Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 32

G.R. Nos. 133448-53. October 6, 2000.

* Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Evaluation of the credibility


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
appellee, vs. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA and ALLAN CUTAMORA, accused- court.Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as
appellants. to the credibility of the witness as it has a better vantage point in observing
Constitutional Law; Rights of Accused; Right to be Informed; Objectives his candor and behavior on the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility of
of the right to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accu- witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court,
________________ because of its unique opportunity to observe the wit-
* FIRST DIVISION. 233
232 VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 23
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 3
32 People vs. Cutamora
People vs. Cutamora nesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under
sation against him.The purpose of the above-quoted rule is to inform cross-examination. Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of
the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, a right substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the
guaranteed by no less than the fundamental law of the land. Elaborating on result of the case.
the accuseds right to be informed, this Court held in Pecho v. People (262 Same; Same; Same; Alibi; In the absence of strong and convincing
SCRA 518) that the objectives of this right are: 1. To furnish the accused with evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the victim,
such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make the who had no improper motive to testify falsely against the accused-
defense; 2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection appellants.Accused-appellants denial and alibi are inherently weak and
against further prosecution for the same cause; and 3. To inform the court of unreliable. It becomes more suspect as accused-appellants themselves were
the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to not consistent as to the exact distance of the farm from their house.
support a conviction if one should be had. Accused-appellant Roselindo averred that the farm was 10 kilometers away
Same; Same; Same; An information is sufficient as long as it states the from their house. On the other hand, accused-appellant Allan maintained that
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the it was 500 meters away from their residence. Both accused-appellants failed
same.It is thus imperative that the Information filed with the trial court be to prove that they were at the farm or that it was physically impossible for
complete to the end that the accused may suitably prepare his defense. them to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In the absence of
Corollary to this, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific strong and convincing evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive
offense alleged to have been committed as it is the recital of the essentials of testimonies of the victim, who had no improper motive to testify falsely
a crime which delineates the nature and cause of the accusation against the against accused-appellants.
accused. An information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bayugan, Agusan del
designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same. It Sur, Br. 7.
is likewise sufficient if the time averred is near the actual date as the The facts are stated in the opinion of theCourt.
information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and since that was done in The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
this case, it was not shown that the time proved did not surprise or Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellants.
substantially prejudice the defense. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Same; Same; Same; The precise time of the commission of the crime is Accused-brothers Roselindo and Allan Cutamora were each charged with
not an essential element in the crime of rape and therefore need not be three (3) counts of rape committed against their nieces Virginia Cutamora,
accurately stated.A rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an Gina Cutamora and Beatriz Cutamora Tampos. The Informations read:
accurate account of her traumatic experience. A court cannot expect a rape Crim. Case No. 647:
victim to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so The undersigned Prosecutor III, as Officer-in-Charge,
since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them. Rape victims Office of the Provincial Prosecution, Agusan del Sur, upon sworn complaint
do not cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of originally filed by the offended party,
times and manner they were violated. The precise time of the commission of accuses ROSELINDOCUTAMORA of the crime of RAPE, committed as
the crime is not an essential element in the crime of rape and therefore need follows:
not be accurately stated. 234

1
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Government Center, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Philippines,
People vs. Cutamora September 8, 1993.
That sometime in the year 1989 up to May, 1993, Crim. Case No. 649:
inside the house of Uldarico Cutamora, at Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del The undersigned Prosecutor III, as Officer-in-Charge,
Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Officer of the Provincial Prosecution, Agusan del Sur, upon a sworn
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and complaint originally filed by the offended party, accuses
feloniously have carnal knowledge repeatedly with his niece one ALLAN CUTAMORA of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
Virginia Cutamora when she was seven (7) years old until she became That sometime in the year 1991 up to 1993,
eleven (11) years old, against her will. inside the house of Uldarico Cutamora, at Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 335, Revised Penal Code) Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Government Center, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Philippines, Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
September 8, 1993. feloniously have carnal knowledge repeatedly with his niece one
Crim. Case No. 651: Gina Cutamora when she was six (6) years old until she became eight (8)
The undersigned Prosecutor III, as Officer-in-Charge, years old, against her will.
Office of the Provincial Prosecution, Agusan del Sur, upon a sworn CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 335, Revised Penal Code)
complaint originally filed by the offended party, accuses Government Center, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Philippines,
ALLAN CUTAMORA of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows: September 8, 1993.
That sometime in the year 1989 up to 1993, Crim. Case No. 646:
inside the house of Uldarico Cutamora, at Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del The undersigned Prosecutor III, as Officer-in-Charge,
Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Office of the Provincial Prosecution, Agusan del Sur, upon a sworn
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and complaint originally filed by the offended party,
feloniously have carnal knowledge repeatedly with his niece one accuses ROSELINDOCUTAMORA of the crime of RAPE, committed as
Virginia Cutamora when she was seven (7) years old until she became follows:
eleven (11) years old against her will. 236
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 335, Revised Penal Code) 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Government Center, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Philippines, People vs. Cutamora
September 8, 1993. That sometime in the year 1990 up to 1993, at Kalaitan, Bayugan,
Crim. Case No. 648: Agusan del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
The undersigned Prosecutor III, as Officer-in-Charge, Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
Office of the Provincial Prosecution, Agusan del Sur, upon a sworn feloniously have carnal knowledge repeatedly with his niece one Beatriz
complaint originally filed by the offended party, Tampos y Cutamora when she was ten (10) years old until she became
accuses ROSELINDOCUTAMORA of the crime of RAPE, committed as thirteen (13) years old, against her will.
follows: CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 335, Revised Penal Code)
That sometime in the year 1991 up to 1993, Government Center, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Philippines,
inside the house of Uldarico Cutamora, at Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del September 8, 1993.
Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Accused-brothers entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Trial
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and on the merits thereafter ensued.
feloniously have carnal knowledge repeatedly with his niece one The prosecution satisfactorily established that the complaining witnesses,
Gina Cutamora when she was six (6) years old until she became eight (8) Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora, and Beatriz Tampos y Cutamora were
years old, against her will. all staying at thehouse of their grandparents Uldarico and
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 335, Revised Penal Code) Cedra Cutamora at Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. Also residing with
235 them were their uncles, accused Roselindo and Allan Cutamora.
VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 235 Virginia Cutamora was first sexually assaulted by her
People vs. Cutamora uncle Roselindo Cutamorawhen she was only seven (7) years old. She was
ordered to bow down her head after which accused Roselindo, having

2
removed his pants and briefs, inserted his penis into her anus. She felt Tampos P30,000.00 each for exemplary damages. In Crim. Cases Nos.
excruciating pain but could not do otherwise. Having satisfied 649, 650 and 651, accused Allan Cutamora is sentenced to:
himself, Roselindowarned Virginia not to tell on him or she would be hurt. 1. 1]Three separate penalties of Reclusion Perpetua;
The following day, Virginia suffered thesame fate 2. 2]Indemnify victims Gina Cutamora, Virginia Cutamora and Beatriz
at the hands of accused Allan Cutamora. While inside the room, Virginia Tampos the sum ofP50,000.00 each;
was made to lie down. Allan took off his clothes, mounted her and made 3. 3]Pay Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamoraand Beatriz Tampos
push and pull movements. The accused then warned her not to tell on him P20,000.00 each for moral damages; and
else she would be killed. 238
Roselindo and Allan repeatedly performed those bestial acts on Virginia 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
until she became eleven (11) years old. People vs. Cutamora
In 1991, Gina Cutamora was then six (6) years old. At such a tender age, 1. 4]Indemnify Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora and Beatriz Tampos
she already suffered at the hands of her uncles Roselindoand P30,000.00 each representing exemplary damages. With costs.1
Allan Cutamora. It was daytime when she was first ravished by accused In the instant appeal, accused-appellants impute the following errors
Allan inside the house of her grandparents. Gina was made to lie down while on the part of thelower court:
accused Allan positioned himself on top of her and made push and pull 1. I.THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
movements. CONSIDERING THEINFORMATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO
237 SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OFCONVICTION FOR ITS FAILURE TO
VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 237 STATE THE DATES OF THEALLEGED COMMISSION OF SIX
People vs. Cutamora COUNTS OF RAPE, IT BEING AN ESSENTIAL
Roselindo took his turn the following day. After all the other ELEMENT OF THECRIME CHARGED.
members of the household have left for the farm, he molested Gina inside 2. II.ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THEINFORMATIONS ARE
their kitchen. SUFFICIENT, THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
Beatriz was only ten (10) years old when she was subjected to the lustful FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS (sic) GUILT HAVE (sic)
desires ofRoselindo. Her ordeal at the hands ofRoselindo lasted until she BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.2
was thirteen (13) years old. Everytime she was raped, it was always at knife Accused-appellants submit that the date and time of the alleged
point. Roselindo warned her not to tell on him else she would be killed. commission of the rape incidents as stated in the six (6) informations were
Accused Allan likewise did not spare Beatriz. Beatrizs first sexual assault vague and ambiguous and too indefinite to give herein appellants an
at thehands of Allan happened inside their kitchen. Beatriz could not recall opportunity to prepare their defense.3
how many times she was assaulted. She did not divulge to anybody her This Court is not persuaded. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
ordeal because she feared for her life. reads:
Accused-appellants denied the charges filed against them. They averred SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.A complaint or information
that theaccusations thrown against them are devoid ofany basis and are is sufficient if it
utterly meritless. They maintained that they were at their farm states thename of the accused, the designation of the offense
at thetime of the supposed incidents. by the statute, the acts or omissions complained ofas
After an exhaustive assessment of theevidence presented by both constituting the offense; the name of theoffended party; the approximate
parties, the trial court found the two accused guilty as charged and time of thecommission of the offense, and the place
accordingly sentenced them, thus: wherein the offense was committed.
In Crim. Cases Nos. 646, 647 and 648, accused Roselindo Cutamora is When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall
sentenced to: be included in thecomplaint or information. (Emphasis supplied)
1. 1]Three separate penalties of reclusion perpetua; The purpose of the above-quoted rule is to inform the accused of the nature
2. 2]Indemnify Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora and Beatriz and cause ofthe accusation against him, a right guaranteed by no less
Tampos the amount of P50,000.00 each; than the fundamental law of theland. Elaborating
3. 3]Pay Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamoraand Beatriz Tampos _______________
P20,000.00 each representing moral damages; and 1 Decision, p. 19; Rollo, p. 48.

4. 4]Indemnify Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora and Beatriz 2 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, p. 1; Rollo, p. 75.

3
3 Id., p. 11; Id., p. 85. complete. The names of accused Roselindo and Allan Cutamora were
239 mentioned. The crime of rape was specially designated. The acts
VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 239 constituting the crime ofrape were enumerated, i.e., that the accused-
People vs. Cutamora appellants had carnal knowledge with their nieces without their consent and
on the accuseds right to be informed, this Court held against their will. Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora and Beatriz Tampos
in Pecho v. People (262 SCRA 518) that the objectives of this right are: y Cutamora were named as the offended parties. The approximate
1. 1.To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge time ofthe commission of the offense was stated to be sometime
against him as will enable him to make the defense; in the year 1990 up to 1993. Theoffense was committed at Kalaitan,
2. 2.To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.
further prosecution for the same cause; and The dates of the commission of the crimes are not vague and
3. 3.To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide ambiguous or too indefinite as to deprive accused-appellants oftheir right
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one to be informed of the charges filed against them. It should be noted
should be had. that thevictims continuously endured their ordeal
It is thus imperative that the Information filed with the trial court be complete at the hands of the accused-appellants from 1990 until 1993.
to the end that the accused may suitably prepare his defense. Corollary to Moreover, the victims were minors and, as such, are not expected to closely
this, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense monitor the dates of their defilement. Besides, each of the accused-
alleged to have been committed as it is therecital of the essentials of a appellants was convicted only of one count of rape committed against
crime which delineates the nature and cause of theaccusation Virginia, Gina and Beatriz.
against the accused.4 An information is sufficient as long as it A rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate
states thestatutory designation of the offense and theacts or omissions account of her traumatic experience. A court cannot expect a rape victim to
constituting the same.5 It is likewise sufficient if the time averred is remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so since she
near the actual date as the information of theprosecuting officer will permit, might in fact have been trying not to remember them. Rape victims do not
and since that was done in this case, it was not shown that the time proved cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of times
did not surprise or substantially prejudice the defense.6 and manner they were vio-lated.8 The precise
The Constitution specifically provides that the accused must be time of the commission of the crime is not an essential element
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in order for in the crime of rape9 and therefore need not be accurately stated.10
him to prepare his defense. In People v. Manalili, this Court held: _______________
7 Ibid.
The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be
8 People v. Historillo, G.R. No. 130408, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 615.
convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
9 People v. Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 765.
information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed ofthe nature and
10 People v. Castillo, supra.
cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than
that charged in the complaint or information would be violative of this 241
constitutional right. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 241
_________________ People vs. Cutamora
4 People v. Bayya, G.R. No. 127845, March 10, 2000, 327 SCRA 771. More importantly, it is too late at this stage for the accused-appellants to
5 People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000, 328 SCRA 158. raise the issue ofsufficiency or insufficiency of the informations filed against
6
People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 130205, July 5, 2000, 335 SCRA. 100; them. They should have raised this issue prior to their
citing U.S. v. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 [1914]. arraignment. Therecords bear out that accused-appellants did not offer any
240 objection in this regard before they entered their plea during thearraignment.
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Consequently, they are deemed to have waived any objection on this ground
People vs. Cutamora pursuant to Sec. 8 of Rule 117. The defense should have moved for a
crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included bill of particulars granting that the time of the commission ofthe offense was
in the information filed against him.7 not sufficiently and definitely alleged.
The allegations in the informations filed in the instant case against Accused-appellants next claim that the trial court erred in finding their
all the accused are sufficient and guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds otherwise. The issue

