Q Steady at what speed? were already sleep (sic), Mr. witness?
A 70 to 80, sir. A Most of my passengers, sir. Some of my passengers were
still sleep (sic), sir.
Q What is the minimum speed, Mr. witness for Buses along
North Expressway? Q And the lights inside the Bus are off, correct Mr. witness?
A 60 kilometers, sir. A The lights were on, sir.
Q Are you sure of that 60 kilometers, minimum? Are you sure Q While the passengers were sleep (sic) the light was still on,
of that? Mr. witness, at the time of the trip.?
A Yes, sir. A Yes, sir.
Q That is what you know within the two (2) years that you are Q Now, Mr. witness when the hold-up was announced and
driving? Along the North Expressway? then when you look for two seconds in the rear mirror you
A Yes, sir.
were not able to see any one, you were only sensing what 9. T: Kung sakali bang makikita mo pa ang mga ito ay
is happening inside your bus? makikilala mo pa sila?
A I saw something, sir. S: Makikilala ko po sila.[40]
Q You saw something in front of your Bus? You can only see When asked to identify the robbers during the trial,
inside when you are going to look at the mirror? Rodolfo spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan and
A Yes, sir. Victor:
Q That is the only thing that you see every now and then, you QFiscal:
said you were looking at the mirror?
(to the witness)
A Yes, sir.
xxx
Q How many times, Mr. witness did you look Mr. witness at
the rear mirror during the entire occurance (sic) of the Q Those two man (sic) who stated that it was a hold-up inside
alleged hold-up? the bus and who fired the gun are they inside the Court
room (sic) today?
A There were many times, sir.
A Yes, maam.
Q The most that you can remember, please inform the
Honorable Court? During the occurance (sic) of the Q Point to us?
alleged hold-up, Mr. witness?
Interpreter:
A I cannot estimate, sir.
Witness pointing to a man wearing red T-shirt and when
Q How long did the alleged hold-up took place? asked his name answered Victor Acuyan and the man
wearing green T-shirt and when asked his name
A More or less 25 minutes, sir.[39] answered Juan Gonzales.[41]
When Rodolfo gave his sworn statement to the police For his part, Romulo likewise spontaneously pointed
investigators in Plaridel, Bulacan after the robbery, he to and identified Juan and Victor as the culprits when
described the felons. When asked by the police asked by the prosecutor to identify the robbers from
investigators if he could identify the robbers if he see them among those in the courtroom:
again, Rodolfo declared that he would be able to identify
them: xxx
8. T: Natatandaan mo ba kung ano ang itsura ng dalawang Q You said that you were robbed inside the bus, how does
lalaki na nanghold-up sa minamaneho mong bus? (sic) the robbing took place?
S: Halos magkasing taas, 54 o 55 katam-taman ang A They announced a hold up maam, afterwards, they
pangangatawan, parehong nakapantalon ng maong confiscated the money of the passengers including my
naka-suot ng jacket na maong, parehong naka rubber collections.
shoes at pareho ring naka sumbrero. Q You said they who announced the hold up, whose (sic)
these they you are referring to?
A Those two (2), maam. While police investigators did not place Juan and
Interpreter: Victor in a police line-up for proper identification by
Witness pointing to the two accused.
Rodolfo and Romulo, it cannot thereby be concluded that
absent such line-up, their identification by Romulo and
Public Pros.: Rodolfo as the authors of the robbery with homicide was
May we request that the accused be identified, Your Honor. unreliable. There is no law or police regulation requiring a
Court: police line-up for proper identification in every case. Even
if there was no police line-up, there could still be proper
(to both accused)
and reliable identification as long as such identification
What are your names? was not suggested or instigated to the witness by the
A Juan Escote, Your Honor. Victor Acuyan, Your Honor. police. In this case, there is no evidence that the police
[45]
Public Pros.:
officers had supplied or even suggested to Rodolfo and
Romulo the identities of Juan and Victor as the
May we know from the accused if his name is Juan Escote
perpetrators of the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio,
Gonzales because he just said Juan Escote. In the
Information, it is one Juan Gonzales, Jr., so, we can Jr.
change, Your Honor.[42]
Moreover, when he was accosted by SPO3 Romeo The Felony Committed by Juan and Victor
Meneses on October 25, 1997 in Tarlac, Tarlac, Juan was
in possession of the identification card of the slain police
[43]
officer. Juan failed to explain to the trial court how and The Court finds that the trial court committed no error
under what circumstances he came into possession of in convicting Juan and Victor of robbery with homicide.
said identification card. Juan must necessarily be Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
considered the author of the robbery and the killing of amended by Republic Act 7659, reads:
SPO1 Manio, Jr. In People v. Mantung, we held: [44]
portion of its decision the aggravating circumstances unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
attendant in the commission of the crime mandating the victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself
imposition of the death penalty. However, it is evident from and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
the findings of facts contained in the body of the decision himself. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the
of the trial court that it imposed the death penalty on Juan victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was
and Victor on its finding that they shot SPO1 Manio, Jr. defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction
treacherously on the occasion of or by reason of the of the coup de grace. In the case at bar, the victim
[53]
homicide, a special complex crime (un delito especial opinion that treachery is applicable only to crimes against
complejo) and at the same time a single and indivisible persons. However, Justice Florenz D. Regalado
[62]
cases has held that robbery with homicide is a crime cannot be considered in robbery but can be appreciated
against property and hence treachery which is insofar as the killing is concerned, citing the decisions of
appreciated only to crimes against persons should not be this Court in People vs. Balagtas for the purpose of
[64]
Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code is Contra las personas. - Luego la circunstancia de alevosia solo
a reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code of Spain and puede apreciarse en los delitos provistos desde el art. 417 al
the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 with a slight 447, y en algun otro, como el de robo con homicidio, atentario,
difference. In the latter law, the words las personas (the a la vez que contra la propriedad, contra la persona.
persons) are used, whereas in Article 14, paragraph 6, of
the Revised Penal Code, the words the person are used. Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
Going by the letter of the law, treachery is applicable to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified
only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title as a crime against property and a single and indivisible
crime.Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance because
as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision crime of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery should
dated September 11, 1878, the word homicide is used in be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in
its broadest and most generic sense. [69]
robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper
penalty for the crime.
Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty for a In its Sentencia dated March 14, 1877, the Supreme
crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into Court of Spain declared that treachery is a generic
account. However, aggravating circumstances which in aggravating circumstance not only in crimes against
themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law persons but also in robbery with homicide. The high court
or which are included by the law in defining a crime and of Spain applied Article 79 of the Spanish Penal Code
prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code) and ruled that since
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. Under
[70]
treachery is not a constitutive element of the crime of
paragraph 2 of the law, the same rule shall apply with robbery with homicide nor is it inherent in said crime,
respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the without which it cannot be committed, treachery is an
crime to such a degree that it must of necessity aggravating circumstance to said crime. The high court of
accompany the commission thereof. Spain was not impervious of the fact that robbery with
homicide is classified as a crime against property. Indeed,
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a it specifically declared that the classification of robbery
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the with homicide as a crime against property is irrelevant and
law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor inconsequential in the application of treachery. It further
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing declared that it would be futile to argue that in crimes
the penalty. against property such as robbery with homicide, treachery
would have no application. This is so, the high tribunal
xxx ruled, because when robbery is coupled with crimes
committed against persons, the crime is not only an
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any assault (ataca) on the property of the victims but also of
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a the victims themselves (ofende):
degree that it must be of necessity accompany the commission
thereof. xxx que la circunstancia agravante de alevosia ni es
constitutiva del delito complejo de robo y homicidio, ni de tal
Treachery is not an element of robbery with modo inherente que sin ella no pueda cometerse, sin que quepa
homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially arguir que en los delitos contra la propiedad no debe aquella
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining tener aplicacion, porque cuando estos son complejos de los
the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the que se cometen contra las personas, no solo se ataca a la
penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the propiedad, sino que se ofende a estas. xxx[71]
In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic art. 516, num. I, con la circunstancia agravante de alevosia,
aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, puesto que los medios, forma y modos empleados en la
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide ejecucion del crimen tendieron directa y especialmente a
which is a crime against persons and not at the asegurarla sin riesgo para sus autores, procedente de la
constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against defensa del ofendido.[72]
aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means
increases the penalty for the crime conformably with employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
generic mitigating circumstance. knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein. The circumstances attending
In its Sentencia, dated July 9, 1877, the high tribunal
the commission of a crime either relate to the persons
of Spain also ruled that when the victim of robbery is killed participating in the crime or into its manner of execution or
with treachery, the said circumstance should be
to the means employed. The latter has a direct bearing
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance in
upon the criminal liability of all the accused who have
robbery with homicide: knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the
crime or of their cooperation thereon. Accordingly, the
[74]
xxx que si aparece probado que el procesado y su co-reo
Spanish Supreme Court held in its Sentencia dated
convinieron en matar a un conocido suyo, compaero de viaje,
December 17, 1875 that where two or more persons
para lo cual desviaron cautelosamente los carros que guiaban,
perpetrate the crime of robbery with homicide, the generic
en uno de los cuales iba el interfecto, dirigiendolos por otro
aggravating circumstance of treachery shall be
camino que conducia a un aljibon, y al llegar a este, valiendose
appreciated against all of the felons who had knowledge
de engao para hacer bajar a dicho interfecto, se lanzaron de
of the manner of the killing of victims of homicide, with the
improviso sobre el, tirandolo en tierra, robandole el dinero, la
ratiocination that:
manta y los talegos que llevaba, y atandole al pie una piedra de
mucho peso, le arrojaron con ella a dicho aljibon, dados estos
xxx si por la Ley basta haberse ejecutado un homicidio simple
hechos, no cabe duda que constituyen el delito complejo del
con motivo ocasin del robo para la imposicion de la pena del
art. 516, num. I, no puede sere ni aun discutible que, and Victor should each be meted the penalty of reclusion
concurriendo la agravante de alevosia, se aumente la perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal
criminalidad de los delincuentes; siendo aplicable a todos los Code.
autores del hecho indivisible, porque no es circunstancia que
afecte a la personalidad del delincuente, de las que habla el art.
80 del Codigo penal en su primera parte, sino que consiste en Civil Liability of Juan and Victor
la ejecusion material del hecho y en los medios empleados
para llevarle a cabo, cuando de ellos tuvieron conocimiento The trial court awarded the total amount
todos los participantes en el mismo por el concierto previo y of P300,000.00 to the heirs of SPO1 Manio, Jr. The court
con las condiciones establecidad en la segunda parte del citado did not specify whether the said amounts included civil
articulo.
[75]
indemnity for the death of the victim, moral damages and
the lost earnings of the victim as a police officer of the
Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated PNP. The Court shall thus modify the awards granted by
against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the the trial court.
same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Since the penalty imposed on Juan and Victor
Procedures which reads: is reclusion perpetua, the heirs of the victim are entitled to
civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The heirs are
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or also entitled to moral damages in the amount
information shall state the designation of the offense given by of P50,000.00, Rosemarie Manio having testified on the
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense factual basis thereof. Considering that treachery
[77]
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If aggravated the crime, the heirs are also entitled to
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Court held in People vs. Catubig that the retroactive
[78]
The heirs are likewise entitled to damages for the lost Living
earnings of the victim. The evidence on record shows that expenses]
SPO1 Manio, Jr. was born on August 25, 1958. He was
killed on September 28, 1996 at the age of 38. He had a = 28 x [P96,780.00 P48,390.00]
gross monthly salary as a member of the Philippine
National Police of P8,065.00 or a gross annual salary = 28 x P48,390.00
of P96,780.00. Hence, the heirs are entitled to the amount
of P1,354,920.00 by way of lost earnings of the victim = P1,354,920.00
computed, thus:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of
Age of the victim = 38 years old the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants Juan
Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 age of the victim at the time of Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan are hereby found
death) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of robbery
with homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the
= 2/3 x (80-38) Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying
circumstances in the commission of the felony, hereby
= 2/3 x 42 metes on each of them the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA. Said accused-appellants are hereby
= 28 years ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim
SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. the amounts of P50,000.00 as
Gross Annual Income = gross monthly income x 12 months civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, P1,349,920.00 for lost earnings, P30,000.00 as
= P8,065.00 x 12 actual damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The award of P6,000.00 to the Five Star Bus,
Inc. is deleted. However, the said corporation is awarded
the amount of P3,000.00 as temperate damages.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Vitug J., please see separate opinion.
Ynares-Santiago, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., join J.
Vitugs separate opinion.
FIRST DIVISION (2) P22,050.00 as actual damages ; and
Art. 248, Revised Penal Code. Republic Act No. 7659 defining
heinous crimes was not yet passed and effective at the time of Upon his arraignment on August 11, 1992, appellant,
the commission of the crime. Accused Sergio A. Caratao is assisted by his counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. Trial
[3]
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, thereafter ensued and the court a quo rendered the
with all the accessory penalties provided for in Art. 41, assailed decision.
Revised Penal Code. Further, the knife used in the commission The prosecution relies on the eyewitness accounts of
of the crime is hereby declared confiscated and forfeited in Martin Sugala, Eugenio Agudera and Roberto
favor of the government. Furthermore, he is ordered to Mangmang. The widow of the deceased, Moreta Bulawin,
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Edgardo Tado Bulawin, testified to prove civil damages. Their testimonies are
the following: summarized below.
(1) P50,000.00 for the death of Edgardo Tado Bulawin; Martin Sugala, a rice dispatching checker employed
with Nasipit Agusan Lumber Company (NALCO) at
Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, testified that at around 4:00 A. When the right hand was on the side of Bulawin, it was
p.m., appellant and his wife entered the commissary retracted very fast and I saw that that hand was holding a
knife, and [that he] immediately made another thrust
canteen of NALCO. Appellants wife approached Sugala towards here. (witness pointing to his nose)
and told him that her husband was angry. Sugala asked
ATTY. GONZALES: With the permission of the Court, may we
appellant about this. Appellant replied, saying that he was request the witness to re-enact what [he] actually saw,
not given additional rice vale by the victim Edgardo Tado and we request the jail guard to act as the victim.
Bulawin, NALCOs rice vale issuer. After checking that
COURT: Okay.
there was extra rice available, Sugala assured appellant
that he would give him an additional 25 kilos. INTERPRETER: (Jail guard Meode being requested to act as
Edgardo Bulawin and the witness as accused Sergio
Shortly thereafter, Sugala saw the victim walk out of Caratao.)
the canteen. Sensing that appellant was about to rush to (Edgardo Bulawin made an initial stance as if riding on a
the victim, the witness restrained him and said, Do not do motorcycle with both hands on the handle bars of the
anything harsh because we are all brothers here, anyway motorcycle.)
I am giving you [an] additional 25 kilos of rice. He placed ATTY GONZALES:
his arm around appellant and accompanied him to the Q. Where was Caratao when you first saw him, how far was
issuing area for the additional rice. Upon reaching the he?
issuing area, he first checked the rice being issued to two
A. This distance, [S]ir. (witness demonstrating a distance of
employees. After this, he noticed that appellant was no about 1 meter from the back of Bulawin)
longer near him. Through the canteens screened
Q. Then re-enact what you saw.
windows, he next saw appellant standing one meter
behind the victim, who was then already astride his A. After I shouted Bay, your rice is ready, I saw Sergio
motorbike. About 5 meters from Sugalas position, the Caratao, in a simultaneous action, place his left hand on
the left shoulder of Bulawin and the right hand of Caratao
victims motorbike was facing towards the exit gate, with on the right side of Bulawin. When Sergio Caratao
its engine already running. At that moment, he saw
[4]
withdrew his right hand from the right side of Bulawin, I
appellant attack the victim from behind: saw that the right hand has a knife in it, and a second
thrusting motion was made towards the face of Bulawin.
Q. What did you observe next? After that, Bulawin got off from his motorcycle and ran
A. When I saw that Sergio Caratao was already about 1 meter towards the cemented road. Sergio Caratao remained
away from the back of Edgardo Bulawin, I shouted to him standing on the place of the incident still holding that knife,
saying Bay, your rice is ready. At that moment, I saw that and after that, Caratao and his wife went home.[5]
the left hand of Caratao was on the shoulder of Bulawin
and his right hand was on the side of Bulawin. I thought
Sugala also recalled seeing many people at the scene
he only boxed the latter. of the incident, such as some NALCO employees, security
guards, and outsiders who buy rice from the canteen
Q. Aside from thrusting his hand at the side of Bulawin, what
else if any did you see Caratao do with his hand? called the blackmarketers. [6]
Roberto Mangmang, canteen dispatcher of NALCO, who witnessed the incident such as Clemente Felias,
corroborated Sugalas testimony. He testified that in the Roberto Mangmang, Dino Macabugto, Martin Sugala and
afternoon of April 27, 1992, while walking from the the blackmarketers. [11]
his motorbike facing the gate, with his hands on its handle
victim was transferred to Butuan Doctors Hospital, where
bars. From a distance of one and a half meter, he
he expired. She presented her husbands death certificate
witnessed appellant put his left hand on the victims left
to prove his age at the time of death, and his latest
[13]
shoulder and thrust his right hand on the victims right side.
income tax return to prove his annual gross income
Immediately thereafter, appellant made another thrust at
of P37,432. She testified that she spent more
[14]
somebody shout, Do, run! The victim then ran out through
the gate towards the hospital, while appellant ran home. The defense presented four witnesses, namely,
Mangmang followed the victim and saw his intestines appellant, Nancy Sotis, Delia Peramide, and SPO4
bulging and coming out. He then brought the victim to the Bienvenido Capablanca.
nearby hospital aboard a tricycle. He testified having
[8]
Taking the witness stand, appellant Sergio
seen many employees in the area at the time of the Caratao admitted stabbing the victim, but interposed self-
incident, whom he could not identify. [9]
defense to exculpate himself. He testified that on April 27,
Eugenio Agudera, the security guard of NALCO, 1992, at around 4:00 p.m., he was with his wife at
testified that on April 27, 1992, he likewise saw the the NALCO Commissary Canteen, where the victim was
stabbing incident four meters away from the guardhouse then on duty as rice vale issuer. He requested the victim
by the gate of the canteen. At around 4:15 p.m., he for his rice vale. The victim told him to wait. Appellant
witnessed appellant sneak from behind the victim who hence waited nearby for around ten minutes, while the
was astride his motorcycle, and stab the victims right side victim issued rice to others. Appellant thereafter kept
with a knife. begging the victim for his turn, telling him Do, give me my
Immediately thereafter, appellantdelivered a second rice because I have nothing to eat for supper, but the
blow, with a slashing motion across the victims mouth. victim made no reply. Despite repeated pleas, he was not
Upon seeing this, he shouted, Run, Do!, directed at the given any rice. Upon seeing the victim leave the issuing
victim. The victim then ran out towards the highway area, he kept silent and walked away. He went to his wife
through the gate, while clutching his stomach as it bled and told her that he was unable to get rice. His wife then
profusely. Agudera also confirmed the presence of those
[10] left.
Shortly thereafter, appellant also left to go home. On however, he confirmed the presence of Agudera outside
his way out, he saw the victim getting his motorbike. He the said gate.[20]
anyone shout Run, Do! On his way out of the gate after
[18]
Delia Peramide, a blackmarketer like Sotis, testified to Clemente Felias, the NALCO security guard whose
rebut the statement of prosecution eyewitness shift was previous to that of prosecution eyewitness
Mangmang, who declared that he brought the victim to the Agudera, testified that throughout his tour of duty from
hospital aboard a tricycle. She narrated that in the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., he never saw defense eyewitness
afternoon of April 27, 1992, while she was in line for Sotis within the compound. He also testified that he, too,
consultation inside St. Christopher Hospital, she heard witnessed the incident, and declared that it was not true
someone shout, Doctor, there is an emergency. She ran that the victim punched appellant before the stabbing. [33]
assails the trial court for giving credence to the admission of appellant in his testimony that he stabbed
prosecutions evidence and disregarding his claim of self- the victim makes it incumbent upon him convincingly to
defense. prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of
The settled rule is that where an accused admits killing the victim which necessitated the use of deadly force. In [41]
the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal the case at bar, appellant tried to prove that the unlawful
liability, he assumes the burden to establish his plea by aggression emanated from the victim, who punched him
credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, in the face and hit him in the thigh with his motorbike,
conviction would follow from his admission that he killed without provocation on his part. This the trial court found
the victim. This is known as a shift in the burden of the
[35]
unconvincing, thus:
evidence, and as a result thereof the person claiming self-
Under the situation where Tado Bulawin was in a riding
defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
position on his motorcycle, holding its handle bars, ready to
not on the weakness of the prosecutions. Furthermore,
[36]
start the engine, the court finds it incredible for him to be the
on appeal, appellant must show that the court below
unlawful aggressor. Instead, Sergio Carataos being made to
committed reversible error in appreciating the evidence. [37]
wait and make repeated requests or pleas for his vale of rice
To prove self-defense, the accused must show with must have moved him to be the unlawful aggressor thereby
clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the victim inflicting stab wounds on the victim Tado Bulawin. For the
committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated, it must be
imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming shown that the compulsion is of such character that the
self-defense; (2) that there was reasonable necessity in accused is left with no opportunity to escape or self-defense
the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful [sic] in equal combat (People v. Fronda, 222 SCRA 71). And
aggression; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient this is not the set-up in the case at bar. The prosecution version
provocation on the part of the person claiming self- merits belief and credence beyond reasonable doubt. [42]
the fact that the victim refused to give him his rice vale. He
Second, on cross-examination, appellant missed the thus had more motive to do harm than the victim. On the
part where the victim allegedly hit his left thigh with the witness stand, he reasoned that he stabbed the victim, not
motorcycle, testifying that after the first punch, he to repel the victims attack, nor out of fear for his life, but
immediately stabbed the victim. Interestingly, defense
[44]
specifically because he lost his temper. [48]
Further, his contention that Tado Bulawin while still in that an appellants failure to inform the police upon his
riding position boxed him and that Tado Bulawin let run his surrender that he acted in self-defense is fatal to his
motorcycle pushing forward hitting accused on his thigh also defense. A righteous individual will not cower in fear but
[50]
do not inspire belief because accused Sergio Caratao was rather unabashedly admit the killing at the earliest
positioned at the right side of the motorcycle, not in front, and opportunity if he were morally justified in so doing. A
if at all Tado Bulawin boxed him in that riding position, the belated plea suggests that it is false and only an
motorcycle could have probably fallen down. But [there was] afterthought made as a last-ditch effort to avoid the
no proof that it did fall.
[46]
consequences of the crime. [51]
prosecutions testimonies. The account of Sotis, however, by different witnesses could mean that their testimonies
was put to question by the rebuttal testimony of Felias, were prefabricated and rehearsed. What is primordial is
[56]
whom Sotis admitted to having seen on the day of the that the mass of testimony jibes on material points. [57]
there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the Thus, we find that the court a quo was correct in
prosecution were actuated by ill motives, their testimonies upholding the testimonies of the prosecution. The unlawful
are entitled to full faith and credit.
[54] aggression was convincingly established to have
emanated from appellant, and not from the victim.
All told, no matter how appellant tried to cast doubt on
Appellant having failed to discharge the burden of
the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution, we find
establishing his defense, his conviction necessarily
the prosecution witnesses to be more credible than those
follows on the basis of his admission of the killing. [61]
execution employed gave the person attacked no moment, treachery cannot be appreciated. [68]
that he attacked the victim the way he did. The stabbing Coming now to the matter of damages, we affirm the
was evidently a result of a rash and impetuous impulse of award of actual damages in the amount of P22,050, as
the moment arising from what appellant perceived to be these are duly substantiated by receipts and appear to
have been genuinely incurred in connection with the 26 x [P37,432 x 50% (annual net income)]= P 486, 616 [78]
[G.R. No. 134362. February 27, 2002] Five witnesses testified for the prosecution, namely, Lilia
Garcia, a neighbor; the victim's eight-year old brother Roberto;
the investigating officer, PO3 Paul Dennis Javier; Dr. Manuel
Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- Investigation (NBI); and Felicisima Francisco, a forensic chemist
appellee, vs. EMELITO SITCHON y of the same agency.
TAYAG, accused-appellant. Appellant lived in the second floor of a three-square
meter house located at 2001 Batangas Street,
DECISION Tondo, Manila. His neighbor of two months, Lilia Garcia, resided
in the first floor of the same house.