4
on this score really boils down to credibility. Ordinarily, this Court will not is not to say that an uncritical acceptance should be the rule. It is only to
disturb the findings of the trial court as to thecredibility of the witness as it emphasize that skepticism should be kept under control.16
has a better vantage point in observing his candor and behavior Lastly, accused-appellants denial and alibi are inherently weak and
on the witness stand.11 Evaluation ofthe credibility of witnesses and their unreliable.17 It becomes more suspect as accused-appellants themselves
testimonies is a matter best undertaken by thetrial court, because of its were not consistent as to the exact distance of the farm from their house.
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, Accused-appellant Roselindo averred that thefarm was 10 kilometers away
and attitude, especially under cross-examination.12 Its assessment is from their house. On the other hand, accused-appellant Allan maintained
respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked that it was 500 meters away from their residence. Both accused-appellants
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.13 failed to prove that they were at the farm or that it was physically impossible
In the case at bar, this Court finds theassessment of the trial court as for them to be at thelocus criminis at the time of the incident.
to thecredibility of the witnesses binding and conclusive, there being no In the absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi could not prevail
tinge ofarbitrariness or oversight. Besides, and more importantly, this Court ___________________
finds it improbable for Virginia, Gina and Beatriz, who were all minors, naive 14 People v. Lusa, 296 SCRA 288 [1998].

and innocent to the ways of theworld, to concoct and weave such sordid 15 Exhibits A, B, and C, Records.

details of sexual assaults as can be told only by those who have been 16 People v. Castillo, supra; citing People v. Molina, 53 SCRA 495 [1973].

personally subjected to it. Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that 17 People v. Hofilea, G.R. No. 134772, June 22, 2000, 334 SCRA 214.

testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a 243
woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been VOL. 342, OCTOBER 6, 2000 243
_______________ People vs. Cutamora
11 People v. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026-27, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA
over the positive testimonies of the victim, who had no improper motive to
440. testify falsely against accused-appellants.18
12 People v. Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, March 2, 2000, 327 SCRA
The trial court correctly sentenced each ofthe accused-appellants to
190. three (3) separate penalties of reclusion perpetua considering that
13 People v. Siao, G.R. No. 126021, March 3, 2000, 327 SCRA 231.
at the time of the commission of theoffense, the imposable penalty
242 for the crime ofrape was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Also, the trial court was correct in ordering each of the accused-
People vs. Cutamora appellants to pay Virginia, Gina and Beatriz P50,000.00 as civil
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indemnity.19 However, the award of P20,000.00 to each of the victims
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and representing moral damages should be increased to P50.000.00 in line with
sincerity.14 recent jurisprudence.20
Moreover, victims testimonies of their respective defilement were WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused-
substantially corroborated by the results of the medical examination appellants Roselindo Cutamora and Allan Cutamora are found GUILTY
conducted on them by a medico-legal officer. The medical findings uniformly beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape. Accordingly, each is
revealed that the victims had hymenal lacerations resulting from vulvar sentenced to three (3) separate penalties of reclusion perpetua; to pay
coitus.15 Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora, and Beatriz Tampos
In addition, the defense failed to prove that the complaining witnesses y Cutamora P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity; to pay Virginia Cutamora,
were impelled by ill-motive as to file serious charges against Gina Cutamora, and Beatriz Tampos y Cutamora P50,000.00 each as
them. The complainants lack of ill-motive to file therape charges is even moral damages.
more believable considering that their complaints were filed against their own With costs.
kin. There is considerable receptivity on the part of this Tribunal to lend SO ORDERED.
credence to complainants vision of what transpired, considering not only Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which Accused-appellants guilty of three (3) counts of rape.
such a gruelling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay ____________
bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, did expose them to. This 18 Ibid.

5
19 People v. Dreu alias Adang Dreu, G.R. No. 126282, June 20, No. 8484, specifically section 9(e) thereof, for possession of the credit card
2000, 334 SCRA 62. fraudulently applied for.
20 Ibid.; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, June 8, 2000, 333 _______________
SCRA 269; People v. Hofilea, supra; People v. Siao, supra; People v. * SECOND DIVISION.
Arillas, supra; People v. Historillo, supra; People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 259
122473, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 201. VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 25
244 9
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Soledad vs. People
Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections Same; Same; Relationship between the preamble and the accusatory
Note.Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and cannot stand against portion of the information discussed in People v. Villanueva, 413 SCRA 431
strong and positive identification. (People vs. Violin, 266 SCRA 224[1997]) (2003).The Courts discussion in People v. Villanueva, 413 SCRA 431
o0o (2003), on the relationship between the preamble and the accusatory portion
of the Information is noteworthy, and we quote: The preamble or opening
G.R. No. 184274. February 23, 2011.* paragraph should not be treated as a mere aggroupment of descriptive
MARK SOLEDAD y CRISTOBAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE words and phrases. It is as much an essential part [of] the Information as the
PHILIPPINES, respondent. accusatory paragraph itself. The preamble in fact complements the
Criminal Procedure; Information; The information contained all the accusatory paragraph which draws its strength from the preamble. It lays
necessary details of the offense committed, sufficient to apprise petitioner of down the predicate for the charge in general terms; while the accusatory
the nature and cause of the accusation against him; Although the word portion only provides the necessary details. The preamble and the
possession was not used in the accusatory portion of the information, the accusatory paragraph, together, form a complete whole that gives sense and
word possessing appeared in its preamble or the first paragraph thereof. meaning to the indictment. x x x.
In the Information filed before the RTC, it was clearly stated that the accused Criminal Law; Access Devices Regulations Act of 1998 (R.A. No. 8484);
is petitioner Mark Soledad y Cristobal a.k.a. Henry Yu/Arthur. It was also The law does not define the word possession; thus, the court use the term
specified in the preamble of the Information that he was being charged with as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is, possession is the holding
Violation of R.A. No. 8484, Section 9(e) for possessing a counterfeit access of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.The trial court convicted petitioner of
device or access device fraudulently applied for. In the accusatory portion possession of the credit card fraudulently applied for, penalized by R.A. No.
thereof, the acts constituting the offense were clearly narrated in that 8484. The law, however, does not define the word possession. Thus, we
[petitioner], together with other persons[,] willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use the term as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is, possession
defrauded private complainant by applying [for] a credit card, an access is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. The acquisition of
device defined under R.A. [No.] 8484, from Metrobank Card Corporation, possession involves two elements: the corpus or the material holding of the
using the name of complainant Henry C. Yu and his personal documents thing, and the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it. Animus
fraudulently obtained from him, and which credit card in the name of Henry possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or determination of which is
Yu was successfully issued, and delivered to said accused using a fictitious largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred from
identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the damage and prejudice of the real the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding
Henry Yu. Moreover, it was identified that the offended party was private circumstances.
complainant Henry Yu and the crime was committed on or about the 13th Same; Same; Petitioners signature on the acknowledgement receipt
day of August 2004 in the City of Las Pias. Undoubtedly, the Information indicates that there was delivery and that possession was transferred to him
contained all the necessary details of the offense committed, sufficient to as the recipient.Petitioner materially held the envelope containing the
apprise petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. As credit card with the intent to possess. Contrary to petitioners contention that
aptly argued by respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the credit card never came into his possession because it was only delivered
the Solicitor General, although the word possession was not used in the to him, the above narration shows that he, in fact, did an active part in
accusatory portion of the Information, the word possessing appeared in its acquiring possession by presenting the identification cards purportedly
preamble or the first paragraph thereof. Thus, contrary to petitioners showing his identity as Henry Yu. Certainly, he had the intention to possess
contention, he was apprised that he was being charged with violation of R.A. the same. Had he not actively participated, the envelope would not have
been given to him. Moreover, his signature on the acknowledgment receipt