KAPUNAN, J.:
At about 10:00 in the morning of June 12, 1996, Lilia was in
For beating to death the two-year old son of his common-law front of the house attending to her children when she heard the
wife, accused-appellant Emelito Sitchon y Tayag was convicted sound of a boy crying. Curious, Lilia went up the stairway, her
of murder and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court children in tow. The open door of the upper floor allowed Lilia to
of Manila. His case is now before this Court on automatic review. witness appellant beating two-year old Mark Anthony Fernandez.
From a distance of less than three arms length, Lilia saw
Appellant was charged in an information stating:
appellant hit various parts of the boys body with a piece of wood,
about 14 inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. Appellant also
That on or about June 12, 1996, in the City of Manila, banged the head of the boy against the wooden wall.
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with The beating went on for about one hour. Lilia then saw
treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use appellant carry the boy down the house to bring him to the
hospital. The two-year old was already black and no longer
personal violence upon one MARK ANTHONY moving.[4]
FERNANDEZ y TABORA a minor, 2 years old, by then and
there mauling and clubbing him on the different parts of his Eight-year old Roberto Fernandez is the elder brother of the
body with the use of a steel hammer and a wooden stick, victim, also known as Macky. According to Roberto, Macky had
scattered his feces all over the house. Appellant, whom Roberto
approximately 18 inches long, thereby inflicting upon the latter called Kuya Chito, thus beat Macky with a belt, a hammer and a
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of 2x2 piece of wood. Roberto could not do anything to help his
his death thereafter. brother because he was afraid Kuya Chito might also beat him
up. When Kuya Chito brought Macky to the hospital, his little
CONTRARY TO LAW. [1]
brother, who could barely talk, was not crying anymore.[5]
Roberto identified the two pieces of wood [6] that appellant blunt traversal injuries or complication of the lungs due to said
allegedly used in beating the victim. He also identified the T- injuries.[10] The autopsy report of Dr. Lagonera shows that Mark
shirt[7] that Macky wore when he died. Anthony Fernandez sustained the following injuries:
A certain Alice Valerio from
the Galang Medical Hospital informed PO3 Paul Dennis EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
Javier that a boy had been admitted there. When PO3 Javier
1. Multiple old scars, forehead.
went to the hospital, he found the boy already dead. He observed
that the child had wounds on the left middle finger, the right index 2. Healing lacerated wound, left forehead.
finger and both feet. The child also had lacerations in the upper
3. Healed lacerated wound, above the left eyebrow,
lip and contusions all over his head and body. measuring 1.2x0.2 cm.
PO3 Javier proceeded to appellants house at No. 2001, 4. Healed linear abrasions, left cheek.
Batangas Ext., Tondo, Manila. Human feces and fresh blood
splattered on the floor. PO3 Javier recovered from the house the 5. Lacerated wound, extending up to the mucous membrane
broken wooden sticks, the steel hammer,[8] which were allegedly of the upper lip, measuring 2 x0.3 cm.
used to beat up the boy, as well as a bloodstained white T-shirt. 6. Contussion (sic), left temporo-parietal region, measuring
6x5 cms.
PO3 Javier then went to the house of appellants sister in Del
Fierro St., Tondo, who informed him of matters relative to 7. Healing lacerated wound, left zygomatic region, measuring
appellants identification. Thereafter, the police conducted a 0.5x0.3 cm.
search operation in Cavite where appellants mother lived but 8. Contussion (sic), left jaw, measuring 1.5x1 cm.
they did not find him there. Later that afternoon, PO3 Javier
learned that appellant had surrendered to Station 3 of their 9. Contussion (sic), right anterior thorax, measuring 17x12
district. cms.
10. Contussion (sic), right anterior forearm.
The following day, a staff member of the television
program Magandang Gabi Bayan turned over to PO3 Javier a 11. Lacerated wound, tip of the forefinger, right.
brown belt which appellant allegedly also used in beating the 12. Old scar, upper 3rd , right anterior thigh.
victim.Roberto Fernandez, the victims brother, had given the belt
to the staff member.[9] 13. Contussion (sic), right lower leg, above and below the
knee measuring 9x5 cms.
Dr. Manuel Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the NBI,
conducted the postmortem examination of the victims body 14. Contussion (sic), left lower leg, above and below the knee,
measuring 13x6 cms.
on June 12, 1996 at 4:40 p.m. He found that the boy had suffered
many injuries, including three wounds at the head and the 15. Hematoma, big toe, under the nail bed, right.
anterior chest, which could have been inflicted with the use of
16. Contusso-abrasion, dorsum of the left foot, measuring 6x2
blunt objects such as a piece of wood or a fist. The child could cms.
have been dead three to four hours, or not more than eight hours,
prior to the postmortem examination. Dr. Lagonera concluded 17. Contussion (sic), left posterior thorax, measuring 17x6
that the victim died of bilateral pneumonia secondary to multiple cms.
18. Contussion (sic), right postero-lateral thorax, extending up only because he was under the influence of shabu,
to the right lumbar region, measuring 13x6 cms. marijuana and Valium 10 at that time. Appellant professed that
19. Contussion (sic), right posterior forearm, measuring 24x8 he began using drugs in 1974 and that he had also taken drugs
cms. two weeks before the incident.
20. Contussion (sic), left posterior forearm, measuring 22x7 On June 12, 1996, appellant came upon Macky playing with
cms. his feces, scattering them all over the pillow, the bed sheets and
the curtains. Appellant scolded the boy, Putang-ina ka
21. Healing abrasion, right buttocks, measuring 2x0.5 cm.
Macky! Bakit mo ikinalat ng ganyan ang tae mo? Halika, dadalhin
22. Plucked finger nail, left middle finger, with hematoma of kita sa baba para hugasan! Appellant got hold of Macky but the
the nail bed. boy struggled to free himself from appellants grasp.Appellant, still
23. Posterior hand, both swollen. reeling from the Valium 10 he had just taken, became so angry
that he picked up a broom with a wooden handle, and hit the
INTERNAL FINDINGS: boy. Appellant did not realize that he had hit Macky hard until he
saw the boy sprawled on the floor, breathing with difficulty. He
1. Presence of left sub-aponeurotic hematoma, temporo- dressed Macky and brought him to the Galang Medical Center at
parietal region and over the mid-occipital region. the corner of Abad Santos Avenue and Tayabas
Street, Manila. He prayed to God that nothing serious would
2. Hematoma over the sternum and pectoralis muscles. happen to the boy.
3. Both lungs showed patcy and confluent consolidations. A lady doctor immediately attended to Macky. Appellant
4. Small amount of rice porridge was recovered from the pleaded to the lady doctor to do all she can to save the child;
stomach.[11] otherwise, he would be in serious trouble. After examining the
child, the doctor told appellant that she could not do anything
Felicisima M. Francisco, NBI forensic chemist, conducted an
more Macky was dead. The same day, appellant surrendered to
examination to determine the presence and grouping of human
the police. He was brought to the Homicide Section at 3:00 p.m.
blood found on the steel hammer, the wooden sticks, and the T-
shirt that were sent to his office by P/Sr. Inspector Pedro Ramos Explaining his change of plea, appellant clarified that the
Angulo, Jr. of the Western Police District in Manila.[12] She killing of the boy was "accidental." He reiterated that he was
prepared Report No. B-96-941 stating that Specimen No. 1 or the under the influence of drugs, which he had taken one after the
steel hammer, was positive for human blood but insufficient for other. He was a drug dependent and, in fact, had been confined
blood group. Specimen Nos. 2 (the broken wooden sticks) and 3 at the Tagaytay Rehabilitation Center. He said he was conscious
(the white T-shirt) were also positive for human blood showing when the incident happened but he simply did not realize that he
reactions of Group A.[13] had hit the child hard with the brooms wooden handle. He denied
having hit the boy with a hammer or having banged his head
Only appellant, 40, a sidewalk vendor, testified for the
against the wall. He hoped the trial court would be lenient with
defense. As stated earlier, appellant admitted killing the two-year
him because of his voluntary surrender. He prayed that the court
old victim, the son of his live-in partner. He and the boys mother
would not impose upon him the death penalty.[14]
had lived together for two years before the incident, starting when
the boy was about a year old. He claimed he enjoyed a Nevertheless, on July 3, 1998, the trial court promulgated its
harmonious relationship with his partner and that he killed the boy decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Emelito Sitchon persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
y Tayag, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution
murder and is sentenced to suffer the death penalty and to pay without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.[18] It is beyond dispute that the killing
the costs. The accused is further ordered to pay the mother of
of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not
the victim Christina Tabora, moral and nominal damages in the be expected to put up a defense, is treacherous.[19]
respective sums of P100,000.00 and P50,000.00, plus death
compensation in the sum of P50,000.00, with interest thereon Evident premeditation is absent. For the court to appreciate
evident premeditation, the prosecution must prove: (a) the time
at the legal rate from this date until fully paid.
the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) an overt act
manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (c)
SO ORDERED. [15]
sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to
allow the accused to reflect upon the consequence of his
The Court entertains little doubt that appellant is guilty of the act.[20] The prosecution failed to establish any of these requisites.
killing of Mark Anthony Fernandez. Appellants guilt was
adequately established by the testimonies of Lilia Garcia and The trial court incorrectly appreciated cruelty against the
Roberto Fernandez, who both saw appellant beat Macky. These accused. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating
testimonies were further corroborated by those of PO3 Paul circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
Dennis Javier, Dr. Manuel Lagonera and Felicisima Francisco, as augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary
well as the various pieces of object evidence. Indeed, appellant for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering
in open court admitted beating the poor child, which beating or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.[21] The nature of
resulted in the latters death. cruelty lies in the fact that the culprit enjoys and delights in making
his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and
That appellant purportedly did not intend to kill the toddler physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the
would not exculpate him from liability. Article 4(1) of the Revised criminal act which he intended to commit.[22] The sheer number of
Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any wounds, however, is not a test for determining whether cruelty
person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act attended the commission of a crime.[23]
done be different from that which he intended. The rationale of
the rule is found in the doctrine that el que es causa de la causa The prosecution did not show that appellant enjoyed inflicting
es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is injuries upon the victim. The inordinate force employed by
the cause of the evil caused).[16] appellant appears to have been caused not by any sadistic bend
but rather by the drugs that diminished his capacity.
Thus, where the accused violently kicked the sleeping victim
in vital parts of the latters body, the accused is liable for the The trial court also considered intoxication as an aggravating
supervening death as a consequence of the injuries.[17]Assuming, circumstance. The Solicitor General defends this ruling,
therefore, that appellant merely intended to inflict physical injuries contending that appellants habitual drug addiction is an
upon the boy, he is nevertheless liable for the death of the victim alternative circumstance analogous to habitual intoxication under
caused by such injuries. Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code:
The killing in this case was attended by treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
Intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as The trial court credited appellant with the mitigating
a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a circumstance of voluntary surrender. For voluntary surrender to
felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or be appreciated, these elements must be established: (1) the
offender has not been actually arrested; (2) he surrendered
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
himself to a person in authority or an agent of a person in
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as authority; and (3) his surrender was voluntary.[28] It is sufficient that
an aggravating circumstance. the surrender be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly
indicating the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally,
The Court does not agree. Article 13 of the Revised Penal either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save
Code provides a list of mitigating circumstances, which work to the authorities the trouble and expense which will necessarily be
reduce the accuseds penalty. Article 13(10) allows courts to incurred in searching for and capturing him.[29]
consider any other circumstance of a similar nature and
analogous to those mentioned therein. Neither Article 14 of the Appellant has failed to adequately prove voluntary
same Code on aggravating circumstances[24] nor Article 15 on surrender. While he claimed that he surrendered to the police on
alternative circumstances,[25] however, contain a provision similar the same day that the victim was killed, he did not detail the
to Article 13(10). Accordingly, the Court cannot consider circumstances like the time and place of such surrender. Neither
appellants drug addiction as an aggravating did appellant state to whom he surrendered. He did not indicate
circumstance.Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and no if the person was a person in authority or an agent of the
person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly latter. PO3 Javiers testimony that he learned of appellants
within them.[26] alleged surrender is hearsay and does not serve to corroborate
appellants claim.