6
indicates that there was delivery and that possession was transferred to him cards and statements of accounts. Subsequently, private complainant
as the recipient. Undoubtedly, petitioner knew that the envelope contained followed up his loan status but he failed to get in touch with either [petitioner]
the Metrobank credit card, as clearly indicated in the acknowledgment re- or Ronald Gobenchiong.
260 During the first week of August 2004, private complainant received his
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Globe handyphone statement of account wherein he was charged for two (2)
60 mobile phone numbers which were not his. Upon verification with the phone
Soledad vs. People company, private complainant learned that he had additional five (5) mobile
ceipt, coupled with the fact that he applied for it using the identity of numbers in his name, and the application for said cellular phone lines bore
private complainant. the picture of [petitioner] and his forged signature. Private complainant also
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court checked with credit card companies and learned that his Citibank Credit Card
of Appeals. database information was altered and he had a credit card application with
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Metrobank Card Corporation (Metrobank).
Leonard C. Darantinao, Jr. for petitioner. Thereafter, private complainant and Metrobanks junior assistant
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent. manager Jefferson Devilleres lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of
NACHURA, J.: Investigation (NBI) which conducted an entrapment operation.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of During the entrapment operation, NBIs Special Investigator (SI) Salvador
Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Arteche [Arteche], together with some other NBI operatives, arrived in Las
Decision1 dated June 18, 2008 and Resolution2dated August 22, 2008 in CA- Pias around 5:00 P.M. [Arteche] posed as the delivery boy of the Metrobank
G.R. CR. No. 30603. The assailed Decision affirmed with modification the credit card. Upon reaching the address written on the delivery receipt,
September 27, 2006 decision3of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 202, [Arteche] asked for Henry Yu. [Petitioner] responded that he was Henry Yu
Las Pias City, finding petitioner Mark C. Soledad guilty beyond reasonable and presented to [Arteche] two (2) identification cards which bore the name
doubt of Violation of Section 9(e), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8484, or the and signature of private complainant, while the picture showed the face of
Access Devices Regulations Act of 1998; while the assailed Resolution [petitioner]. [Petitioner] signed the delivery receipt. Thereupon, [Arteche]
denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. introduced himself as an NBI operative and apprehended [petitioner].
The facts of the case, as narrated by the CA, are as follows: [Arteche] recovered from [petitioner] the two (2) identification cards he
Sometime in June 2004, private complainant Henry C. Yu received a call presented to [Arteche] earlier.4
on his mobile phone from a certain Tess or Juliet Villar (later identified as _______________
Rochelle Bagaporo), a credit card agent, 4 Id., at pp. 53-54.
_______________ 262
1 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Rollo, pp. 52- Soledad vs. People
68. Petitioner was thus charged with Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484
2 Id., at p. 71. for possessing a counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently
3 Penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray; id., at pp. 33-47. applied for. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
261 That on or about the 13th day of August 2004, or prior thereto, in the City
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 261 of Las Pias, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
Soledad vs. People named accused, conspiring and confederating with certain Rochelle
who offered a Citifinancing loan assistance at a low interest rate. Enticed by Bagaporo a.k.a. Juliet Villar/Tess and a certain Ronald Gobenciong a.k.a.
the offer, private complainant invited Rochelle Bagaporo to go to his office in Carlo and all of them mutually helping and aiding each other, did then and
Quezon City. While in his office, Rochelle Bagaporo indorsed private there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant HENRY YU by
complainant to her immediate boss, a certain Arthur [later identified as applying a credit card, an access device defined under R.A. 8484, from
petitioner]. In their telephone conversation, [petitioner] told private METROBANK CARD CORPORATION, using the name of complainant
complainant to submit documents to a certain Carlo (later identified as Henry C. Yu and his personal documents fraudulently obtained from him, and
Ronald Gobenchiong). Private complainant submitted various documents, which credit card in the name of Henry Yu was successfully issued and
such as his Globe handyphone original platinum gold card, identification
7
delivered to said accused using a fictitious identity and addresses of Henry 7 Id., at p. 47.
Yu, to the damage and prejudice of the real Henry Yu. 8 Id., at p. 16.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 264
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ensued. After the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, petitioner Soledad vs. People
filed a Demurrer to Evidence, alleging that he was not in physical and legal (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access
possession of the credit card presented and marked in evidence by the devices fraudulently applied for.
prosecution. In an Order dated May 2, 2006, the RTC denied the Demurrer to Petitioner assails the validity of the Information and claims that he was
Evidence as it preferred to rule on the merits of the case.6 not informed of the accusation against him. He explains that though he was
On September 27, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner charged with possession of an access device fraudulently applied for, the
guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads: act of possession, which is the gravamen of the offense, was not alleged in
_______________ the Information.
5 Id., at p. 33. We do not agree.
6 Id., at p. 40. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure lays down the
263 guidelines in determining the sufficiency of a complaint or information. It
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 263 states:
Soledad vs. People SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.A complaint or
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Mark Soledad y information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
Cristobal a.k.a. Henry Yu, Arthur GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
violation of Section 9(e), Republic Act 8484 (Access Device Regulation Act of constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
1998). Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act 8484 and date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused is hereby sentenced committed.
to suffer an imprisonment penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, In the Information filed before the RTC, it was clearly stated that the
as minimum, to not more than ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. accused is petitioner Mark Soledad y Cristobal a.k.a. Henry Yu/Arthur. It
Further, accused is also ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos was also specified in the preamble of the Information that he was being
(P10,000.00) for the offense committed. charged with Violation of R.A. No. 8484, Section 9(e) for possessing a
SO ORDERED.7 counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for. In the
On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioners conviction, but modified the accusatory portion thereof, the acts constituting the offense were clearly
penalty imposed by the RTC by deleting the terms prision narrated in that [petitioner], together with other persons[,] willfully, unlawfully
correccional and prision mayor. and feloniously defrauded private complainant by applying [for] a credit card,
Hence, this petition raising the following issues: an access device defined under R.A. [No.] 8484, from Metrobank Card
(1) Whether or not the Information is valid; Corporation, using the name of complainant Henry C. Yu and his personal
(2) Whether or not the Information charges an offense, or the offense documents fraudulently obtained from him, and which credit card in the name
petitioner was found guilty of; of Henry Yu was successfully issued, and delivered to said accused using a
(3) Whether or not petitioner was sufficiently informed of the nature of fictitious identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the damage
the accusations against him; 265
(4) Whether or not petitioner was legally in possession of the credit VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 265
card subject of the case.8 Soledad vs. People
The petition is without merit. and prejudice of the real Henry Yu. Moreover, it was identified that the
Petitioner was charged with Violation of R.A. No. 8484, specifically offended party was private complainant Henry Yu and the crime was
Section 9(e), which reads as follows: committed on or about the 13th day of August 2004 in the City of Las Pias.
Section 9. Prohibited Acts.The following acts shall constitute access Undoubtedly, the Information contained all the necessary details of the
device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful: offense committed, sufficient to apprise petitioner of the nature and cause of
xxxx the accusation against him. As aptly argued by respondent People of the
_______________ Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, although the word
8
possession was not used in the accusatory portion of the Information, the Petitioner avers that he was never in possession of the subject credit card
word possessing appeared in its preamble or the first paragraph thereof. because he was arrested immediately after signing the acknowledgement
Thus, contrary to petitioners contention, he was apprised that he was being receipt. Thus, he did not yet know the contents of the envelope delivered and
charged with violation of R.A. No. 8484, specifically section 9(e) thereof, for had no control over the subject credit card.11
possession of the credit card fraudulently applied for. Again, we find no value in petitioners argument.
The Courts discussion in People v. Villanueva9 on the relationship The trial court convicted petitioner of possession of the credit card
between the preamble and the accusatory portion of the Information is fraudulently applied for, penalized by R.A. No. 8484. The law, however, does
noteworthy, and we quote: not define the word possession. Thus, we use the term as defined in Article
The preamble or opening paragraph should not be treated as a mere 523 of the Civil Code, that is, possession is the holding of a thing or the
aggroupment of descriptive words and phrases. It is as much an essential enjoyment of a right. The acquisition of possession involves two elements:
part [of] the Information as the accusatory paragraph itself. The preamble in the corpus or the material holding of the thing,
fact complements the accusatory paragraph which draws its strength from _______________
the preamble. It lays down the predicate for the charge in general terms; 10 Id., at pp. 870-871; p. 441.
while the accusatory portion only provides the necessary details. The 11 Rollo, pp. 17-26.
preamble and the accusatory paragraph, together, form a complete whole 267
that gives sense and meaning to the indictment. x x x. VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 267
xxxx Soledad vs. People
Moreover, the opening paragraph bears the operative word accuses, and the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it.12 Animus possidendi is
which sets in motion the constitutional process of notification, and formally a state of mind, the presence or determination of which is largely dependent
makes the person being charged with the commission of the offense an on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred from the prior or
accused. Verily, without the opening paragraph, the accusatory portion would contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding
be nothing but a useless and miserably incomplete narration of facts, and the circumstances.13
entire Information In this case, prior to the commission of the crime, petitioner fraudulently
_______________ obtained from private complainant various documents showing the latters
9 459 Phil. 856; 413 SCRA 431 (2003). identity. He, thereafter, obtained cellular phones using private complainants
266 identity. Undaunted, he fraudulently applied for a credit card under the name
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED and personal circumstances of private complainant. Upon the delivery of the
Soledad vs. People credit card applied for, the messenger (an NBI agent) required two valid
would be a functionally sterile charge sheet; thus making it impossible for the identification cards. Petitioner thus showed two identification cards with his
state to prove its case. picture on them, but bearing the name and forged signature of private
The Information sheet must be considered, not by sections or parts, but complainant. As evidence of the receipt of the envelope delivered, petitioner
as one whole document serving one purpose, i.e., to inform the accused why signed the acknowledgment receipt shown by the messenger, indicating
the full panoply of state authority is being marshaled against him. Our task is therein that the content of the envelope was the Metrobank credit card.
not to determine whether allegations in an indictment could have been more Petitioner materially held the envelope containing the credit card with the
artfully and exactly written, but solely to ensure that the constitutional intent to possess. Contrary to petitioners contention that the credit card
requirement of notice has been fulfilled x x x.10 never came into his possession because it was only delivered to him, the
Besides, even if the word possession was not repeated in the above narration shows that he, in fact, did an active part in acquiring
accusatory portion of the Information, the acts constituting it were clearly possession by presenting the identification cards purportedly showing his
described in the statement [that the] credit card in the name of Henry Yu identity as Henry Yu. Certainly, he had the intention to possess the same.
was successfully issued, and delivered to said accused using a fictitious Had he not actively participated, the envelope would not have been given to
identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the damage and prejudice of the real him. Moreover, his signature on the acknowledgment receipt indicates that
Henry Yu. Without a doubt, petitioner was given the necessary data as to there was delivery and that possession was transferred to him as the
why he was being prosecuted. recipient. Undoubtedly, petitioner knew that the envelope
Now on the sufficiency of evidence leading to his conviction. _______________

9
12 Arturo M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL testifying during the trial. The only exceptions to this rule are the following: 1.
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. Two, p. 229. When patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by
13 People v. Esparas, 354 Phil. 342, 354-355; 292 SCRA 332, 343 the trial court; or 2. When the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported
(1998); People v. Lian, 325 Phil 881, 889; 255 SCRA 532, 536 (1996). by the evidence.
268 Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Witnesses are not expected to remember
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.The alleged
Soledad vs. People inconsistency in Binosas testimony does not render his testimony fictitious.
contained the Metrobank credit card, as clearly indicated in the The fact that he was able to provide more details of the events only during
acknowledgment receipt, coupled with the fact that he applied for it using the cross-examination is not unusual, and on the contrary tends to buttress,
identity of private complainant. rather than weaken, his credibility, since it shows that he was neither
Lastly, we find no reason to alter the penalty imposed by the RTC as coached nor were his answers contrived. After all, [w]itnesses are not
modified by the CA. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8484 prescribes the penalty of expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total
imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and not more than ten (10) recall. As for San Diegos testimony, it is not unnatural for him to have a
years, and a fine of P10,000.00 or twice the value of the access device detailed recollection of the incident. Different persons have different
obtained, whichever is greater. Thus, the CA aptly affirmed the imposition of reactions to similar situations. There is no typical reaction to a sudden
the indeterminate penalty of six years to not more than ten years occurrence.
imprisonment, and a fine of P10,000.00. Same; Same; Same; No standard form of behavior is expected of an
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of individual who witnesses something shocking or gruesome like murder.
merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 18, 2008 and Resolution This Court would like to reiterate that no standard form of behavior is
dated August 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 30603 are AFFIRMED. expected of an individual who witnesses something shocking or gruesome
SO ORDERED. like murder. This is especially true when the
Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.** Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur. _______________
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed. * FIRST DIVISION.
Note.In the grammatical sense, to possess means to have, to actually 406
and physically occupy a thing, with or without right; Two things are 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
paramount in possessionthere must be occupancy, apprehension or 06
taking, and, there must be intent to possess (animus possidendi). (Yu vs. People vs. Asilan
Pacleb, 512 SCRA 402 [2007]) assailant is near. It is not unusual that some people would feel reluctant
o0o in getting involved in a criminal incident.
_______________ Same; Same; Flight; Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not
** Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De necessarily true.In the same manner, it is also not surprising that Asilan
Castro per Special Order No. 949 dated February 11, 2011. returned to the scene of the crime after stabbing Adovas. His failure to flee
and the apparent normalcy of his behavior subsequent to the commission of
the crime do not imply his innocence. This Court, elucidating on this point,
declared: Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true.
G.R. No. 188322. April 11, 2012.* Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEPH manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or fleea circumstance strongly
ASILAN y TABORNAL, accused-appellant. illustrative of guiltwhile others may remain in the same vicinity so as to
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; It is a well-settled rule that create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other
the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses will members of the community.
generally not be disturbed on appeal; Exceptions.It is a well-settled rule Criminal Law; Denials; The defense of denial fails even more when the
that the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses will assailant, as in this case, was positively identified by credible witnesses,
generally not be disturbed on appeal. The rationale for this doctrine is that against whom no ulterior motive could be ascribed.Unfortunately, Asilans
the trial court is in a better position to decide the issue, as it heard the bare denial, when juxtaposed with the prosecution witnesses positive
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of declarations, is not worthy of credence. Denial, which is the usual refuge of

10
offenders, is an inherently weak defense, and must be buttressed by other nature and cause of the accusation against him. Asilan never claimed that
persuasive evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. The defense of he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges
denial fails even more when the assailant, as in this case, was positively against him due to the insufficiency of the Information.
identified by credible witnesses, against whom no ulterior motive could be Criminal Law; Damages; Loss of Earning Capacity; Factors in
ascribed. computing the amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning
Same; Treachery; It is basic in our penal law that treachery is present capacity of the deceased.The following are the factors in computing the
when the offender employs means, methods or forms which tend directly and amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the
especially to insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising deceased: 1) The number of years on the basis of which the damages shall
from the defense which the offended party might make.The prosecution be computed. This is based on the formula (2/3 x 80 age of the deceased
was able to sufficiently establish the attendance of treachery in the case at at the time of his death = life expectancy), which is adopted from the
bar. It is basic in our penal law that treachery is present when the offender American Expectancy Table of Mortality; and 2)
employs means, methods or forms which tend directly and especially to 408
insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
defense which the offended party might make. In People v. Tan, 315 SCRA 08
375 (1999), this Court expounded on the concept of treachery as follows: People vs. Asilan
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the The rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased
slightest provocation on the part of the person should be fixed. Net income is arrived at by deducting the amount of the
407 victims living expenses from the amount of his gross income. The loss of
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 407 earning capacity of Asilan is thus computed as follows: Net Earning Capacity
People vs. Asilan = life expectancy x [gross annual income living expenses] = 2/3 [80-age at
attacked. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the time of death] x [gross annual income 50% of gross annual income] = 2/3
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the [80-29] x [P103,260.00 P51,630.00] = 34 x P51,630.00 = P1,755,420.00.
execution thereof, which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
without risk arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
the case at bar, the attack on Magdalino Olos was treacherous, because he The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
was caught off guard and was therefore unable to defend himself, as testified Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellant.
to by the prosecution witnesses and as indicated by the wounds inflicted on LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
him. Both eyewitnesses testified on how Asilan attacked Adovas from This is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant Joseph Asilan y Tabornal
behind. Adovas could not have defended himself because Asilan stabbed (Asilan) to challenge the February 25, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of
him at his back repeatedly sans provocation or warning. The deciding factor Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02686, which affirmed in toto his Murder
is that Asilans execution of his attack made it impossible for Adovas to conviction, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20 of the City
defend himself or retaliate. of Manila on January 8, 2007, in Criminal Case No. 06-243060.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; Under Section 6, the On March 31, 2006, Asilan was charged with the complex crime of Direct
Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the Assault with Murder in an Information,2 the pertinent portion of which reads:
designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions That on or about March 27, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate said accused, conspiring, and confederating with another whose true name,
date, and the place of the offense.This Court held that [u]nder Section 6, real identity and present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping
the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack,
designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions assault and use personal
constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate _______________
date, and the place of the offense. The Information herein complied with 1 Rollo, pp. 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal
these conditions. Contrary to Asilans contention, the qualifying circumstance with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court)
of treachery was specifically alleged in the Information. The rule is that and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring.
qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order 2 Records, p. 1.
not to violate the accuseds constitutional right to be properly informed of the 409