Appellant maintains that his plea of guilt mitigates his criminal
liability. On this matter, this Court said in People v. Ramos:[27] The Court, however, discerns no intention on the part of
appellant to commit so grave a wrong against his
To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a victim. Appellants intention was merely to maltreat the victim, not
to kill him.When appellant realized the horrible consequences of
plea of guilt must be made at the first opportunity, indicating
his felonious act, he immediately brought the victim to the
repentance on the part of the accused. In determining the hospital.[30] Sadly, his efforts were for naught.
timeliness of a plea of guilty, nothing could be more explicit
than the provisions of the Revised Penal Code requiring that In view of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, the killing of the victim is qualified to murder,
the offender voluntarily confess his guilt before the court prior
punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. It is by reclusion perpetua to death. The murder was attended by the
well-settled that a plea of guilty made after arraignment and mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such wrong and there is no aggravating circumstance. Hence, the
plea considered as a mitigating circumstance. lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed upon
appellant.[31]
As appellant changed his plea only after the prosecution had
Appellant is liable for civil indemnity of P50,000.00 without
rested its case and just when he was just about to testify, said
proof of damages.[32] Moral damages that are recoverable for the
mitigating circumstance is unavailing.
mental anguish or emotional distress suffered by the heirs of the
victim cannot be awarded here as the prosecution did not present
any evidence to justify its award.[33]
WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Emelito Sitchon y Tayag
is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, as defined
and punished by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is
ordered to pay the heirs of Mark Anthony Fernandez civil
indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon,
Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
SECOND DIVISION crime of Murder as a consequence but which nevertheless did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the herein
accused, that is, due to timely, able and efficient medical attendance
rendered to the victim."[4]
[G.R. Nos. 138306-07. December 21, 2001]
During trial, the main witness for the prosecution, Jonathan
Aromin, testified that on the night of 2 September 1993 he and his
neighbor Julian Ancheta went to the house of the accused who lived just
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, across them.[5] Julian told Jonathan to knock on the door first but when
vs. SPO1 EDUARDO ANCHETA Y no one answered Julian did the knocking himself.[6] When the accused
RODIGOL, accused-appellant. opened the door, Jonathan immediately noticed that SPO1 Ancheta was
armed with a gun. Intimidated, Jonathan began to move away.[7] As he
left the house of the accused, Jonathan suddenly heard two (2) shots
DECISION which prompted him to hide behind the nearest wall.But when he looked
BELLOSILLO, J.: back the accused SPO1 Ancheta was already aiming his revolver
directly at his face and without hesitation shot him at close
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court range.[8] Stunned by the gunshot wound, Jonathan momentarily blacked
Caloocan City finding SPO1 accused-appellant SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta out but soon regained consciousness when his neighbor, Leonila Lopez,
y Rodigol guilty of Murder in Crim. Case No. C-44939 and came to his aid and rushed him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical
of Frustrated Murder in Crim. Case No. 44940.[1] Center.[9] At the hospital, the slug that pierced his right cheek was
removed from his left shoulder and was subsequently released on 7
SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta y Rodigol[2] was originally charged
September 1993.[10]
with Homicide in Crim. Case No. C-44939 and Frustrated
Homicide in Crim. Case No. C-44940. However, upon motion of Leonila Lopez narrated that her house was right across the house of
private complainant, a reinvestigation was conducted and the the accused, separated only by a narrow alley.[11] At around 8:00 o'clock
Informations were amended to charge the accused in the evening of 2 September 1993 while she was preparing dinner, she
with Murder in Crim. Case No. C-44939 and Frustrated was startled by the sound of two (2) gunshots coming from the house of
Murder in Crim Case No. C-44940. the accused. She immediately told her children to go inside and as she
was about to close her windows she saw Jonathan Aromin running
In the amended Information for Murder, it was alleged that the
towards her house, followed by the accused. She then saw the accused
accused "with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and evident
shoot Jonathan Aromin on the right cheek. After the accused left, she
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
helped the hapless victim and brought him to the hospital.[12] She was
shoot one Julian Ancheta y Rodigol on the left temple, thereby inflicting
approximately a meter away when she witnessed the shooting.[13]
upon the latter serious physical injuries, which injuries caused the
victims death."[3] On the other hand, in the Virginia Ancheta, wife of Julian Ancheta, testified that she and her
amended Informationfor Frustrated Murder it was alleged that the deceased husband had two (2) children and that she incurred P54,200.00
accused "with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and evident as funeral expenses for his burial.[14]
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Dr. Roberto Garcia, a Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, testified
shoot with a gun one Jonathan Aromin y Cardinez on the right cheek,
that he autopsied the body of Julian Ancheta on 3 September
thus performing all the acts of execution which would constitute the
1993. Julian sustained three (3) gunshot wounds. One (1)
bullet pierced the the back of his left forearm and exited in front thereof, accused took his gun from under his pillow and ordered the person to
another entered the rear left portion of the neck and exited through the identify himself. But the stranger just kept on banging the door and
right rear portion thereof, while the fatal bullet pierced the front portion insisted that it be opened.[25] When he finally opened the door, he saw
of the left ear without an exit wound.[15] However, although Dr. Garcia his brother Julian Ancheta and his neighbor Jonathan Aromin. Upon
concluded that three (3) bullets hit the deceased, he did not discount the seeing them, he inquired as to why his brother addressed him as
possibility that the three (3) wounds could have been caused by only "pare" but instead of answering, Julian Ancheta angrily asked him why
two (2) bullets as the left arm, being a movable part of the body, might he was holding a gun.[26] To appease his brother, the accused lowered
have been in the way when the bullet exited through the neck of the his pistol and explained that the gun was only for protection as he had
victim.[16] no idea who was banging his door in the middle of the night. He then
invited them into the house, but when he turned around his brother
Police Officer 3 Feliciano Almojuela of the Intelligence and
suddenly grabbed his hand from behind to disarm
Investigation Division, PNP Station, Caloocan City, claimed that in the
him.[27]As they grappled, the gun accidentally fired twice and the next
early morning of 3 September 1993 he received a report of a shooting
thing he saw was his brother sprawled on the ground and Jonathan
incident at Block 36, Phase 3-F-1 Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan
Aromin was nowhere to be found. He never knew what actually
City.[17] Upon reaching the crime scene he was informed that the slain
happened to Jonathan Aromin as his back was turned against him when
victim was S/Sgt. Julian Ancheta of the Philippine Air Force and the
the gun went off.[28]
suspect was the deceaseds brother SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta. When he
learned that another victim was confined at the Jose Reyes Memorial Confused by the startling events, the accused just took his family to
Medical Center he went there and found Jonathan Aromin in critical the house of his wifes cousin. His wife then convinced him to spend the
condition. Thinking that the victim might not survive he immediately night with them and postpone his surrender until the next day.[29] At
interviewed him and took an "ante-mortem" statement.[18] In the around 6:00 o'clock p.m.[30] of 3 September 1993 he surrendered at the
afternoon of the same day, the accused voluntarily surrendered himself PNP Station in Caloocan City. After being taken into custody, PO3
as well as his service firearm at the PNP Station in Caloocan City.[19] At Almojuela brought him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital where
around 11:00 p.m., PO3 Almojuela brought the accused to the hospital Jonathan Aromin identified him as the perpetrator.[31]
where the latter was positively identified by Jonathan Aromin as the
On 26 March 1999 the trial court, giving credence to the
assailant.[20]
prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of both
Dr. Abraham Gonzales, the resident physician at the Jose Reyes charges.[32] In Crim. Case No. C- 44939, the accused was found guilty
Memorial Medical Center, testified that he was on duty on 2 September of Murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to
1993 when Jonathan Aromin was admitted. Upon examination he pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P54,200.00
observed that the victim sustained a gunshot wound on the right portion as actual and compensatory damages and the costs. In Crim. Case No.
of his jaw and no exit wound was visible.[21] During treatment, the lead C-44940the accused was found guilty of Frustrated Murder and was
slug was recovered from the left side of the neck or from the "trapicious sentenced to ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen
muscle."[22] He added that were it not for the timely medical intervention (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. He
Jonathan Aromin would have died.[23] was also ordered to pay Jonathan Aromin P30,000.00 as moral damages
and the costs.[33]
In his defense, the accused claimed that on the night of 2 September
1993 he was sleeping at home with his wife and son when he was Accused-appellant, in his brief, raises two (2) points: First, his guilt
awakened by the sound of someone banging on his door.[24] After a brief was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the circumstantial evidence
silence he heard him say: "Pare buksan mo ito." Sensing danger, the presented by the prosecution failed to establish that he intended to kill
Julian Ancheta and Jonathan Aromin. Second, the court a quo gravely case, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it,
erred in convicting him of murder and frustrated murder since there was accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses.[37] We find
no proof that the killing was attended by evident premeditation or no reason to deviate from this well-entrenched principle.
treachery.[34]
But although we affirm the factual findings of the trial court on the
The defense of accused-appellant is that the death of Julian Ancheta presence of "intent to kill," we believe that the killing of Julian Ancheta
and the injury of Jonathan Aromin were caused by the accidental and the shooting of Jonathan Aromin were not qualified by treachery.
gunshots which occurred when he and the deceased grappled for the
While it was established that accused-appellant intentionally shot
gun. Thus, absent any intent to kill the victims, he could not be
his brother Julian, the witnesses never saw how the killing
convicted of homicide or murder.
started. Treachery cannot be considered where the witnesses did not see
However, the evidence presented proves otherwise. the commencement of the assault and the importance of such
testimonies cannot be overemphasized considering that treachery
The autopsy of Julian Ancheta reveals that he sustained three (3)
cannot be presumed nor established from mere suppositions.[38] And
bullet wounds: one (1) in the rear of the left forearm, another on the left
where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the
rear portion of his neck and the most fatal one, on the front portion of
aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death
his left temple.
of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be
On the other hand, Jonathan Aromin sustained a gunshot wound on established.[39]Hence, without the existence of treachery accused-
his right cheek which would have caused his death had it not been for appellant can only be convicted of homicide in Crim. Case No. C-
the timely medical attention. Based on the number of bullet wounds and 44939.
the location of the injuries sustained by the victims it is quite impossible
Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan
to believe that such wounds were caused by two (2) accidental gunshots
Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist,
which ensued while the accused and the deceased wrestled for
namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person
the gun. On the contrary, the location of the injuries proves that
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the
accused-appellant intentionally shot his own brother to death and
means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously
thereafter shot the eyewitness at point blank to permanently silence him.
adopted.[40] Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as
Further, Jonathan Aromin categorically and positively identified the crime itself.[41]
accused-appellant as the person who pursued and shot him at close
In the case at bar, however, there is no sufficient proof to establish
range. This Court has no reason to doubt his testimony for even accused-
with certainty that accused-appellant deliberately and consciously
appellant admitted that he and the witness were in good terms prior to
adopted the means of executing the crime against Jonathan
the incident.[35] Neither does this Court have any ground to question the
Aromin.Furthermore, the victim was already aware of the danger as he
veracity of Leonila Lopezs testimony that she saw accused-appellant
saw accused-appellant carrying a gun and heard two (2)
shoot Jonathan Aromin as there was no proved ill motive on her
gunshots prompting him to run and hide behind a wall.[42] Thus, there
part. Thus, where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or
could be no treachery since prior to the attack the victim was forewarned
improper motive why prosecution witnesses should testify falsely
of the danger to his life and even managed to flee, albeit
against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, such
unsuccessfully.[43] Consequently, accused-appellant can only be
testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[36] Besides, it has been an
convicted of frustrated homicide in Crim. Case No.C-44940.
established rule that unless the trial judge overlooked certain facts of
substance and value, which if considered might affect the result of the
It must be noted that the testimonies of the witnesses show that In G.R. No. 138306 (Crim. Case No C-44939), accused-appellant
accused-appellant surrendered himself on 3 September 1993 at the PNP SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta y Rodigol is found guilty of HOMICIDE and is
Station in Caloocan City. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years eight (8)
mitigating circumstance the following requisites must concur: (a) the months and ten (10) days of prision mayor minimum as minimum to
offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered twelve (12) years six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
himself to a person in authority; and, (c) the surrender was temporal minimum as maximum. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of
voluntary.[44] All these requisites were present in this case as PO3 Julian Ancheta P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P54,200.00 as actual
Feliciano Almojuela confirmed that on 3 September 1993, the day after and compensatory damages, plus the costs.
the incident, accused-appellant voluntarily gave himself up and his
In G.R. No. 138307 (Crim. Case No. C-44940), accused-appellant
service firearm at the PNP Station in Caloocan City.[45] Thus, the
SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta y Rodigol is found guilty of FRUSTRATED
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in
HOMICIDE and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2)
his favor.
years two (2) months and twenty (20) days of prision
Article 249 of The Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for correccional minimum as minimum to six (6) years four (4) months and
homicide is reclusion temporal. There being one mitigating ten (10) days of prision mayor minimum as maximum. He is also
circumstance, namely, voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty ordered to pay Jonathan Aromin P30,000.00 as moral damages plus the
is reclusion temporal in its minimum period the range of which is costs.