11
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 409 The man who was being arrested by the police officer held the latters
People vs. Asilan hand while he was being stabbed repeatedly by [Asilan]. The man who was
violence upon the person of PO1 RANDY ADOVAS y PE-CAAT, a member being arrested then took the officers gun and shot the latter with it.
of the Philippine National Police assigned at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, The fellow barker of Joselito Binosa then threw stones at the malefactors
Taguig, MM, duly qualified, appointed, and acting as such, and therefore an who subsequently left the place.
agent of a person in authority, which fact was known to the said accused, Joselito Binosa secretly followed [Asilan] and his companion who walked
while PO1 RANDY ADOVAS y PE-CAAT was in the performance of his towards the railroad track taking Teresa St., Sta. Mesa, Manila. [Asilan]
official duty, that is, while handcuffing the at-large co-conspirator for illegal entered an alley and thereafter returned to the place of the incident. The
possession of deadly weapon, herein accused suddenly appeared and with other man walked on to the tracks.
intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault, and use At that moment, a policeman passed by and Binosa pointed [Asilan] to
personal violence upon said police officer by then and there repeatedly him. [Asilan] was arrested and the knife which was used in the stabbing was
stabbing the latter with a fan knife then grabbing his service firearm confiscated by the policeman.6 (Citations omitted.)
and shooting him, thereby inflicting upon the said PO1 RANDY ADOVAS y The above narration of events was largely corroborated by Pol Justine
PE-CAAT mortal stab and gunshot wounds which were the direct and San Diego (San Diego), a student, who also witnessed the events that
immediate cause of his death thereafter. transpired on March 27, 2006.7
Asilan pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment3 on April 10, 2006. Pre- The prosecution also submitted as evidence Medico Legal Report No. M-
Trial Conference followed on April 26, 2006, where the counsels agreed to 219-06,8accomplished and testified to by Dr. Vladimir V. Villaseor. The
stipulate that Asilan, who was at that time present in the RTC, was the same pertinent portion of the Medico Legal Report states:
Asilan named in the Information, and that the victim, Police Officer 1 (PO1) SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Randy Adovas y Pe-caat (Adovas), was a police officer in active duty at the Cadaver of Randy Pe-caat Adovas, 29 y/o male, married, a policeman,
time of his death.4 Trial on the merits ensued after the termination of the pre- 167 cm in height and a resident of 19 West Bank Road, Floodway, Rosario
trial conference. Pasig City.
Below is the prosecutions version, as succinctly summarized by the _______________
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) from the testimony of Joselito Binosa 6 CA Rollo, pp. 155-156.
(Binosa)5: 7 TSN, June 14, 2006, pp. 1-10.
In the evening of March 27, 2006, around 10:00 oclock, Joselito Binosa, 8 Folder of Exhibits, p. 25.
a jeepney barker/carwash boy while chatting with his friends at the El Nio 411
Bakery along Teresa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, heard a gunshot nearby. He VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 411
then went to the place where the sound came and from where he was People vs. Asilan
standing which was about three (3) to four (4) meters away, he saw a PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
uniformed policeman, To determine the cause of death.
_______________ FINDINGS:
3 Id., at p. 4. Body belongs to a fairly nourished, fairly developed male cadaver in rigor
4 Id., at p. 13. mortis with postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body.
5 TSN, May 31, 2006, pp. 1-30. Conjunctivae, lips and nailbeds are pale. With exploratory laparotomy
410 incision at the anterior abdominal wall, measuring 29 cm long, along the
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED anterior midline.
People vs. Asilan Trunk & Upper Extremity:
who seemed to be arresting someone and ordering the latter to lay on the 1) Stab wound, right axillary region, measuring 6 x 4 cm, 16 cm from the
ground. anterior midline.
The police officer pushed the man to the wall, poked the gun on him and 2) Stab wound, right hypochondriac region, measuring 2.3 x 0.7 cm,
was about to handcuff the latter when another man, herein appellant Asilan 2cm right of the anterior midline, 9 cm deep, directed posteriorwards,
arrived, drew something from his back and stabbed the police officer on his downwards & medialwards, lacerating the right lobe of the liver.
back several times until the latter fell to the ground. -over-
CONCLUSION:

12
Cause of death is MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS & GUNSHOT WOUND What the framers of the law wanted was to know the reason of the
OF THE TRUNK AND UPPER EXTREMITIES. assault upon a person in authority or his agents. The prosecution failed to
Meanwhile, Asilan, in his Appellants Brief,9summed up his defense as show why the victim was pushing the man on the wall or why he poked his
follows: gun at the latter. That the victim was assaulted
On March 27, 2006, at around 10:00 oclock p.m. JOSEPH _______________
ASILAN [Asilan] was on board a passenger jeepney on his way to 10 Id., at pp. 97-98.
Mandaluyong. As he had to transfer to another jeepney, [Asilan] alighted at 11 Records, pp. 76-95.
Old Sta. Mesa and waited for a jeep bound for Pasig City. Suddenly, three 12 Id., at pp. 94-95.
(3) motorcycles stopped in front of him, the passengers of which approached 13 Id., at p. 91.
and frisked him. He was thereafter brought to the police station and in a 413
small room, he was forced to admit to the stabbing of a police officer. VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 413
Thereafter, he was brought to a nearby hospital and was medically People vs. Asilan
examined. Then he was again taken to the police station where he was while in the performance of his duty or by reason thereof was not
confronted with the knife which was allegedly used in stabbing PO1 Adovas. conclusively proven.14
He was In convicting Asilan of Murder, the RTC held that his defense of denial
_______________ could not be accorded more weight than the categorical assertions of the
9 CA Rollo, pp. 92-112. witnesses who positively identified him as the man who suddenly appeared
412 from behind [Adovas] and stabbed the latter repeatedly. 15 Moreover, Asilan
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED admitted that he was at the scene of the crime when he was arrested, that he
People vs. Asilan could not give any reason for the witnesses to falsely testify against him, and
mauled for refusing to confess to the stabbing of the said policeman. that he did not know them.
Afterwards, he was presented to alleged eyewitnesses. However, the Anent the aggravating circumstances, the RTC found that the killing of
supposed eyewitnesses were not the ones presented by the prosecution in Adovas was proven to be attended with treachery since Adovas was
court.10 attacked from behind, depriving him of the opportunity to defend
The RTC convicted Asilan of Murder in its Decision11 dated January 8, himself.16However, the RTC declared that the aggravating circumstance of
2007, the dispositive portion of which reads: evident premeditation could not be appreciated x x x absent evidence that
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the Prosecution to [Asilan] planned or prepared to kill [Adovas] or of the time when the plot was
have failed to establish and prove beyond reasonable doubt the offense of conceived.17
direct assault. Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to As to the damages, the RTC found the prosecutions evidence, which
support the charge as to one of the component, the accused can be consisted of Adovass wifes testimony, and the receipts of the expenses she
convicted of the other (People v. Roma, 374 SCRA 457). incurred in Adovass hospitalization, wake, and burial, sufficient to award
WHEREFORE, his guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt for moral and actual damages.
the crime of murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, judgment On January 19, 2007, Asilan appealed18 his conviction to the Court of
is hereby rendered finding accused Joseph Appeals, mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
Asilan y Tabornal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt. He
and is hereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is hereby _______________
ordered to pay the heirs of PO1 Randy Adovas y Pe-Caat the sum of 14 Id., at p. 92.
P84,224.00 as actual damages, P25,000.00 for moral damages and 15 Id., at p. 93.
P50,000.00 civil indemnity.12 16 Id., at p. 92.
The RTC, in acquitting Asilan of Direct Assault, held that while it was 17 Id., at p. 93.
confirmed that Adovas was in his police uniform at the time of his death, the 18 Id., at p. 98
prosecution failed to establish convincingly that he was in the performance of 414
his duty when he was assaulted by Asilan. The RTC explained that there was 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
no evidence to show that Adovas was arresting somebody at the time Asilan People vs. Asilan
stabbed him.13 The RTC added:

13
subsequently filed a Motion to Litigate as a Pauper, 19 which on February 28, 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
2007, was granted in an Order20 by the RTC. armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means
On February 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision, or persons to insure or afford impunity;
affirming in toto the RTCs ruling. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 08 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding
January 2007 of the Court a quo in Criminal Case No. 06-243060, finding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by
Accused-Appellant JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL guilty beyond means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
reasonable doubt of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.21 great waste and ruin;
The Court of Appeals rejected Asilans arguments and averred that his 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
denial and bare attempt at exculpation by trying to destroy the credibility of paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
the candid, categorical, and trustworthy testimonies of the witnesses must cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
fail. 5. With evident premeditation;
Aggrieved, Asilan is now appealing22 his case to this Court, with the same 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering
assignment of errors he posited before the Court of Appeals: of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS Asilan claims that the testimonies of the witnesses were not only filled
I with inconsistencies, they were also incredible for being contrary to the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED- common experience and observation
APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE _______________
CHARGED BY RELYING ON THE INCONSISTENT AND UNNATURAL 23 CA Rollo, p. 94.
TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED EYEWITNESS. 416
II 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED- People vs. Asilan
APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE that mankind can approve as probable under the circumstance.24
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE Asilan insists that the testimony of Binosa should not be given credence
DOUBT. as he was selective in his recollection of the events. Asilan claimed that
_______________ Binosa seemed to have recalled more details on cross-examination, thus
19 Id., at pp. 99-101 improving on the version he gave during his direct examination. Asilan
20 Id., at p. 105. further claims that Binosas suggestion that Asilan returned to the scene of
21 Rollo, p. 24. the crime after he committed the alleged crime is very unlikely. Asilan avers
22 Id., at pp. 26-27. that San Diegos testimony was likewise not credible as it was clearly only a
415 more refined version of Binosas account of the events. Moreover, Asilan
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 415 says that San Diegos testimony is too good to be true as he is unlikely to
People vs. Asilan have a detailed recollection of an event, which according to him happened
III within a span of two minutes.25
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE Credibility of Witnesses
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.23 It is a well-settled rule that the assessment of the trial court regarding the
Discussion credibility of witnesses will generally not be disturbed on appeal. The
Asilan was convicted of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the rationale for this doctrine is that the trial court is in a better position to decide
Revised Penal Code: the issue, as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
Art. 248. Murder.Any person who, not falling within the provisions of deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.26 The only exceptions to
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished this rule are the following:
by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following 1. When patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are
attendant circumstances: ignored by the trial court; or
2. When the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the
evidence.27

14
_______________ the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.33 In People v. Albarido,34 this
24 Id., at pp. 98-105. Court said:
25 Id., at pp. 104-105. It is elementary in the rule of evidence that inconsistencies in the
26 People v. Obosa, 429 Phil. 522, 532-533; 380 SCRA 22, 30 (2002). testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and
27 Id., at p. 533; p. 30. collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the
417 veracity or weight of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 417 enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that
People vs. Asilan their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed. In People vs. Maglente, this
This Court sees no reason to apply the above exceptions and disturb the Court ruled that inconsistencies in details which are irrelevant to the
findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal. x x x.35
Our perusal of the records showed that the RTC was vigilant in its duty to Credibility of the evidence
ascertain the truth. The RTC itself propounded clarificatory questions to Asilan further asseverates that it is perplexing how none of the witnesses,
Binosa and San Diego while they were testifying. At the end of the trial, the who were present during the incident, warned Adovas of the impending
RTC found these witnesses credible, and believed their eyewitness accounts danger to his life. He contends that for evidence to be believed, it must not
because they were categorical in their identification of Asilan as one of only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in
Adovass assailants. The RTC also pointed out that it could not find any itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can
dubious reason for Binosa and San Diego to falsely implicate Asilan in a approve as probable under the circumstance.36
heinous crime.28 This Court would like to reiterate that no standard form of behavior is
Alleged Inconsistencies expected of an individual who witnesses something shocking or gruesome
The alleged inconsistency in Binosas testimony does not render his like murder. This is especially true when the assailant is near. It is not
testimony fictitious. The fact that he was able to provide more details of the unusual that some
events only during cross-examination is not unusual, and on the contrary _______________
tends to buttress, rather than weaken, his credibility, since it shows that he 32 TSN, June 14, 2006, pp. 1-10.
was neither coached nor were his answers contrived.29 After all, [w]itnesses 33 People v. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235, 244; 368 SCRA 194, 202 (2001).
are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect 34 Id.
or total recall.30 35 Id., at pp. 244-245; p. 202.
As for San Diegos testimony, it is not unnatural for him to have a detailed 36 CA Rollo, p. 105.
recollection of the incident. Different persons have different reactions to 419
similar situations. There is no typical reaction to a sudden occurrence.31 It is VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 419
worthy to note that San Diego was only sixteen years old when he witnessed People vs. Asilan
the stabbing of Adovas. It was his first time to witness a person being people would feel reluctant in getting involved in a criminal incident.37
stabbed right before his very eyes. He testified that three months after that In the same manner, it is also not surprising that Asilan returned to the
night, the events were still vividly scene of the crime after stabbing Adovas. His failure to flee and the
_______________ apparent normalcy of his behavior subsequent to the commission of the
28 Records, p. 94. crime do not imply his innocence.38 This Court, elucidating on this point,
29 People v. Orio, 386 Phil. 786; 330 SCRA 576 (2000). declared:
30 Id., at p. 796; pp. 584-585. Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits
31 People v. Letigio, 335 Phil. 693, 705; 268 SCRA 227, 238 (1997). behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their
418 guilt. Some may escape or fleea circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of
People vs. Asilan regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the
imprinted in his mind.32 It is thus not improbable that he could, with certainty, community.39
identify Asilan as the man who stabbed Adovas that fateful night. Defense of Denial
Likewise, our scrutiny of the so-called inconsistencies relied upon by Unfortunately, Asilans bare denial, when juxtaposed with the prosecution
Asilan showed that they only referred to minor details, which did not affect witnesses positive declarations, is not worthy of credence. Denial, which is