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
SO ORDERED.
months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum shall
be taken from the minimum of the imposable penalty while the Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which Buena, J., on official business.
is prision mayor the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years.
Article 50 of The Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.Thus, in Crim.
Case No. C-44940, there also being one (1) mitigating circumstance, the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken
from prision mayor in its minimum period, the range of which is from
six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, while the minimum term
shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision
correccional, in any of its periods, the range of which is six (6) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court appealed from
convicting accused-appellant SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta y Rodigol
of Murder in Crim. Case No. C-44939 and Frustrated Murder in Crim.
Case No. C-44940, is MODIFIED.
EN BANC The first prosecution witness was Dr. Noel Minay, Medico
Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation who
testified that on August 27, 1995 at around 5:45 in the
[G.R. No. 125633. December 9, 1999] afternoon, he performed a physical examination and medico
genital examination on one Nita Fernandez for alleged
rape. Upon physical examination he found mark swelling on
the left lower jaw or on the mandibular area left portion; and,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. upon examination of the hymen, he found that the labia majora
ROLANDO ALFANTA y ALO, accused-appellant. and minora gaping, similar to the appearance of a woman who
had just given birth; or a normal appearance as a result of
DECISION several sexual intercourses that had been performed. He
VITUG, J.: submitted a report on his findings (Exhibit A).
Before this Court, by way of automatic review, is the decision, The next witness was Nita Fernandez, the offended party
dated 29 July 1996, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch alleged in the information who testified that on August 26,
82, convicting[1] accused-appellant Rolando Alfanta y Alo of rape with 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, while asleep in the
two aggravating circumstances and sentencing him to suffer the extreme
residence of a friend at AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio, Makati city, a
penalty of death.
man whom she had not seen before suddenly entered the house
Rolando Alfanta was charged with the crime of rape in an where she was sleeping, pulled her, boxed her jaw and put his
information that simply read: hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him,
he will kill her. She resisted, but could not do
That on or about the 26th day of August, 1995, in the City of anything. Thereafter, she was forced to climb a fence. Because
Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this of fear, as the man was holding a bolo, she followed. After
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force climbing the fence, the man instructed her to go to a vacant
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and house. She followed, as instructed. While at the vacant house,
feloniously have carnal knowledge upon the person of one she was told to undress, she did because of fear, as the man
NITA FERNANDEZ y JOSEFA against her will and was holding a bolo. Thereafter, the man embraced and kissed
consent.[2] her. Then she was told to lie down and told to separate her
When arraigned on 27 September 1995, accused-appellant entered a legs. The man inserted his penis into her vagina. After
plea of not guilty to the crime charged. Trial thereupon ensued. inserting the mans penis to her vagina, she was told to lie face
down. She complied, thereafter, the man inserted his penis into
The evidence of the parties has been recited in good detail by the her anus. After inserting the mans penis into her anus, she was
trial court in its decision under review, thus:
told to turn around face up. All these acts of the man hurt
her. After turning around face up, the man inserted his fingers
in and out into her private part. After the man had finished room. The door of the house was closed, but was not
inserting his fingers in and out of her private part, she was told locked. In entering the house were she slept, one has to reach
to go near him and lie beside him, and not to dress up as he the sala first. When awakened, she shouted, but nobody heard
was going to take a rest and at the same time telling her not to her because they were sleeping and at the same time the
tell what happened to others saying that lahat ng nirape ko ay accused placed his hand on her mouth. She was really afraid
pinatay ko dahil sa ayokong may magsumbong. All the time because she was boxed on her chest and accused was holding a
the man was inserting his penis and fingers into her private bolo. While outside the house she was boxed. At the garage,
part and into her anus, she was shouting: tulungan po ninyo which was not lighted, she was told to undress. She followed,
ako,' but nobody responded. Noticing that the man was already because of fear. Accused also undressed himself. While
sleeping, she suddenly got the knife at waist of the man and accused was on top of her, holding a bolo, she cried. Accused
stab the man on his chest. The knife broke. She suddenly is not her sweetheart. She even said, why will I hack him if he
grabbed the bolo and hack the man several times. Thereafter, is my sweetheart.
she put on her dress, got hold of the bolo and ran to the signal
office of soldiers. When she arrived at the signal office of The last witness for prosecution was Lilia Hogar of the
soldiers, she told the persons she met that she killed a Womens Desk Unit, Makati Police Station who testified that
man. The bolo was taken from her by the soldiers. With, she came into the possession of the bolo, Exh. D, because Nita
soldiers, they went to the place where she was raped. They Fernandez was brought to Sub-Station A. The bolo, which was
found the man lying down still alive. The man was brought to brought by Nita Fernandez to the Military Signal Village, was
the hospital. The man turned out to be accused Rolando in turn given to the Central Police Desk wherein she is the
Alfanta y Alo. Thereafter, she executed an affidavit (Exh. C), Investigator. After the bolo was handed to her by the soldiers
narrating what happened to her to the police; and was brought of the Signal Village, she conducted an investigation. Based on
to the NBI Medico-Legal Officer for examination. her investigation, she learned from Nita Fernandez that when
Nita Fernandez woke up at 12:00 midnight on August 26,
On cross examination she testified that, from Valle Verde, 1995, Nita Fernandez saw a man standing beside her. Nita was
Pasig City, where she worked as housemaid, she went to her punched on the left portion of the face and ordered her to go
friends house named Patrick because she brought mongo and outside, instructed to climb over a fence on the other side of
because she and Patricks wife Inday, are friends, arriving in the house. After climbing the fence, Nita Fernandez was told
the house of Patrick at 6:30 in the evening of August 26, to undress, was boxed on her breast and was told to lie down in
1995. She was not able to go back to her place of work at a vacant house owned by Captain Pascua, where suspect raped
Valle Verde, Pasig because it was already late at night and was Nita Fernandez. On their way to the hospital on board the
told to sleep at Patricks house. Earlier that evening, at 9:00, Makati Police car, she asked accused why he rape Nita
she saw accused passed by in front of the house. Aside from Fernandez. Accused answered that Fernandez was not telling
her two (2) other persons slept in the house of Patrick, Inday the truth because they were sweethearts.
and son. She slept in the sala, while Inday and her son in a
Defense presented the accused. Accused testified that on together because Nita was working at Valle Verde. They only
August 26, 1995, while at AFOVAI Village, Municipality of meet during Nitas day off. He has been at Nitas place of work,
Makati, fixing the fence of the house of General Renato but he used to call then at her telephone numbers which are
Icarma together with many other laborers, somebody told him 6326062 and 6356060.They used to see each other at Gen.
that his wife was waiting for him in the house of Captain Icarmas place where he lived. On August 26, 1995, when the
Pascua. At 10:00 oclock that evening, he went to the house of incident in questioned happened, Lucia and Lito were no
Captain Pascua; and upon reaching the house, he knocked, and longer residing at Gen. Icarmas place because they were told
called Patrick Augusto Ablon, the caretaker of Captain to leave in April 1993. On August 26, 1995, while in the
Pascua. Belinda Ablon, the cousin of Patrick Augusto Ablon, squatters area, just 100 meters away from the house of Gen.
opened the door. After opening the door, Nita Fernandez, his Icarma, Nita came, looking for him. Because Nita does not
live-in partner for almost a year came out, in an angry mood, know the workers in Gen. Icarmas house, Nita left and went to
because she has been waiting for him for long, and asked him the house of Captain Pascua, just at the back of the house of
why he was late. He explained that he did not expect her to Gen. Icarma. While at the squatters area, Melchor Rudy Abella
come, as his understanding with Nita Fernandez was, he will told him that Nita was looking for him.He went to the house of
call her by phone or write her before she comes. Then Nita Captain Pascua. At Captain Pascuas place, he met
Fernandez told him that they talk outside as she was ashamed Nita. Present in the house of Captain Pascua were Augusto
with the neighbor, and they will disturb the child who was Ablon, his wife Rubylin, Belinda, a cousin and a small child
sleeping. After half hour talking, he invited Nita to sleep. He who were all awake, except the child. Although Ablon was
and Nita went to a vacant house, owned by a Colonel passing a very much willing to accommodate him in Ablons house, he
fence. When they arrived in the vacant house, it was closed, so brought Nita to the house of the Air Force Colonel because if it
they slept in the terrace. He denied doing what Nita Fernandez rains, there is a roof to protect them and ashamed to stay at
claimed he did. He claimed that, he was surprised why Ablons house. Even Nita does not like to sleep in Ablons
Fernandez hacked him, for he knows of no reason why Nita place, saying that instead of sleeping at Ablons place, she
Fernandez will hack him. He believes that Nita Fernandez prefers to go back at Valle Verde. He did not allow Nita to go
concocted the story of rape because of fear that he will file a back at Valle Verde because it was already late at night and if
case against Nita Fernandez for hacking him. anything happens to her, her daughter who knows his
relationship with Nita will blame him. He did not bring Nita to
On cross-examination, accused testified that, he has been Gen. Icarmas house because it is crowded and the Colonels
staying in the house of General Romeo Icarma (the house house is just 20 meters from Captain Pascuas house. They
where he and 15 other workers were constructing a fence), went to the Colonels house, climbing the fence. When they
since 1990. His livelihood was, as a Mason, since 1993. In climbed the wall, he was carrying banig, pillow and blanket,
February 1995, the daughter of Nita Fernandez named, Lucia and did not notice that Nita was carrying a knife. Nobody live
who is married to Lito introduced him to Nita. He and Nita in the Colonels house and was closed. They slept in the terrace
became sweethearts in February 1995. They have not live of the house on a cement flooring. While he was sleeping Nita
hacked him with a kitchen knife. When hacked, he just II. THE TRIAL COURT [HAS] ERRED IN TAKING INTO
said aray. The bolo was not used in hacking him. After CONSIDERATION THE AGGRAVATING
stabbing him, Nita left and went to the Military Police leaving CIRCUMSTANCES OF NIGHTTIME AND IGNOMINY.[5]
the kitchen knife. When the Military Police arrived, he was no
longer at the Colonels house because he went to another house, The case can be described as not really being too far from the
where he slept. After he was stabbed, he asked the assistance typical rape cases that have been previously reviewed by the Court. It is
a case, like the instances before it, of two people, each testifying on the
of Ablon. Ablon was the one who called for the Military
same incident but making a clearly discordant testimony. Since only the
Police. He did not leave the colonels house. He just stayed in participants could directly testify on the sexual congress, here conceded
the premises. Despite his wounds, he was able to sleep and to have taken place, extreme care is observed in evaluating the
woke up at 5:00 in the morning. When asked why Nita stabbed respective declarations of the complainant and the accused. The
him, he said that it was because he hurt Nita by holding Nita's doctrinally accepted rule is to accord great respect over the assessment
hand and pushing her on her chest when Nita insisted in of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses and, in the usual
leaving for Valle Verde; and because he hurt Nita, he did not words of similar import employed by the Court, it would be best not to
file a complaint against Nita for hacking him.[3] disturb the findings of the court which has heard the evidence except
only when a material or substantial fact has truly been overlooked or
In the decretal portion of the decision, the court a quo has misappreciated which if properly taken into account can alter the
pronounced judgment, thus: outcome of the case.[6] Regrettably for accused-appellant, no such
exceptive instances of possible oversight are perceived or evident in this
case.
WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Rolando Alfanta y
Alo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, Complainant gave a thorough narrative account, so found to be
penalized by Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, credible by the trial court and by this Court as well, of what had
with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy, he transpired during the late hour of the night in question.
is hereby sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death, Prosecutor Manola:
and indemnify complainant Nita Fernandez the sum Q Mrs. Witness will you kindly tell the Honorable Court where you were
of P50,000.00, plus the costs of the suit.[4] on August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 oclock midnight?
A At Fort Bonifacio.
Now before the Court, accused-appellant seeks the reversal of the
conviction and the imposition of the death penalty decreed by the trial Q What city or municipality?
court; he contends that - A I do not know but it must be here sir.