15
the usual refuge of offenders, is an inherently weak defense, and must be on Magdalino Olos was treacherous, because he was caught off guard and
buttressed by other persuasive evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. was therefore
The defense of denial fails even more when the assailant, as in this case, _______________
was positively identified by credible witnesses, against whom no ulterior 41 Id., at pp. 212-213; p. 246.
motive could be ascribed.40 42 CA Rollo, p. 107.
Asilan not only admitted that he was at the scene of the crime when he 43 People v. Isleta, 332 Phil. 410, 420; 264 SCRA 374, 383 (1996).
was arrested by the police authorities, he also admitted that he did not know 44 373 Phil. 990; 315 SCRA 375 (1999).
any of the prosecution witnesses prior to his trial. Moreover, he had filed no 421
case against the police officers whom he accused of mauling him to make VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 421
him admit to the stabbing of Adovas. Asilans self-serving statements People vs. Asilan
deserve no weight in law and cannot be unable to defend himself, as testified to by the prosecution witnesses and as
_______________ indicated by the wounds inflicted on him.45
37 People v. Aliben, 446 Phil. 349, 373; 398 SCRA 255, 273 (2003). Both eyewitnesses testified on how Asilan attacked Adovas from behind.
38 People v. Agunias, 344 Phil. 467, 481; 279 SCRA 52, 66 (1997). Adovas could not have defended himself because Asilan stabbed him at his
39 Id., at pp. 481-482; p. 66. back repeatedly sans provocation or warning. The deciding factor is that
40 People v. Barona, 380 Phil. 204; 323 SCRA 239 (2000). Asilans execution of his attack made it impossible for Adovas to defend
420 himself or retaliate.46
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Sufficiency of the Information
People vs. Asilan Asilan also claims that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature
given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of the witnesses who and cause of accusation against him was infringed when he was convicted
testified on positive points.41 for Murder, since the manner by which he carried out the killing with the
Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery qualifying circumstance of treachery was not alleged in the Information
Asilan pleads that treachery cannot be appreciated in the present case as against him. Thus, he asserts, he was effectively only charged with
the prosecution failed to establish that he had consciously or deliberately Homicide.47
adopted or chosen the mode of attack employed upon Adovas to deprive him This Court does not find merit in Asilans contention that he cannot be
of an opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Asilan argues that mere convicted of murder because his acts of treachery were not alleged with
suddenness of the attack is not enough to constitute treachery. He further specificity in the Information. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
posits that while it may be true that he allegedly came from behind, the Procedure states:
mode of attack could have occurred in a spur of the moment.42 Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.A complaint or
The RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery in information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
the killing of Adovas. of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
The prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the attendance of constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
treachery in the case at bar. It is basic in our penal law that treachery is time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was
present when the offender employs means, methods or forms which tend committed.
directly and especially to insure the execution of the crime, without risk to When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might be included in the complaint or information.
make.43 In People v. Tan,44 this Court expounded on the concept of _______________
treachery as follows: 45 Id., at p. 1010; p. 393.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without 46 People v. Pidoy, 453 Phil. 221, 230; 405 SCRA 339, 348 (2003).
the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. Treachery is 47 CA Rollo, p. 108.
present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 422
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk arising from the People vs. Asilan
defense which the offended party might make. In the case at bar, the attack This Court held that [u]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it
contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by
16
the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the treachery, an additional award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), as
offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense. 48 The exemplary damages, in accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil
Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilans Code,55 should be awarded to the heirs of Adovas.56
contention, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged As to actual damages, Adovass widow, Irene Adovas, presented the
in the Information. The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly receipts showing that she paid P25,224.00 to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital,
pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accuseds constitutional Inc., as hospital expenses,57
right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation _______________
against him.49 Asilan never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be 51 G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280.
fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to the 52 Id., at p. 289.
insufficiency of the Information. 53 Id.
This Court completely agrees with the Court of Appeals pronouncement 54 People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 509, 530.
that since treachery was correctly alleged in the Information and duly 55 Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the
established by the prosecution, x x x [Asilan]s conviction for the crime of civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or
murder is proper.50 more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct
In any case, it is now too late for Asilan to assail the sufficiency of the from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
Information on the ground that there was failure to specifically allege therein 56 People v. Asis, supra note 54 at 531.
how treachery was carried out. Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court 57 Folder of Exhibits, p. 31.
provides: 424
SEC. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before People vs. Asilan
he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a P35,000.00 to Marulas Memorial Homes,58 and P20,000.00 to Funeraria
motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed Saranay as funeral expenses,59 or a total of P80,224.00.
a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. Article 2206 of the Civil Code, Asilan is also liable for the loss of the earning
_______________ capacity of Adovas, and such indemnity should be paid to his heirs: 60
48 People v. Lab-Eo, 424 Phil. 482, 497; 373 SCRA 461, 473 (2002). Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or
49 Id. quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may
50 Rollo, pp. 23-24. have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
423 (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 423 the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such
People vs. Asilan indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless
Moreover, in People v. Candaza,51 this Court held that [a]n Information the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the
which lacks essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency Irene Adovas testified61 on the amount her husband received as police
was cured by competent evidence presented therein.52 In this case, Asilan officer and presented documentary evidence to show that Adovas, who was
not only failed to question the sufficiency of the Information at any time only 29 years old when he died,62 earned P8,605.00 a month63 at the time of
during the pendency of his case before the RTC, he also allowed the his death.
prosecution to present evidence, proving the elements of treachery in the The following are the factors in computing the amount of damages
commission of the offense. Asilan is thus deemed to have waived any recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased:
objections against the sufficiency of the Information.53 1) The number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,54 this Court is increasing the award computed. This is based on the formula (2/3 x 80 age of the deceased at
of civil indemnity from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Seventy-Five the time of his death = life expectancy), which is adopted from the American
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and the moral damages from Twenty-Five Expectancy Table of Mortality; and
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). _______________
Moreover, in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of 58 Id., at p. 32.

17
59 Id., at p. 33. Notes.The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to
60 People v. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity; The rule is that evidence not
713. objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in
61 TSN, July 10, 2006, p. 17. arriving at its judgment. (People vs. Lopez, 643 SCRA 524 [2011]).
62 Folder of Exhibits, p. 20. The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of
63 Id., at p. 28. appellants flight from the scene of the crime coupled with his failure to
425 promptly inform the authorities about the incident. (People vs. Campos, 653
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 425 SCRA 99 [2011]).
People vs. Asilan o0o
2) The rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased PO3 BENITO SOMBILON, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
should be fixed.64Net income is arrived at by deducting the amount of the PHILIPPINES, respondent.
victims living expenses from the amount of his gross income.65 The loss of Criminal Law; Acts of Lasciviousness; Elements.For an accused to
earning capacity of Asilan is thus computed as follows: be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision, the
Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential
annual income living elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
expenses]66 lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
= 2/3 [80-age at time of death] (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived
x [gross annual income 50% of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under
of gross annual income] twelve (12) years of age.
= 2/3 [80-29] x [P103,260.00 Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The term lewd is commonly
P51,630.00] defined as something indecent or obscene, characterized by or intended to
= 34 x P51,630.00 excite crude sexual desire.In the case of Amployo v. People, 457 SCRA
= P1,755,420.00 282 (2005), the Court expounded on the definition of the term lewd, thus: The
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 25, 2009 of the Court of term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02686 is hereby AFFIRMEDinsofar as it characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused
found accused-appellant Joseph Asilan y Tabornal guilty beyond reasonable is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the
doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such
with MODIFICATION as to the damages. Asilan is hereby ordered to intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious.
indemnify the heirs of Randy Adovas y Pe-caat the following: (a) P75,000.00 The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the
as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P30,000.00 as acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not
exemplary damages; (d) P80,224.00 as actual damages; (e) P1,755,420.00 lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise
as loss of earning capacity; and (f) interest on all damages awarded at the definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented thatIt would
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what
_______________ conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal
64 People v. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from
713. the circum-
65 Id. _______________
66 People v. Verde, 362 Phil. 305, 321; 302 SCRA 690, 707 (1999). * FIRST DIVISION.
426 406
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan 06
SO ORDERED. Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Del stances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular
Castillo and Perez,** JJ., concur. case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely
Judgment affirmed with modification.

18
difficult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies was no allegation in the information that more than three armed malefactors
between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover. acted together in the commission of the crime.
Same; Same; Force and Intimidation; In cases of acts of Same; Same; Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The
lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible.In People retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely
v. Victor, 393 SCRA 472 (2002), the Court held that in cases of acts of affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior
lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible. It being to the effectivity of said rules.As to the damages awarded, Article 2230 of
sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part
the free exercise of the will of the offended party. Here, the victim was locked of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one
inside a windowless room together with her aggressor who poked a gun at or more aggravating circumstances. Since the generic aggravating
her forehead. Even a grown man would be paralyzed with fear if threatened circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not alleged in the
at gunpoint, what more the hapless victim who was only 15 years old when Information against petitioner it cannot be appreciated in the imposition of the
she was subjected to such atrocity. penalty. But as regards the award of exemplary damages, in the case
Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Qualifying of People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001), the Court declined retroactive
Circumstances; Aggravating Circumstances; Right to be Informed; It is now a application of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: The retroactive
requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the
expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise, rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the
they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has not
subsequently proved during trial.It is now a requirement that the been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed,
aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already
specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby. Thus, in accordance with
considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently the foregoing pronouncement,
proved during trial. A reading of the Information shows that there was no 408
allegation of any aggravating circumstance. 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure is 08
given retroactive application if it benefits the accused.In People v. Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003), the crime was committed and the the Court affirms the CAs award of exemplary damages to the victim in
Information was filed in 1990. Still, the Court gave the 2000 Rules of Criminal the amount of P10,000.00.
Procedure retroactive application since it benefited the accused and Same; Same; Evidence; Damages; Moral Damages; Upon a finding of
disregarded the generic guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of 30,000.00 as
407 moral damages may be further awarded to the victim in the same way that
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 40 moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof
7 because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.With regard to the
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People awarded moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, the same should be
aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the increased to P30,000.00. In People v. Solmoro, 393 SCRA 100 (2002), we
Information. The Court explained, viz.: Section 8 simply provides that the declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness,
information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages may be further awarded to the
the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. victim in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape
With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio Suela that the use of even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral
the word must in said Section 9 indicates that the requirement is mandatory injury. Considering the immeasurable pain and anguish that the victim had to
and therefore, the failure to comply with sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic suffer in the hands of the petitioner; the trauma that she had to endure even
aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be after the incident; and the sexual perversity of petitioner, who is a police
appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the officer, the award of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is proper.
information. In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the crime since there of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

19
Leopoldo L. Cagatin for petitioner. Thereafter, they went out of the room where Appellant announced to P03
The Solicitor General for respondent. Danilo Mendez and Aileen Dagoc that she had already admitted having
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: stolen the necklace. Pale, AAA was trembling and crying; her hair
This resolves the petition for review which seeks to annul and set aside disheveled, her dress wet. She also had bruises on her forehead.
the following rulings of the Court of Ap- The police officers allowed AAA and her mother to go home on the
409 condition that they would pay the value of the necklace. Because of AAAs
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 409 condition, AAAs mother brought her daughter to the Medical Clinic of St.
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People Lukewhere AAA was examined by Dr. Manuel Garcia, Sr.4 Dr. Garcia gave
peals (CA) in C.A. C.R. No. 27729: a) the Decision1 dated July 28, 2005 AAA a tranquilizer to calm down the latter who was trembling and
which affirmed with modification the decision2 dated May 13, 2003 of the incoherent.5 At first, AAA could not answer the doctor when she was asked
Regional Trial Court of Davao City (RTC), convicting petitioner of acts of what happened to her. Later, upon regaining her composure, she revealed
lasciviousness; and b) the Resolution3 dated September 22, 2006 denying that she was electrocuted and sexually molested by petitioner. 6 The Medical
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision. Certificate7 issued by Dr. Garcia disclosed the following injuries:
The facts found during trial, as succinctly stated by the CA, are as 1. Slight contusion over occiput region.
follows: 2. Slight contusion over center area of forehead.
The facts found during the trial reveal that on or about August 15, 1998, 3. Multiple slight contusions of fingers of bilateral hands.
AAA, a fifteen (15)-year old minor, was investigated by Appellant at the 4. Multiple slight contusions of bilateral breast areas.
Calinan Police Station, Davao City in connection with a complaint for Theft 5. Slight body tremors.
filed by a certain Aileen Dagoc. Diagnosis: Slight Physical Injuries
AAA alleged that Appellant, in conducting the investigation, took her _______________
inside a room and locked it. She testified that the room had no window but 4 TSN, May 22, 2000, p. 11.
had a cot, a table, and a clothesline where some clothes were hanged. She 5 TSN, July 5, 2000, p. 8.
claimed that Appellant pointed a gun at her, with the end of the barrel 6 TSN, November 13, 2000, p. 7.
touching her forehead and pushed her with it, causing her head to violently 7 Record, p. 15.
bang against the wall, and asked her: Did you steal the necklace? She 411
answered that she did not. Appellant then took an electric wire from a drawer VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 411
and inserted its male plug to a socket. She was ordered to place her two Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
hands on top of the table where her fingers were electrocuted with the end of In an Information8 dated August 23, 1999, petitioner was charged with the
the wire. She was again asked the same question, which she kept answering crime of Acts of Lasciviousness committed as follows:
in the negative. Subsequently, she was asked: Dalaga ka na ba? (Are you a The undersigned accuses the above-named accused of the crime of
woman now?), and was told: I am single too. Simultaneously, she was Acts of Lasciviousness, under Art. 336, in relation to Art. 344 of the Revised
touched all over her body including Penal Code, upon the instance of the complainant AAA, who is 15 years old,
_______________ whose affidavit is hereto attached to form part of this Information. The crime
1 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate is committed as follows:
Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 18- That on or about August 14, 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and
31. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused,
2 Id., at pp. 49-57. motivated by lewd design, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously upon the
3 Id., at p. 47. person of AAA, by then and there embracing, mashing the breast, and
410 touching the private part, against her will.
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED CONTRARY TO LAW.
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
her breasts, her belly, and her private parts. She was also kissed on her On May 13, 2003, after trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a decision
cheek. She struggled to resist the sexual advances but Appellant prevailed. finding petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness with the aggravating
She claimed that they were inside the room for more than one (1) hour. circumstance of petitioners taking advantage of his public position and
sentenced him to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to five (5)

20
years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as I
maximum. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
For the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused PO3 TRIAL COURT THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME
Benito Sombilon, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
Lasciviousness, under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby II
sentenced to suffer imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING, THE HONORABLE COURT OF
from Six (6) APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
_______________ AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS
8 Id., at p. 1. PUBLIC POSITION FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE IN THE INFORMATION;
412 III
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People AWARD OF DAMAGES.11
months of Arresto Mayor, as minimum to Five (5) years, Four (4) months and Petitioner contends that the CA erred in affirming his conviction for acts of
Twenty-one (21) days of Prision Correccional, as maximum and directed to lasciviousness. Even as he admits having merely touched the victim,
pay private complainant AAA the following: petitioner argues that the act of touching did not constitute lewdness. At
a.) by way of moral Damages, the amount of Ten Thousand most, he could only be convicted of unjust vexation. Petitioner likewise
Pesos (PhP10,000.00); and asserts that while the victim was being touched, the latter tried to cover her
b.) by way of Exemplary Damages, the amount of ten Thousand body with her arms. Lastly petitioner posits that the police station does not
Pesos (PhP10,000.00).9 favor the perpetration of the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
From the above decision, petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA, _______________
which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 40419. 10 Supra note 1 at pp. 30-31.
On July 28, 2005, the CA rendered the herein challenged Decision 11 Rollo, p. 7.
affirming with modification the RTCs judgment of conviction. Appreciating 414
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position which 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
was adequately established during the trial, the CA increased the maximum Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
penalty imposed against petitioner to its maximum period of six years Petitioners contention deserves scant consideration.
of prision correccional. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: The crime of acts of lasciviousness as punished under Article 336 of the
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 8, Davao Revised Penal Code provides:
City in Criminal Case No. 43, 810-99 is ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness.Any person who shall commit any
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant PO3 Benito Sombilon, act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the
as found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished
lasciviousness, defined and penalized under article 336 of the Revised by prision correccional.
Penal Code, is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the
months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional, as foregoing provision, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of
maximum. Appellant is likewise ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amount the following essential elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of
of Php10,000.00 as moral damages and another Php10,000.00 as exemplary lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following
damages. circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended
With costs. woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the
_______________ offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.12
9 Supra note 2 at pp. 56-57. In the case of Amployo v. People,13 the Court expounded on the definition
413 of the term lewd, thus:
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 413 The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene;
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an
SO ORDERED.10 accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental
Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition, with the following allegations: process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out

21
such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or The fact that the victim tried to cover her body with her arms does not
lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the negate petitioners lascivious conduct. Petitioner succeeded in fondling the
nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is victims breasts intense enough to cause multiple slight contusions of
or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a bilateral breast areas.
precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner employed force and intimidation
_______________ against AAA:
12 People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127904, December 5, 2002, 393 SCRA Moreover, appellant employed force and intimidation when he committed
472, 485. these acts on AAA. In fact, as found by the trial court, appellant pointed a
13 G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 292. gun at the forehead of AAA as evidenced by the bruises on her forehead.
415 Further, the medical Certificate shows that AAA suffered slight physical
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 415 injuries which include multiple slight contusion of bilateral breast
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People areas which supports AAAs claim.15
It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically In People v. Victor,16 the Court held that in cases of acts of
establishing just what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible. It being
of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues
conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It the free exercise of the will of the offended party. Here, the victim was locked
may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts inside a windowless room together with her aggressor who poked a gun at
are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another her forehead. Even a grown man would be paralyzed with fear if threatened
case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such at gunpoint, what more the hapless victim who was only 15 years old when
conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover. she was subjected to such atrocity.
Undoubtedly, petitioner committed acts which fall within the above Petitioners assertion that the locus criminisi.e., the police station makes it
described lascivious conduct. It cannot be viewed as mere unjust vexation as unlikely for him to commit the crime
petitioner would have the Court do. The intention of petitioner was intended _______________
neither to merely annoy or irritate the victim nor to force her to confess the 14 Supra note 1 at p. 27.
theft. He could have easily achieved that when he electrocuted the latter. 15 Id., at p. 28.
Petitioner intended to gratify his sexual desires. 16 Supra note 12.
As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, petitioners acts of kissing 417
the victim, fondling her breasts and touching her private parts constitute VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 417
lascivious conduct intended to quench his salacious desire. Petitioners lewd Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
intent was betrayed when he asked AAA,Dalaga ka na ba? as a prelude to of acts of lasciviousness is specious. The presence of other policemen on
his lustful advances on the victim, and thereafter conveyed to her that I am duty and of the victims mother outside the room where the incident took
single too. We quote with approval the CAs ratiocination: place does not render commission of the offense impossible. It has been
Undeniably, appellant committed lewd acts against AAA. Lewd is shown that there was a room in the precinct which, except for two doors
defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous. It signifies that form of which could be locked, was totally enclosed.17 During the commission of the
immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on a acts of lasciviousness, petitioner and AAA were the only persons inside the
wanton manner. The evidence shows that appellant committed lewd acts room. Lust, as we have often held, is no respecter of either place or time.18
against AAA when he touched her all over her body which includes As to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of taking
mashing her breasts, touching her private parts, and kissing her on the advantage of public position, petitioner points out that said circumstance was
cheek. These acts were clearly done with lewd designs as appellant even not alleged in the information. The Solicitor General shares the same view.
previously asked AAA, as if it was a prelude for things Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
416 which took effect on December 1, 2000, provide:
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.The complaint or information shall
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
to come, Dalaga ka na ba? and thereafter conveyed to her that he is single omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
too.14
22
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be 419
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 419
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations.The acts or omissions complained Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating tion was not alleged in the information. As such, it cannot be appreciated as
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the penalty imposed must be
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to modified.
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law21 (ISL) states that (i)n
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal
court to pronounce judgment. Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
_______________ indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
17 Record, p. 114; TSN, July 19, 2000, pp. 6, 15-16. view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
18 People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 282, rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of
298. the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. Under
418 Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for acts of lasciviousness
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED is prision correccional. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People attended the commission of the offense in this case, the penalty should be
Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the applied in its medium period, the duration of which is two (2) years, four (4)
qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two months, as maximum. The
complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which
court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial. 19 A is arresto mayor, with the duration of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any months.
aggravating circumstance. Applying the ISL, the proper penalty would be imprisonment of six (6)
In People v. Buayaban,20 the crime was committed and the Information months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months
was filed in 1990. Still, the Court gave the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure of prision correccional as maximum.22
retroactive application since it benefited the accused and disregarded the As to the damages awarded, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that
generic aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be
Information. The Court explained, viz.: imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating cir-
Section 8 simply provides that the information or complaint must state _______________
the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying 21 Act No. 4103, as amended.
and generic aggravating circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held 22 People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 131200, February 15, 2002, 377 SCRA
in People vs. Nerio Suela that the use of the word must in said Section 9 99, 115.
indicates that the requirement is mandatory and therefore, the failure to 420
comply with sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information. cumstances. Since the generic aggravating circumstance of taking
In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary aggravating advantage of public position was not alleged in the Information against
circumstance of band in the commission of the crime since there was no petitioner it cannot be appreciated in the imposition of the penalty. But as
allegation in the information that more than three armed malefactors acted regards the award of exemplary damages, in the case of People v.
together in the commission of the crime. Catubig,23 the Court declined retroactive application of the 2000 Rules of
Here, the crime was committed in 1998, the generic aggravating Criminal Procedure, to wit:
circumstance of taking advantage of public posi- The retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot
_______________ adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become
19 People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 427; 397 SCRA 382, 398-399 vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although
(2003). relationship has not been alleged in the information, the offense having been
20 G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 48, 65.