I. THE TRIAL COURT [HAS] ERRED IN FINDING AND Q Meaning Makati City?
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE A Yes sir.
CRIME OF RAPE. Q Why were you there on that date and time Mrs. Witness?
A I was sleeping in my friends residence.
Court: Q So after you went or cross over the fence what happened next Madam
witness?
Q What is the address of that friends residence at Fort Bonifacio?
A He told me to go to the vacant house and there he himself told me to
A At AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio Makati sir. undress and I took off my clothes he embraced me and kissed me sir.
Q Why were you there at that time?
Q Now when this man told you to go to the vacant house did you obey him?
A Because I always go there and my sons residence is beside the house of A I was told to go to the vacant house there he told me to undress.
my friend sir.
Q Did you obey him?
Court: Proceed fiscal:
A He told me to undress and he was holding a bolo.
Pros. Manola:
Court:
Q Now, while you were there on that date and time at the house of your
friend in AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio Makati City do you recall of any Q The question of the prosecutor to you was did you obey the instruction
unusual incident that happened? of the accused for you to undress?
A There was sir. A Yes sir.
Q Will you kindly tell what that incident was? Prosecutor Manola:
A During that time while I was sleeping in the residence of my friend Q Tell the Honorable Court why you do followed the instruction of that
suddenly there was a man who entered the house where I was sleeping. Man to go to that vacant house and to undress why did you follow this
instruction?
Q So when you saw that man entered the house what did he do if any?
A I was afraid that he might kill me sir.
A I stood up because he was pulling me and then he put his hand in my
mouth sir. Q Why do you say that he might kill you?
Q What else happened after that? A He like to rape me sir.
A When I was resisting he boxed me and at that time he was holding a bolo Court:
and he said if I will not obey him he will be going to kill me sir.
Q You did not answer the question of the prosecutor why were you afraid?
Q After that what transpired next Mr. Witness?
A Because he was holding a bolo and he was at the same time boxing me
A He forced me to climb the fence and then I saw he was holding a bolo. sir.
Q Did you climb over the fence? Prosecutor Manola:
A I climb sir because he forced me to climb the fence. Q So what happened after according to you you were instructed to undress?
Q Were you able to go over the fence? A He embraced me and kissed me and told me to lie down.
A When I was over the fence already he told me to go to a vacant house. Q And did you lie down as instructed by this Man?
Q How about the accused where was he when he ordered you to climb over A He forced me to lie down and then he forced me to separate my legs sir.
the fence?
Q And what happened when you were forced to open your legs?
A He was at my back and he told me to go first and then he followed.
A He told me not to shout because if I will shout he will kill me and the he A I pleaded to him and he said not to put on my dress because he is going
inserted his penis to my vagina sir. to take a rest.
Q After this Man inserted his penis in your vagina or private part what Q After that what happened next if any Mrs. Witness?
happened next Mrs. Witness?
A I saw him that he was sleeping already and then I suddenly got the knife
A He told me to lie front my face down and he inserted his penis to my and stab him in the chest sir.
anus sir.
Q After you stabbed him on his chest what happened next Mrs. Witness?
Q After that what happened next Mrs. Witness?
A The knife broke and then I suddenly grabbed the bolo and hack and hack
A Then he told me again to lie down and at the same time he inserted his him sir.
fingers to my private parts going it and out sir.
Q After you hacked this person who raped you what happened next Mrs.
Q After that what happened next Mrs. Witness? Witness?
A He lie down because he was already tired of molesting. A I immediately put on my shirt and I got hold of the bolo and I run to the
signal where the soldiers were.
Q How about you what were you doing at that time when the accused this
person according to you lie down after he put his fingers inside your Q Did you reach this place signal where there are soldiers according to you?
private part?
A Yes sir.
A He asked me to go near him and lie down beside him.
Q And what did you do when then when you arrived there?
Q Did you follow his instruction for you to lie near him?
A I told him that I killed a person therein and give them the bolo.
A Yes sir because he was holding a bolo sir.
Q What happened after that when you informed the solders at signal that
Q So what happened after you lie down beside this person? according to you you have killed a person what happened next?
A He told me to put on my dress and at the same time he also told me that A We went to the person who raped me sir.
he does not want me to tell it to anybody because he have raped many.
Q And did you see him there?
Q Now if this person whom according to you raped you inside the court
room would you be able to recognize him? A Yes sir.
A Yes sir I could recognize him. Q Who were with you when you went back to the place where you were
allegedly raped?
Q Will you kindly look around the court room if you could recognize this
person if he is inside? A The soldiers sir.
Note: Witness pointed to a man who was pointed as the man who raped Q Did you find this person who raped you?
him and when asked his name answered as Rolando Alfanta. A Yes sir.
Q Now after this person whom you just pointed to who answered by the Q What was he doing?
name of Rolando Alfanta uttered the words lahat nang ni rape ko ay
pinapatay ko dahil sa ayokong may magsumbong what happened next A He was lying down sir.
Mrs. Witness? Q What happened after that?
A When we arrived there he was still alive and he was brought to the A Yes sir.
hospital.
Q How did you ask for help?
Q Who brought him to the hospital?
A I asked for help but they were sleeping they did not hear me sir.
A The ambulance of the soldier.
Q The question to you was how did you ask for help?
Q Now do you remember having given a statement to the Makati Police in
connection with what you have just narrated or told or testified to this A I cried and I said tulungan po ninyo ako.
afternoon? Q Did anybody respond to your cries for help?
A I could remember. A None sir.
Q If that statement is shown to you would you be able to recognize it? Q Now how did you feel while the accused was inserting his private part to
A Yes sir. your private part?
Q Now showing you a statement attached to the records of the prosecutors A It hurt sir my vagina and my anus, my mouth that he boxed me sir.
office consisting of two pages kindly go over it and tell us if you Q Now why did you say that the accused was able to insert his penis into
recognize this statement? your vagina?
A Yes sir I could recognize this. A He forced that to insert it.
Q Is that your statement Q Forced it to where?
A Yes sir. A He forced it to enter my vagina sir.
xxx xxx xxx. Q Did you feel when the private part of the accused entered to your vagina?
Q Now this bolo which according to you surrendered to the soldier at the A Yes sir I feel it sir.
signal if you see this bolo again would you be able to recognize it
again? Q By the way do you know the accused prior to the date that you were
awakened?
A Yes sir.
A I do not know him.
Prosecutor Manola:
Q In short he is a complete stranger to you when he entered the room?
We would like to make reservation for this witness to identify this bolo
when this bolo is presented by the policeman who is in custody of this A I saw him around 7:00 oclock in the evening that he was passing thru the
bolo. front of the house of my friends where I was sleeping.
Court: Q At that time that you were awaken by the accused with whom were you
sleeping?
Q How about the knife which according to you was seen by you at the waist
line of the accused did you bring it also? A Only me sir.
A I did not bring it sir because it was broken sir it was only the bolo that I Prosecutor Manola:
brought. Q Now you said that while you and the accused were lying down first you
Q Now while you were being raped did you shout for help? stab him with the knife how many times have you stabbed him with
the knife?
A I was not able to count because I was afraid of him. A 6:30 sir.
Q You said that after stabbing him with the knife which you broke you got Q And Valle Verde is just in Pasig isnt?
hold of the bolo you hacked him how many times have you hacked
him? A Yes sir.
Q It is near where you are employed and it will take you one ride only to
A I failed to count how many times. I hacked him because I was afraid of
him he might kill me. reach that place isnt?
Prosecutor Manola: That will be all for the witness. A Three rides sir.
Court: Cross-examination. Q Now which is first to be reached from the front door of the house where
you were sleeping at the time the place where you were sleeping or
Atty. Manalo: With the permission of the Honorable Court. the place of the room where the owner of the house were sleeping?
Court: Proceed. A First it is the sala where he passed.
Atty. Manalo: Q Now you said that the door was not locked was there any other
improvised locked placed in that door like a wood?
Q Now who were with you at the time when you were sleeping at the house
of your friend at AFOVAI Fort Bonifacio? A They did not lock the door because they are in confident.
A One of their children so there were three and I was one. Q Now what is the name of the owner of the house where you slept at that
time?
Q Were you sleeping in one room?
A Patrick sir.
A I was sleeping in the sala sir.
Q And how are you related to Patrick?
Q Now before you sleep in that house at the sala did you close the door of
that house? A His wife is my friend sir.
A It was closed but it was not locked. Q What is the name of his wife?
xxx xxx xxx. A Inday sir.
Q Now when why were you interested in sleeping in the house of your Q Now when you were awaken while you were sleeping in the sala of the
friend when you could already at the house of your employer? house of your friend Inday did you not shout when you saw a person
pulling you holding a bolo?
A Because I was bringing mongo to my friend because I am indebted to
them sir. A I shouted but they did not hear me because they were sleeping and at the
same time he placed his hands on my mouth sir.
Q Now why did you not return to your employer after giving or handing
that mongo to your friend? Q Now you said that you were boxed on the chest by the accused how many
times were you boxed by the accused on the chest?
A They told me to sleep there because it was already late at night.
A I do not know how many times I was boxed sir because I was really afraid
Q By the way what time did you go there? of him.
A Around 6:00 to 6:30 in the evening. Q But you were sure that you were boxed at the chest?
Q And what time did you reach your friend at AFOVAI? A Yes sir.
Note: Witness demonstrating with her hands first pointing on her chest and Q How big?
also on her mouth.
Prosecutor Manola: Immaterial your honor.
Q Was it strong?
Atty. Manalo: To test the credibility, your honor.
A Yes sir it was strong because the following day it has marked.
Court: Answer
Note: Witness holding on his left chin.
A It was dark and I was able to see and I do not know because I was afraid.
Q How about on the chest?
Atty. Manalo:
Note: Witness demonstrating it was pointed on her chest.
Q And then you lie down?
A It was not too strong sir.
A He told me to lie down and he placed himself on top of me.
Q Did you fall down on your knee when you were hit by the blow?
Q Was he still holding the bolo?
A Yes sir.
A Yes sir he was holding the bolo on his one hand.
Q Where?
Q How did you see him?
A I fell on the ground down.
A When he was holding the bolo with his one hand while I he was on top
Q Where were you boxed by the accused? of me I cried and he was holding the bolo.
A Outside sir of the house. Note: Witness demonstrating the accused holding the bolo upward.
Q Now you said that you were ordered to undress and to lie down on the A When I cried he was on top of me sir.
ground is that correct?
Q What was he doing when he was on top of you?
A Yes sir.
A He was molesting me sir.
Q And you followed him?
xxx xxx xxx
A He told me to undress in the garage and he also undressed himself and
because I was afraid because he was holding a bolo sir. Q Now what time did you see him passed by the house of your friend
according to you?
Q When he undressed himself was he still holding a bolo?
A 9:00 oclock in the evening sir.
A Yes sir one hand was holding the bolo the other one hand he was
undressing himself. Q Why were you sure that he was the one who passed by the house of your
friend?
Q Was it lighted the place?
A I saw him that he was passing.
A None sir.
Q Where were you at the time?
Q How far were you when the accused was undressing himself?
A I was seating by the window sir.[7]
A Near sir.