23
committed, however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability o0o
already incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby.
Thus, in accordance with the foregoing pronouncement, the Court affirms G.R. No. 174461. September 11, 2013.*
the CAs award of exemplary damages to the victim in the amount of LETICIA I. KUMMER, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
P10,000.00. respondent.
With regard to the awarded moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Inconsistencies between the
the same should be increased to P30,000.00. In People v. Solmoro24 we testimony of a witness in open court, on one hand, and the statements in his
declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, sworn affidavit, on the other hand, referring only to minor and collateral
the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages may be further awarded to the matters, do not affect his credibility and the veracity and weight of his
victim in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape testimony as they do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself.The
even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral Court has consistently held that inconsistencies between the testimony of a
injury. Considering the immeasurable pain and anguish that the victim had to witness in open court, on one hand, and the statements in his sworn affidavit,
suffer in the hands of the petitioner; the trauma that she had to endure even on the other hand, referring only to minor and collateral matters, do not affect
after the incident; and his credibility and the veracity and weight of his testimony as they do not
_______________ touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Slight contradictions, in fact,
23 G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 636. even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as these may be
24 G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34), November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA considered as badges of truth rather than indicia of bad faith; they tend to
100, 111-112. prove that their testimonies have not been rehearsed. Nor are such
421 inconsistencies, and even improbabilities, unusual, for no person has perfect
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 421 faculties of senses or recall.
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People Same; Same; Affidavits; It is oft repeated that affidavits are usually
the sexual perversity of petitioner, who is a police officer, the award of moral abbreviated and inaccurate. Oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete, resulting
damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is proper. in its seeming contradiction with the declarants testimony in court.It is oft
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied and the Decision dated July repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. Oftentimes,
28, 2005 of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner PO3 Benito Sombilon an affidavit is incomplete, resulting in its seeming contradiction with the
GUILTY of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the declarants testimony in court. Generally, the affiant is asked standard
Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED with Modification that he is sentenced to questions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers, that
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant
mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision knows them. Worse, the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount
correccional as maximum, and to pay the victim the amount of P30,000 as to putting words into the affiants mouth, thus allowing the whole statement to
moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. be taken out of context.
SO ORDERED. _______________
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio, Corona and * SECOND DIVISION.
Bersamin, JJ., concur. 491
Judgment affirmed with modification. VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 49
Notes.If rape can be committed in places where people congregate, 1
even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, Kummer vs. People
there is less reason to believe that other people sleeping in the same room Same; Civil Procedure; Judgments; The rule is settled that the validity
can serve as a deterrent for the commission of lascivious acts. (People vs. of a judgment is not rendered erroneous solely because the judge who heard
Jimenez, 356 SCRA 508 [2001]) the case was not the same judge who rendered the decision.The rule is
There are material differences between a criminal action and a civil settled that the validity of a judgment is not rendered erroneous solely
complaint for quasi-delict arising from the same act of lasciviousnessa because the judge who heard the case was not the same judge who
judgment of conviction or acquittal in the criminal case cannot at all be rendered the decision. In fact, it is not necessary for the validity of a
invoked as being one of res judicata in the independent suit for damages. judgment that the judge who penned the decision should actually hear the
(London vs. Baguio Country Club Corporation, 390 SCRA 618 [2002])

24
case in its entirety, for he can merely rely on the transcribed stenographic does not apply to public documents. In other words, the forensic chemist
notes taken during the trial as the basis for his decision. does not need to be presented as witness to identify and authenticate the
Same; Evidence; Motives; As held in a long line of cases, the chemistry report. Furthermore, the entries in the chemistry report are prima
prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter facie evidence of the facts they state, that is, of the presence of gunpowder
has been identified as the author of the crime.We agree with the CAs residue on the left hand of Johan and on the right hand of the petitioner. As a
ruling that motive gains importance only when the identity of the assailant is matter of fact, the petitioner herself admitted the presence of gunpowder
in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does not need to nitrates on her fingers, albeit ascribing their presence from a match she
prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the allegedly lighted. Accordingly, we hold that the chemistry report is admissible
author of the crime. Once again, we point out that the petitioner was as evidence.
positively identified by Malana and Cuntapay. Thus, the prosecution did not Same; Criminal Procedure; Amendment of Complaints; Pleadings and
have to identify and prove the motive for the killing. It is a matter of judicial Practice; Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal
knowledge that persons have been killed for no apparent reason at all, and amendment of a complaint even after the plea but only if it is made with leave
that friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a of court and provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the
crime. rights of the accused.The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on
Same; Same; There is no standard human behavioral response when the amended information for which she was convicted. The petitioners
one is confronted with an unusual, strange, startling or frightful argument is founded on the flawed understanding of the rules on amendment
experience.We rule, without descending to particulars and going over each and misconception on the necessity of arraignment in every case. Thus, we
and every one of these claims, that without more and stronger indicators, we do not see any merit in this claim. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
cannot accord them credit. Human nature suggests that people may react permits a formal amendment of a complaint even after the plea but only if it is
differently when confronted with a given situation. Witnesses to a crime made with leave of court and provided that it can be done without causing
cannot be expected to demonstrate an absolute uniformity and conformity in prejudice to the rights of the accused.493
action and reaction. People may act contrary to the accepted norm, react VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 49
differently and act contrary to the expectation of mankind. There is no 3
standard human behavioral response when one is confronted with an Kummer vs. People
unusual, strange, startling or frightful experience. Same; Same; Same; The test as to when the rights of an accused are
Same; Same; Public Documents; Chemistry Report; The chemistry prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a
report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no
document.The chemistry report showing a positive result of the longer be available after the amendment is made, when any evidence the
492 accused might have would no longer be available after the amendment is
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED made, and when any evidence the accused might have would be
92 inapplicable to the complaint or information, as amended.A mere change in
Kummer vs. People the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is not great, is
paraffin test is a public document. As a public document, the rule on more formalthan substantial. Such an amendment would not prejudice the
authentication does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without further rights of the accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the
proof of its due execution and genuineness; the person who made the report nature of the offense. The test as to when the rights of an accused are
need not be presented in court to identify, describe and testify how the report prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a
was conducted. Moreover, documents consisting of entries in public records defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima longer be available after the amendment is made, when any evidence the
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. accused might have would no longer be available after the amendment is
Same; Same; Same; Same; The forensic chemist does not need to be made, and when any evidence the accused might have would be
presented as witness to identify and authenticate the chemistry report.In inapplicable to the complaint or information, as amended.
the present case, notwithstanding the fact that it was Captain Benjamin Same; Same; Arraignment; Actions; Procedural due process requires
Rubio who was presented in court to identify the chemistry report and not the that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason for
forensic chemist who actually conducted the paraffin test on the petitioner, his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and the
the report may still be admitted because the requirement for authentication corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against

25
him.Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in We decide the appeal filed by petitioner Leticia I. Kummer assailing the
notifying him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. The April 28, 2006 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
importance of arraignment is based on the constitutional right of the accused 27609. The CA decision affirmed the
to be informed. Procedural due process requires that the accused be _______________
arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason for his indictment, the 1 Rollo, pp. 11-28; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso,
specific charges he is bound to face, and the corresponding penalty that and concurred in by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate
could be possibly meted against him. It is at this stage that the accused, for Justice Amelita G. Tolentino.
the first time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge that 495
confronts him. It is only imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 495
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the Kummer vs. People
imputed crime. July 27, 2000 judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; Amendment of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, finding the petitioner and her co-accused
Complaints; The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended Freiderich Johan I. Kummer guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
information or complaint. This however pertains only to substantial homicide in Criminal Case No. 1130.
amendments and not to formal amendments.The need The Facts
494 The prosecutions evidence revealed that on June 19, 1988, between
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., Jesus Mallo, Jr., accompanied by Amiel Malana, went
94 to the house of the petitioner. Mallo knocked at the front door with a stone
Kummer vs. People and identified himself by saying, Auntie, ako si Boy Mallo.
for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or The petitioner opened the door and at this point, her son and co-accused,
complaint. This however, we hastily clarify, pertains only to substantial Johan, using his left hand, shot Mallo twice using a gun about six (6) inches
amendments and not to formal amendments that, by their very nature, do not long.3 Malana, who was with Mallo and who witnessed the shooting,
charge an offense different from that charged in the original complaint or immediately ran towards the west, followed by Mallo. When Malana turned
information; do not alter the theory of the prosecution; do not cause any his back, he saw the petitioner leveling and firing her long gun at Mallo,
surprise and affect the line of defense; and do not adversely affect the hitting the latters back and causing him to fall flat on the ground.4
substantial rights of the accused, such as an amendment in the date of the Thereafter, the petitioner went inside the house and came out with a
commission of the offense. flashlight. Together with her co-accused, she scoured the pathway up to the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An amendment done after the plea place where Mallo was lying flat.5 At that point, the petitioner uttered, Johan,
and during trial, in accordance with the rules, does not call for a second plea patay na, in a loud voice.6 The petitioner and her co-accused put down the
since the amendment is only as to form.We further stress that an guns and the flashlight they were holding, held Mallos feet and pulled him to
amendment done after the plea and during trial, in accordance with the rules, about three (3) to four (4) meters away from the house. Thereafter, they
does not call for a second plea since the amendment is only as to form. The returned to the house and turned off all the lights.7
purpose of an arraignment, that is, to inform the accused of the nature and _______________
cause of the accusation against him, has already been attained when the 2 Id., at pp. 85-94; penned by Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino.
accused was arraigned the first time. The subsequent amendment could not 3 TSN, November 21, 1989, p. 6.
have conceivably come as a surprise to the accused simply because the 4 Id., at p. 11.
amendment did not charge a new offense nor alter the theory of the 5 Id., at p. 12.
prosecution. 6 Id., at p. 13.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. 7 Ibid.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 496
Divina, Manzanal, Reyes, Salvado Law Office for petitioner. 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent. Kummer vs. People
BRION, J.: The following morning, policeman Danilo Pelovello went to the petitioners
house and informed her that Mallo had been found dead in front of her
house. Pelovello conducted an investigation through inquiries among the
26
neighbors, including the petitioner, who all denied having any knowledge of the direct testimony of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit them
the incident. because the contradictions are minimal and reconcilable. The CA also ruled
The prosecution filed an information8 for homicide on January 12, 1989 that the inconsistencies are minor lapses and are therefore not substantial.
against the petitioner and Johan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1130. Both The petitioners positive identification by the eyewitnesses as one of the
accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. They assailants remained unrefuted. The CA, moreover, held that proof of motive
waived the pre-trial, and the trial on the merits accordingly followed. is only necessary when a serious doubt arises on the identity of the accused.
The petitioner denied the charge and claimed in her defense that she and That the writer of the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies
her children, Johan, Melanie and Erika, were already asleep in the evening of of the witnesses does not necessarily make the decision erroneous.
June 19, 1988. She claimed that they were awakened by the sound of stones In sum, the CA found Malana and Cuntapays positive identification and
being thrown at their house, a gun report, and the banging at their door. the corroborative evidence presented by the
Believing that the noise was caused by the members of the New Peoples 498
Army prevalent in their area, and sensing the possible harm that might be 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
inflicted on them, Johan got a .38 cal. gun from the drawer and fired it twice Kummer vs. People
outside to scare the people causing the disturbance. The noise continued, prosecution more than sufficient to convict the petitioner of the crime
however, with a stone hitting the window and breaking the glass; another charged.
stone hit Melanie who was then sick. This prompted Johan to get the shotgun On further appeal to this Court, the petitioner submits the issue of
placed beside the door and to fire it. The noise thereafter stopped and they whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the RTCs decision
all went back to sleep. convicting her of the crime of homicide.
In its judgment dated July 27, 2000, the RTC found the prosecutions In essence, the case involves the credibility of the prosecution
evidence persuasive based on the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence.
Ramon Cuntapay and Malana who both testified that the petitioner shot Our Ruling
Mallo. The testimonial evidence, coupled by the positive findings of We find the petition devoid of merit.
gunpowder nitrates on the left hand of Johan and on the petitioners right The petitioners conviction is anchored on the positive and direct
_______________ testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, which testimonies the petitioner
8 Rollo, p. 82. submits to be both inconsistent and illogical. The petitioner essentially
497 impugns the credibility of the witnesses on these grounds. The petitioner
VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 497 moreover claims that her conviction was based on doctrinal precepts that
Kummer vs. People should not apply to her case.
hand, as well as the corroborative testimony of the other prosecution Variance between the eyewitnesses
witnesses, led the RTC to find both the petitioner and Johan guilty beyond testimonies in open court and their
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. affidavits does not affect their
Johan, still a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, was credibility
released on the recognizance of his father, Moises Kummer. Johan In her attempt to impugn the credibility of prosecution eyewitnesses
subsequently left the country without notifying the court; hence, only the Malana and Cuntapay, the petitioner pointed to the following
petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction with the CA. inconsistencies: First, in paragraph 7 of Malanas July 21, 1988 affidavit, he
She contended before the CA that the RTC committed reversible errors in stated that after hearing two gunshots, he dived to the ground for cover
its appreciation of the evidence, namely: (1) in giving credence to the and heard another shot louder than the first two. This statement is allegedly
testimonial evidence of Cuntapay and of Malana despite the discrepancies inconsistent with his declaration during the direct examination that he saw
between their sworn statements and direct testimonies; (2) in not considering the petitioner and Johan fire their guns at Mallo. Second, the July 22, 1988
the failure of the prosecution to cite the petitioners motive in killing the victim; affidavit of Cuntapay likewise stated that he heard two burst of gunfire
(3) in failing to consider that the writer of the decision, Judge Lyliha L. Abella- coming from the
Aquino, was not the judge who heard the testimonies; and (4) in considering 499
the paraffin test results finding the petitioner positive for gunpowder residue. VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 499
The CA rejected the petitioners arguments and affirmed the RTC Kummer vs. People
judgment, holding that the discrepancies between the sworn statement and