The testimony of the complainant about the incident is
Q Did you see his private part when he undressed himself? straightforward categorical, and relatively free from any serious
A Yes sir. flaw. No compelling reason is advanced to sufficiently persuade the
Court to conclude that the trial court has erred in giving due weight and Q You hacked him with the bolo because of you are too much jealousy is
credence to the testimony of the complainant. Neither is evidence concerned because your sweetheart was then womanizing?
adduced to show that the complainant has had any ulterior motive to Prosecutor Manola: Misleading your honor.
prevaricate and enmesh accused-appellant in a fabricated charge. The
Court repeats the familiar doctrine that when a woman claims that she Atty. Manalo: I am on cross-examination your Honor.
has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show such a Court: Answer.
fact so long as her testimony can meet the test of credibility,[8] for it is
said that no woman in her right mind will cry rape, allow examination A Why will I get jealous I have nothing to do with him. I do not know him
sir.
of her private parts, or subject herself and her family to the humiliation
concomitant to the prosecution of the case, unless the story were true.[9] Atty. Manalo:
Testifying in his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he and the Q Really?
complainant had been lived-in partner for almost a year, and that while A I do not know him. I really do not know him sir.[10]
they did sleep together on 26 August 1995 at the porch of the house of
a certain Air Force officer, accused-appellant denied any carnal It would be rather strange an occurrence for a love-partner, if true,
knowledge of the victim that evening. In his appeal brief, accused- to stab her beloved for petty reasons. The trial court was not out of line
appellant sought to negate any possible or likely use of violence or when it made this evaluation; viz:
intimidation, considering that: (a) in the house where the victim was
sleeping on the night of 26 August 1995, there were at least three This Court cannot accept the claim of accused that he and
persons (the caretaker of the house Patrick Augusto Ablon, his wife complainant Nita Fernandez were sweethearts, for such a
Rubylin and the couples son) who could have responded to any shout claim defies rationality, let alone common sense, because if
for help from the victim; (b) the door of the house was purposely left they were sweethearts, she will not hack him. Not only that,
unlocked in order to enable accused-appellant to come into the house, the manner on which she stabbed and hacked him, first with a
and (c) when the victim was made to climb a fence followed by the
accused, she could have escaped but did not. knife, then with a bolo, shows a complete anger to vindicate
the outrage on her. If they were sweethearts, she would not
The sweetheart theory of accused-appellant would appear to be have acted in the manner she did in stabbing and hacking
another worn out strategy, often resorted to as a last ditch effort, to him. At least, if they have some relationship, she would not
exculpate oneself from criminal liability. No documentary evidence of
any sort, like a letter or a photograph or any piece of memento, was
show anger the way she did.[11]
presented to confirm a romantic liaison between accused-appellant and
the complainant. The latter testified: Neither would the presence of at least three persons on the night of
26 August 1995 in the house where victim was sleeping necessarily
Q Is it not a fact that you and the accused were sweethearts? disprove the sexual assault. It was already close to midnight when the
A No sir. incident occurred, and the other occupants of the house were by then
apparently all sound asleep. The evidence is to the effect that accused-
Q And that you went to that place AFOVAI just to meet him in that place? appellant immediately after getting into the house hit her on the jaw, put
A No sir he is not my sweetheart. Why will I hack him if he is my his hand on her mouth and threatened to kill her if she dared refuse to
sweetheart? yield to his demands. Understandably, the victim was shocked, gripped
by fear and then cowed into submission. Intimidation should be viewed
in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of With respect to ignominy, the victim testified that after appellant
the commission of the offense and not by any kind of hard and fast had inserted his penis into her vagina, appellant ordered her to lie face
rule. It would be unreasonable to expect the victim to act with down and while in that position had his penis into her anus.Thereafter,
equanimity of disposition and to have the courage and intelligence to he ordered her to lie down again and this time he inserted his finger
disregard the threat made by accused-appellant.[12] inside her. The Solicitor General correctly invoked the case of
People vs. Saylan,[19] where this Court said:
The claim that the unlocked door of the house was a sign that the
complainant wanted accused-appellant to have a chance to see her
during the late evening indeed should deserve scant consideration. The The trial court held that there was ignominy because the
so-called love angle was properly ruled out by the trial court for lack of appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
concrete evidence to establish any such relationship. superior, female inferior, but also the same position as dogs do
i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no
Anent the failure of the complainant to escape when accused-
appellant ordered her to climb a fence, it should be enough to state she ignominy because The studies of many experts in the matter
did not appear to have had any real opportunity to flee from the clutches have shown that this position is not novel and has repeatedly
of the intruder who was, in fact, just behind her. After scaling the fence and often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation.
and while inside the abandoned and enclosed house, she could not have (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act is performed
done any much better since she was all the time within striking distance by consenting partners but not otherwise.[20]
of the bolo-wielding malefactor.
And now on the propriety of an appreciation of the aggravating Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers to
circumstances of nighttime and ignominy. be an aggravating circumstance any means employed or circumstance
brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.The
Nighttime is said to be that period of darkness beginning at the end circumstance, it is said,[21] "pertains to the moral order [and] adds
of dusk and ending at dawn.[13] The law defines nights as being from disagree and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
sunset to sunrise.[14] By and of itself, nighttime would not be an
aggravating circumstance unless it is specially sought by the offender, The crime of rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
or it is specially taken advantage of by him, or it facilitates the woman under any of the following circumstances:
commission of the crime by insuring the offenders immunity from
capture.[15] As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, nighttime can be 1. By using force or intimidation;
so considered provided it is duly proved although not alleged in the
information.[16] The Court entertains no doubt that appellant has 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
specially taken advantage of the cover of darkness to facilitate the unconscious; and
commission of the crime without being recognized. Accused-appellant
has abducted his victim, brought her to an abandoned and unlit house 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
and then unleashed his carnal desire on her, assured of the stillness of a demented.
sleeping world.[17] The Court has long held that this aggravating
circumstance can be considered when an accused takes advantage of the The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
silence and darkness of the night to ensure impunity from his illegal
act.[18]
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances,
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall (People vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610 [1934]; People vs. Jovellano,
be reclusion perpetua to death.[22] et al., L-32421, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 156; People vs.
Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, January 17, 1994, 229 SCRA 289;
In the case at bar, it remained uncontroverted that accused- People vs. Rodico, et al., G.R. No. 107101, October 16, 1995,
appellant was armed with a bolo to realize his criminal 249 SCRA 309.) since the latter admit of proof even if not
objective. Nonetheless, the use of a deadly weapon could not be
pleaded. (U.S. vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 368 [1912]; People vs.
considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape[23] for not
having been correspondingly alleged in the information as to make the Domondon, 60 Phil. 729 [1934]; People vs. De Guzman, G.R.
offense fall under the jurisprudentially referred qualified rape No. 73464, August 1988, 164 SCRA 215.) Indeed, it would be
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In People vs. Garcia,[24] the a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the
Court declared: charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process,
if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its
One further observation. Article 335 originally provided only qualified form punishable with death, although the attendant
for simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua, but circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital
Republic Act No. 4111 introduced amendments thereto by punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was
providing for qualified forms of rape carrying the death arraigned.[25]
penalty, that is, when committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, when by reason or on Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty
the occasion of the rape the victim becomes insane, or, under of reclusion perpetua. Thus, even if there were aggravating
the same circumstances, a homicide is committed. The circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the appropriate
homicide in the last two instances in effect created a special penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that in all cases in which the law
complex crime of rape with homicide. The first two
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
attendant circumstances are considered as equivalent to regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
qualifying circumstances since they increase the penalties attended the commission of the deed.
by degrees, and not merely as aggravating circumstances
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-
which affect only the period of the penalty but do not
appellant Rolando Alfanta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
increase it to a higher degree. The original provisions of of rape is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION by hereby lowering the
Article 335 and the amendments of Republic Act No. 4111 are penalty therein imposed from death to reclusion perpetua. An award
still maintained. of P50,000.00 for moral damages is likewise ordered to be paid by
accused-appellant Rolando Alfanta to the victim Nita Hernandez in
xxx xxx xxx. addition to the sum of P50,000.00 by way of indemnity ex
delictu granted by the trial court.
Now, it has long been the rule that qualifying
SO ORDERED.
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
EN BANC market, then headed for Project 7. Private complainant could not ask for
anyones help because, all the while, appellant had his arm around her
and a knife pressed to her side.[6] Appellant further frightened her by
telling her that he had already killed many people.[7] Scared as she was,
[G.R. No. 134802. October 26, 2001] however, private complainant would furtively look at appellants face
whenever they passed a lighted place, vowing to herself that should she
ever be able to escape, she would remember him and have him
arrested.[8]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. RENATO Z. DIZON, accused-appellant. After walking for some time, they finally reached a dark and empty
basketball court.[9] There, appellant ordered private complainant to
DECISION remove her pants and underwear. Private complainant could not do
anything but follow appellants orders since he was holding her at
PER CURIAM: knifepoint. Besides, even if she screamed, nobody would hear her.[10]
Before us on automatic review is the Decision[1] of the Regional Appellant kissed private complainant on the lips, neck, and breasts,
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, in Crim. Case No. Q-97-71910, which he also mashed.[11] He likewise bit her nipple at least three times,
finding Renato Dizon y Zuela guilty of Robbery with Rape, attended by as well as the right side of her back and vagina.[12] Unable to control his
two aggravating circumstances, imposing upon him the penalty of Death lustful urges any longer, he forced her to bend forward over the hood of
and ordering him to pay complainant Arlie Rosalin P9,500.00 for actual a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated her vagina with his
damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs. organ.[13]
Culled principally from the testimony of private complainant, the After satisfying himself in this fashion, appellant ordered private
facts of the case are as follows: complainant to hold and massage his penis which, he boastfully
informed the latter, carried bolitas.[14] He then forced her to put his foul-
On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., private complainant Arlie smelling penis into her mouth, which sickened her to the pit of her
Rosalin, then a 21-year old engineering student from Dinalupihan, stomach.[15]
Bataan, alighted from a bus as it stopped by a small bridge along EDSA
just before Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.[2] Seconds later, she heard Still not done with her, appellant forced private complainant to lie
someone call out Miss! and when she turned her head around, she found on the ground.[16] Private complainant could not fight off any of
appellant behind her.[3] Appellant suddenly seized her, pointing a fan appellants demands, because whenever she tried to resist, and whenever
knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. He then told her she failed to answer any of his questions, he would bang her head on the
to face the railing of the bridge and asked for her wallet and jewelry. hood of the taxi, slam her head on the wall, or slap her hard in the face.[17]
Terrified, private complainant complied. Still not content, though, After appellant pushed private complainant to the ground, he went
appellant got her backpack, warning her that should he find another down on her and proceeded to ravish her all over again.[18]
wallet inside, he would kill her and throw her over the bridge as he had
done to his other victims.[4] Though admittedly spent by now, appellant still refused to let go of
private complainant. Instead, he made her sit astride over him, and to
After appellant stripped her of her valuables, appellant instructed make sure she would not be able to escape, held her tightly by the hair
private complainant to walk with him along EDSA and pretend that they with both hands.[19] When private complainant balked at inserting his
were a couple.[5] They crossed Roosevelt Avenue, passed the Munoz organ inside of hers, appellant removed one hand from her hair and
groped in the dark.[20] Sensing that he was reaching for his knife and following manner, to wit: on the date and place
would finally kill her, private complainant struggled with all her might aforementioned while said complainant was walking along the
and broke free from appellants hold. She scampered to her feet, grabbed sidewalk of EDSA, Munoz, this city after alighting from a
her pants, and ran as fast as she could away from appellant.[21]
passenger bus, said accused suddenly appeared and embraced
Soon, private complainant found a store that was about to close. complainant and at knife point announced a hold-up and then
She barged in, informing the people that she had been raped, and and there rob, took and carted away the following items, to
pleaded for their help. However, the owner of the store did not want to wit:
get involved. Instead, he reminded her to wear her pants, then referred
her to the barangay.[22]
One necklace w/pendant - P 300.00
When a barangay officer arrived, he accompanied her back to the Two (2) gold rings 5,000.00
basketball court, where they were able to recover her shoes, underwear, One bag pack containing
and appellants black cap.[23] Since appellant was no longer around, Assorted clothes 2,000.00
private complainant just gave a description of him: he was dark, 53 to
One(1) paper bag (bench)
54 in height, and with a body covered with tattoos from the waist
down.[24] Private complainant was then brought to the police station Containing stuff toys 200.00
where her statement was taken.[25] Perfume 1,000.00
Cash 1,000.00
About three days later, the barangay informed private complainant
that they already had a suspect who matched appellants description.
all in the total amount of p9,500.00, Philippine Currency, all
Accompanied by policemen, among others, she went to the vicinity of
the Munoz market, where appellant was reportedly working as a tricycle belonging to said ARLIE ROSALIN y NICDAO, to her
dispatcher.[26] After some anxious moments of searching in the crowd, damage and prejudice and on the occasion of the robbery,
private complainant finally caught sight of appellant and pointed him accused with lewd designs and with force and intimidation and
out to her companions.[27] One of the police officers accosted appellant with use of a knife undressed said complainant and put himself
and asked him if he knew private complainant.[28] Upon seeing her, on top of her and have carnal knowledge with said ARLIE
appellant pulled out the same fan knife he had earlier used on her.[29] He ROSALIN y NICDAO against her will and without her
was not quick enough, however, because the police officers were able consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said ARLIE
to disarm him. Appellant was then handcuffed and brought to the police
ROSALIN Y NICDAO.
station.[30]
In an Information[31] dated July 14, 1997, Assistant City Prosecutor Contrary to law.
Mercedes D. Penamora charged appellant as follows:
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned on August 7,
That on or about the 7 day of July, 1997 in Quezon City,
th
1997, with the assistance of Atty. Donato A. Mallabo.[32] Trial proceeded
Philippines, the above-named accused, with intent to gain, by in due course. The prosecution presented as witnesses the victim herself,
means of force and violence against and/or intimidation upon Arlie Rosalin; SPOI Cristopher Hael, a police officer assigned at the
person did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously Baler Police Station who testified on the circumstances leading to the
arrest of the accused; PO1 Emelito de La Cruz, the police investigator;
rob the person of one ARLIE ROSALIN Y NICDAO In the
and Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, the PNP medico-legal officer who conducted 1. The lower court erred in convicting the accused when in truth and
the examination on Arlie Rosalin. in fact he was not positively identified by the victim.
The appellant put up the defense of denial and alibi. Appellants 2. The lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating
testimony was not corroborated by any other witness. His testimony circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place against the
consisted mainly of denials of his involvement in the crime being accused.
imputed against him. He averred that as a tricycle dispatcher, he used to 3. The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond
work from 7:00 oclock to 11:00 oclock in the morning and from 2:00 reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape in violation
oclock to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon; that on the evening of July 7, of Art. 294, Par. 1 (should be par. 2) of the Revised Penal Code.
1997, he was just at home resting; that he was at work when he was We affirm the trial courts decision.
arrested and when he was brought to the police station, he was beaten
up; that he told the police that he had nothing to do with what happened Being interrelated, appellants first and third assigned errors, which
to the complainant and that he saw her for the first time only when he boil down to a question of credibility of the private complainant, will be
was arrested; that he did not know of any reason why she singled him discussed jointly.
out and filed a case against him; and that when he was brought to the In assailing the credibility of the private complainant, appellant
fiscal, he again denied the charges against him. puts the following in issue:
On July 13, 1998, the trial court promulgated its decision, the First, appellant states that he has only two hands; hence, it was
dispositive portion of which reads: impossible for him to remove his pants, restrain private complainant,
and hold a fan knife all at the same time.
WHEREFORE, finding that the prosecution was able to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime Second, appellant points out an alleged inconsistency between
of Robbery with rape under paragraph one, Article 294 of the private complainants account of rape and her alleged refusal to escape
her rapist despite opportunity to do so.
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, attended by
two aggravating circumstances, the Court hereby sentences Third, appellant argues that he was not positively identified by
him (1) to suffer the penalty of Death; (2) to indemnify private complainant because somebody had to tell her where he was
complainant Arlie Rosalin in the amount of P9,500.00 as when she and the police went out to look for him at the market place in
Munoz.
actual damages; (3) to pay her P200,000.00 as moral damages;
and (4) to pay the costs. We find appellants arguments to be untenable.
On the first point, it is not impossible for appellant to undress while
Let the records of the case be transmitted to the Supreme Court holding his victim and a fan knife at the same time. On direct
for automatic review. examination, the private complainant testified thus:
Q When he raped you did he remove his pants?
SO ORDERED.
A Yes, maam he removed his pants.
Appellant impugns the decision of the trial court on the following Q When he removed his pants, did you run?
grounds:
A No, Maam because he was holding me and the knife was pointed at me,
Q When he was holding you and the gun (sic) was pointing (sic) at you how On the third point, contrary to appellants assertion, private
did he remove his pants? complainant was able to identify appellant as her assailant. While
A Like this, maam . . . somebody did point out to private complainant and her companions that
they had already passed the person they were looking for, this was
COURT INTERPRETER understandable because the place where they were searching was
Witness holding the right wrist of the Interpreter using the left hand. The crowded. The failure to see is not the same as failure to recognize which
witness demonstrating that the accused was using his right hand is what is crucial in identification. Nobody prodded her to point to
holding the knife while unbuttoning his pants and every time she appellant. Nobody told her that he was the malefactor. What is important
would resist the accused would point the knife at her.[33] is that it was private complainant herself who had provided appellants
Countless cases of rape have been committed in a similar fashion. We description and who, without assistance, eventually picked him out from
quote the pertinent portions of two such cases: the crowd as the person who robbed and raped her.
Appellant finds it unbelievable that private complainant was able
xxx When she saw her father naked, she got scared and did not to recognize him when she did not even touch his penis and test it for
move. Because of her refusal, her father poked a three-cantos the presence of bolitas during his identification at the Muoz market.
knife at her neck and he undressed her by pulling down her Private complainant did not have to do that. She was able to recognize
skirt and her panty until they were removed from her body. appellant because of his mole on the cheek and his body smeared with
tattoos, and more importantly, because she repeatedly gazed at
Her father then told her to sit up and when she did, he pulled appellants face every time they passed a well-lit place on their way to
her t-shirt off her head. She cried and her father threatened to the basketball court.[36] She was also able to take a good hard look at
kill her if her cries will be heard by others.[34] appellants face and body while she was forced to sit on top of him during
an unwanted sexual act at the basketball court.[37]
xxx The accused awakened Mergena upon arriving from a
On cross-examination, private complainant testified thus:
drinking session with his brothers, pointed a knife at her and
ordered her to stand up. When she refused to obey, he pulled Q So much so that because his hands were placed around your neck and the
her up. He removed his short pants, then with a knife still knife was pressed in your body, practically, you were closing your
eyes, you just believed whatever he tells (sic) you?
pointed at her, removed her skirt and made her lie down. He
removed her panty and his underwear, separated her thighs and A Everytime we would pass by a lighted area, even if I was scared, I would
look at him, sir.
inserted his penis into her vagina while fondling her breast.
This entire time his left hand was holding the knife.[35] Q But as much as possible, because you were scared and you were already
angry, you would not like to see the face of that stranger, right?
On the second point, that private complainant could have escaped A No, sir, because I was really trying to memorize the face.[38]
her captor with facility is something easier said than done. Private
complainant was a terrified captive, held fast at the wrist by appellant xxx
while the latter, using his other hand, unbuttoned his pants, stopping Q Why were you interested in the face of that stranger?
only to brandish his fan knife at private complainant whenever she
A So that in case I would be able to escape, I would have him arrested.[39]
showed the least sign of resistance. Overcome with fear, it is
understandable why she was not able to escape at that moment. And on re-direct examination, private complainant testified:
Q Are you very sure that it was the accused now in this case who actually but not reflected in the records. Hence, the court a quos appraisal on the
sexually abused you? matter is entitled to the highest respect, and will not be disturbed on
A Yes, maam I am sure. appeal unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood
or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that
Q Why are you so sure? would affect the result of the case. There is no compelling reason in the
A Because I could see his face everytime I passed by a lighted area, maam present case to depart from this rule.[43]
(witness crying).[40]
On the second assigned error, the trial court correctly appreciated
This only shows that private complainant had ample opportunity to the generic aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place
behold the appellant so that she was able to positively identify the against appellant.
appellant as the one who robbed her and sexually abused her.
Indeed, the term cruelty often conjures bloody and gory images
In the light of this positive and direct evidence of appellants which are conspicuously absent in this case. However, as correctly
culpability, the trial court correctly discarded his defense of denial and pointed out by the trial court, the appreciation of cruelty, as an
alibi. It is an elementary rule that alibi cannot prevail over the clear and aggravating circumstance, is relative. It depends upon the crime
positive identification of the appellant as the very person who committed. As long as the wrong done in the commission of the offense
committed the crime. Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on is deliberately augmented and that such wrong is not essential for the
this defense, the accused must establish by clear and convincing accomplishment of the ultimate purpose of the offender, the same could
evidence that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission be considered as aggravating. The nature of the wrong or the number
of the offense; and, (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the thereof is immaterial.[44]
scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[41] This, appellant
The trial courts pronouncement finds support in a long line of
miserably failed to do. It was not physically impossible for appellant to
jurisprudence. As held in People vs. Basao,[45] People vs.
have been at the crime scene in Project 7, Quezon City, considering that
Lacao,[46] People vs. llaoa,[47] People vs. Alban,[48] and other cases, the
he claimed to have been a mere tricycle ride away in his house in San
test of cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
Jose del Monte, Quezon City around the time of the commission of the
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
crime.
commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering, or outraged,
Considering all the foregoing, the trial court did not err in giving or scoffed at his person or corpse. Where the accused, for his pleasure
full faith and credence to the testimony of private complainant. This, and satisfaction, inflicted on the victim unnecessary physical and moral
especially since appellant has not even imputed any ill motive on the pain, with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or
part of private complainant to testify falsely against him. Where there is aggravating the sufferings of the victim, cruelty is present.
no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution
Tested against the foregoing yardstick, the element of cruelty
witness to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him
undoubtedly attended the commission of the crime in this case. As
in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony
recounted by private complainant, appellant not only raped her, but
is worthy of full faith and credence.[42]
subjected her to various dehumanizing indignities, such as making her
The matter of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses is fondle and put his foul-smelling penis in her mouth, forcing her to
best and most competently performed by the trial court who had the admire his bolitas, and demanding that she assume embarrassing and
unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while indelicate positions. Furthermore, he viciously slammed her head
testifying, and to assess their credibility using various indicia available against the hood of the taxi, banged her head against the wall, and
slapped her hard in the face whenever she failed to answer any of his
questions. All these wrongs were no longer necessary insofar as Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
appellants purpose of raping private complainant was concerned. By persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use
subjecting her to these unwarranted physical and moral abuses on top of of violence against or any person shall suffer:
raping her, appellant deliberately and inhumanly augmented her pain
and sufferings, thus, committing cruelty.
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
Finally, appellant claims that the generic aggravating circumstance or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have
of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated against him since the been committed, or when the robbery shall have been
basketball court where he supposedly brought his victim cannot be accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
considered an uninhabited place. Appellant cites private complainants
testimony that the basketball court was near a highway and surrounded In the case at bar, two (2) aggravating circumstances attended the
by houses. commission of the robbery with rape, thus the trial court correctly
We are not convinced. imposed on the appellant the penalty of death.
Whether or not a place may be considered uninhabited, is The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the victim P200,000.00
determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the as moral damages. Ordinarily, the victims of rape are awarded a
crime but whether or not in the place of commission, there was minimum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, the factual
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.[49] In People vs. circumstances of the case at bar calls for a stiffer penalty. After robbing
Desalisa,[50] the crime was considered as having been committed in an and raping the victim, appellant subjected the victim to physical harm
uninhabited place because the killing was done during nighttime, and like biting her nipples and vagina; banging her head on the hood of the
many fruit trees and shrubs obstructed the view of neighbors and taxi and on the wall; and subjecting her to indignities like holding and
passersby. Similarly, in the case of People vs. Damaso, et al.,[51] the massaging his penis and worst of all, forcing her to put his foul-smelling
court, notwithstanding the close proximity of the sugarcane field where penis into her mouth. The trial court was correct in ordering the
the victims were killed to the national highway and some houses, still appellant to pay his victim the amount P200,000.00 as moral damages
considered the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place because for all of these repulsive acts and P9,500.00 as actual damages for the
the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was money and valuables taken from her. We also hold that the victim is
tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby. The entitled to P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, as it is mandatory upon a
situation is no different in the case at bar. Appellant precisely sought the conviction of rape. Such indemnity is distinct from moral damages and
solitude of the basketball court to ensure that private complainant would based on different jural foundations.[53]Furthermore, under Article 2230
not be able to call for, and receive, any help. Aside from being cloaked of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the
by the darkness of the night, the basketball court was a relatively crime was committed with one or more aggravating
isolated place, shielded from the public view by the high walls of the circumstances.[54] Hence, We find an award of exemplary damages in the
surrounding houses.[52] Private complainant could have screamed at the amount of P25,000.00 proper.
top of her lungs and nobody still would have heard her. Without a doubt, Four Justices of the Court maintain their position that R. A. No.
therefore, the trial court properly appreciated the aggravating 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty.
circumstance of uninhabited place against appellant. Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case
Act 7659 provides: at bar.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 in Crim. Case No. Q-71910
finding appellant Renato Dizon y Zuela guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with rape under paragraph one, Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, attended by two (2)
aggravating circumstances, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
death, to pay victim Arlie Rosalin P200,000.00 as moral damages;
and P9,500.00 as actual damages, with the MODIFICATION that he
shall further pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending
Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let
certified copies thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded
without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of
executive clemency.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon,
Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.