27
direction of the petitioners house and heard another burst from the same In the present case, we find it undeniable that Malana and Cuntapay
direction, which statement is allegedly inconsistent with his direct testimony positively identified the petitioner as one of the assailants. This is the critical
where he claimed that he saw the petitioner shoot Mallo. Third, in his point, not the inconsistencies that the petitioner repeatedly refers to, which
affidavit, Malana declared that he ran away as he felt the door being opened carry no direct bearing on the crucial issue of the identity of the perpetrator of
and heard two shots, while in his testimony in court, he stated that he ran the crime. Indeed, the inconsistencies refer only to minor details that are not
away after Mallo was already hit. According to the petitioner, these and some critical to the main outcome of the case. Moreover, the basic rule is that the
other trivial and minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the two witnesses Supreme Court accords great respect and even finality to the findings of
effectively destroyed their credibility. credibility of the trial court, more so if the same were affirmed by the CA, as
We find these claims far from convincing. The Court has consistently held in this case.13 We find no reason to break this rule and thus find that both the
that inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court, on RTC and the CA were correct in giving credence to the testimonies of
one hand, and the statements in his sworn affidavit, on the other hand, Malana and Cuntapay.
referring only to minor and collateral matters, do not affect his credibility and _______________
the veracity and weight of his testimony as they do not touch upon the 10 People v. Quiming, G.R. No. 92847, May 21, 1993, 222 SCRA 371,
commission of the crime itself. Slight contradictions, in fact, even serve to 376.
strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as these may be considered as 11 People v. Dumpe, G.R. Nos. 80110-11, March 22, 1990, 183 SCRA
badges of truth rather than indicia of bad faith; they tend to prove that their 547, 552.
testimonies have not been rehearsed. Nor are such inconsistencies, and 12 People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 105005, June 2, 1993, 223 SCRA 24, 36.
even improbabilities, unusual, for no person has perfect faculties of senses 13 People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010, 636 SCRA
or recall.9 533, 540.
A close scrutiny of the records reveals that Malana and Cuntapay 501
positively and firmly declared in open court that they saw the petitioner and VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 501
Johan shoot Mallo. The inconsistencies in their affidavit, they reasoned, were Kummer vs. People
due to the oversight of the administering official in typing the exact details of It is not necessary for the validity of
their narration. the judgment that it be rendered by
It is oft repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. the judge who heard the case
Oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete, resulting in its seeming contradiction The petitioner contends that the CA, in affirming the judgment of the RTC,
with the declarants testimony in court. Generally, the affiant is asked failed to recognize that the trial court that heard the testimonies of Malana
standard ques- and Cuntapay was not the same court that rendered the decision.14
_______________ We do not share this view.
9 People v. Perreras, 414 Phil. 480, 488; 362 SCRA 202, 210 (2001). The rule is settled that the validity of a judgment is not rendered
500 erroneous solely because the judge who heard the case was not the same
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED judge who rendered the decision. In fact, it is not necessary for the validity of
Kummer vs. People a judgment that the judge who penned the decision should actually hear the
tions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers, that later case in its entirety, for he can merely rely on the transcribed stenographic
turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant notes taken during the trial as the basis for his decision.15
knows them.10 Worse, the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount Thus, the contention that since Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino was not
to putting words into the affiants mouth, thus allowing the whole statement to the one who heard the evidence and thereby did not have the opportunity to
be taken out of context. observe the demeanor of the witnesses must fail. It is sufficient that the
The court is not unmindful of these on-the-ground realities. In fact, we judge, in deciding the case, must base her ruling completely on the records
have ruled that the discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his before her, in the way that appellate courts do when they review the
affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily evidence of the case raised on appeal.16 Thus, a judgment of conviction
discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete.11 As between penned by a different trial judge is not erroneous if she relied on the records
the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails available to her.
because affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to
the testimony given in court.12

28
Motive is irrelevant when the Thus, in light of the direct and positive identification of the petitioner as
accused has been positively one of the perpetrators of the crime by not one but two prosecution
identified by an eyewitness eyewitnesses, the failure to cite the motive of the petitioner is of no moment.
_______________ At any rate, we find it noteworthy that the lack or absence of motive for
14 Rollo, p. 351. committing the crime does not preclude conviction where there are reliable
15 People v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515, 524; 425 SCRA 493, 499 (2004). witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the petitioner as the
16 Villanueva v. Judge Estenzo, 159-A Phil. 674, 681; 64 SCRA 407, 414 perpetrator of the felony, such as in this case.
(1975). There is no absolute uniformity nor
502 a fixed standard form of human
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED behavior
Kummer vs. People The petitioner imputes error to the CA in giving credence to the
We agree with the CAs ruling that motive gains importance only when testimonies of Malana and Cuntapay on the claim that these are riddled not
the identity of the assailant is in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the only by inconsistencies and contradictions, but also by improbabilities and
prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter illogical claims. She laboriously pointed out the numerous improbabilities
has been identified as the author of the crime.17 that, taken as a whole, allegedly cast serious doubt on their reliability and
Once again, we point out that the petitioner was positively identified by credibility.
Malana and Cuntapay. Thus, the prosecution did not have to identify and She alleged, among others: (1) that it was abnormal and contrary to the
prove the motive for the killing. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that ways of the farmers in the rural areas for Cuntapay to go home from his
persons have been killed for no apparent reason at all, and that friendship or corral at about 9:00 p.m., while everybody else goes home from his farm
even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime.18 much earlier, as working late in the farm (that is, before and after sunset) is
The petitioner attempts to offer the justification that the witnesses did not taboo to farming; (2) that the act of the petitioner of putting down her gun in
really witness the shooting as their affidavits merely attested that they heard order to pull the victim away does not make any sense because a criminal
the shooting of Mallo (and did not state that they actually witnessed it). We would not simply part with his weapon in this manner; (3) that it is highly
find this to be a lame argument whose merit we cannot recognize. incredible that Malana, who accompanied Mallo, was left unharmed and was
That Malana and Cuntapay have been eyewitnesses to the crime remains allowed to escape if indeed he was just beside the victim; (4) that it is
unrefuted. They both confirmed in their direct testimony before the RTC that unbelievable that when Malana heard the cocking of guns and the opening of
they saw the petitioner fire a gun at Mallo. This was again reaffirmed by the the door, he did not become scared at
witnesses during their cross examination. The fact that their respective 504
affidavits merely stated that they heard the gunshots does not automatically 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
foreclose the possibility that they also saw the actual shooting as this was in Kummer vs. People
fact what the witnesses claimed truly happened. Besides, it has been held all; (5) that Malana and Cuntapay did not immediately report the incident to
that the claim that whenever a witness discloses in his testimony in court the authorities; (6) that it was highly improbable for Malana to turn his head
facts which he failed to state in his affidavit taken ante litem motam, then an while running; and (7) that it was unusual that Cuntapay did not run away
inconsistency exists between the testimony and the affidavit is erroneous. If when he saw the shooting.
what were stated in open court are but details or additional facts that serve to We rule, without descending to particulars and going over each and every
supplement the declarations made in the affidavit, these one of these claims, that without more and stronger indicators, we cannot
_______________ accord them credit. Human nature suggests that people may react differently
17 People v. Canceran, G.R. No. 104866, January 31, 1994, 229 SCRA when confronted with a given situation. Witnesses to a crime cannot be
581, 587. expected to demonstrate an absolute uniformity and conformity in action and
18 People v. Paragua, 326 Phil. 923, 929; 257 SCRA 118, 124 (1996). reaction. People may act contrary to the accepted norm, react differently and
503 act contrary to the expectation of mankind. There is no standard human
VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 503 behavioral response when one is confronted with an unusual, strange,
Kummer vs. People startling or frightful experience.19
statements cannot be ruled out as inconsistent and may be considered by We thus hold that the CA was correct in brushing aside the
the court. improbabilities alleged by the petitioner who, in her present plight, can be

29
overcritical in her attempt to seize every detail that can favor her case. 506
Unfortunately, if at all, her claims refer only to minor and even 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
inconsequential details that do not touch on the core of the crime itself. Kummer vs. People
Public documents are admissible in self admitted the presence of gunpowder nitrates on her fingers, albeit
court without further proof of their ascribing their presence from a match she allegedly lighted. 21Accordingly, we
due execution and authenticity hold that the chemistry report is admissible as evidence.
A public document is defined in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of On the issue of the normal process versus the actual process conducted
Court as follows: during the test raised by the petitioner, suffice it to say that in the absence of
SEC. 19. Classes of Documents.For the purpose of their proof to the contrary, it is presumed that the forensic chemist who conducted
presentation [in] evidence, documents are either public or private. the report observed the regular procedure. Stated otherwise, the courts will
_______________ not presume irregularity or negligence in the performance of ones duties
19 People v. Roncal, 338 Phil. 749, 755; 272 SCRA 242, 248-249 (1997). unless facts are shown dictating a contrary conclusion. The presumption of
505 regularity in favor of the forensic chemist compels us to reject the petitioners
VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 505 contention that an explanation has to be given on how the actual process
Kummer vs. People was conducted. Since the petitioner presented no evidence of fabrication or
Public documents are: irregularity, we presume that the standard operating procedure has been
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of observed.
the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and We note at this point that while the positive finding of gunpowder residue
public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign does not conclusively show that the petitioner indeed fired a gun, the finding
country; nevertheless serves to corroborate the prosecution eyewitnesses testimony
(b) Documents acknowledge[d] before a notary public except last that the petitioner shot the victim. Furthermore, while it is true that cigarettes,
wills and testaments; and fertilizers, urine or even a match may leave traces of nitrates, experts confirm
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, [or] private documents that these traces are minimal and may be washed off with tap water, unlike
required by law to [be] entered therein. the evidence nitrates left behind by gunpowder.
All other writings are private. [emphasis and underscore ours] Change in the date of the commis-
The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a sion of the crime, where the dis-
public document. As a public document, the rule on authentication does not parity is not great, is merely a
apply. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution formal amendment, thus, no ar-
and genuineness; the person who made the report need not be presented in raignment is required
court to identify, describe and testify how the report was conducted. The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the amended
Moreover, documents consisting of entries in public records made in the information for which she was convicted. The peti-
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts _______________
stated therein.20 21 Rollo, p. 50.
In the present case, notwithstanding the fact that it was Captain Benjamin 507
Rubio who was presented in court to identify the chemistry report and not the VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 507
forensic chemist who actually conducted the paraffin test on the petitioner, Kummer vs. People
the report may still be admitted because the requirement for authentication tioners argument is founded on the flawed understanding of the rules on
does not apply to public documents. In other words, the forensic chemist amendment and misconception on the necessity of arraignment in every
does not need to be presented as witness to identify and authenticate the case. Thus, we do not see any merit in this claim.
chemistry report. Furthermore, the entries in the chemistry report are prima Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment
facie evidence of the facts they state, that is, of the presence of gunpowder of a complaint even after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and
residue on the left hand of Johan and on the right hand of the petitioner. As a provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
matter of fact, the petitioner her- accused. Section 14 provides:
_______________ Section 14. Amendment or substitution.A complaint or
20 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 23. information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of
30
court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea Having established that a change of date of the commission of a crime is
and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with a formal amendment, we proceed to the next question of whether an
leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice arraignment is necessary.
to the rights of the accused. Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the notifying him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. The
nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the importance of arraignment is
complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the _______________
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. 22 People v. Casey, No. L-30146, February 24, 1981, 103 SCRA 21, 31-
The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of 32.
its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. 23 208 Phil. 234, 237-238; 123 SCRA 253, 257 (1983).
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been 24 RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Section 11.
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the 509
original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 509
the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided Kummer vs. People
the accused [would] not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may based on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed. 25 Procedural
require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be
[emphasis and underscore ours] informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to
A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity face, and the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against
of time is not great, is more formal than substantial. Such an amendment him. It is at this stage that the accused, for the first time, is given the
would not prejudice the rights of the accused since the proposed amendment opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. It is only
would not alter the nature of the offense.508 imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the possible loss of freedom,
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED even of his life, depending on the nature of the imputed crime.26
Kummer vs. People The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended
The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the information or complaint. This however, we hastily clarify, pertains only to
amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the substantial amendments and not to formal amendments that, by their very
complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available nature, do not charge an offense different from that charged in the original
after the amendment is made, when any evidence the accused might have complaint or information; do not alter the theory of the prosecution; do not
would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any cause any surprise and affect the line of defense; and do not adversely affect
evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or the substantial rights of the accused, such as an amendment in the date of
information, as amended.22 the commission of the offense.
In People, et al. v. Borromeo, et al.,23 we ruled that the change of the date We further stress that an amendment done after the plea and during trial,
of the commission of the crime from June 24, 1981 to August 28, 1981 is in accordance with the rules, does not call for a second plea since the
a formal amendment and would not prejudice the rights of the accused amendment is only as to form. The purpose of an arraignment, that is, to
because the nature of the offense of grave coercion would not be altered. In inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
that case, the difference in the date was only about two months and five has already been attained when the accused was arraigned the first time.
days, which difference, we ruled, would neither cause substantial prejudice The subsequent amendment could not have conceivably come as a surprise
nor cause surprise on the part of the accused. to the accused simply because the amendment did not charge a new offense
It is not even necessary to state in the complaint or information the nor alter the theory of the prosecution.
precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a Applying these rules and principles to the prevailing case, the records of
material ingredient of the offense.24The act may be alleged to have been the case evidently show that the amendment in
committed at any time as near as to the actual date at which date the offense _______________
was committed, as the information will permit. Under the circumstances, the 25 Id., Rule 115, Section 1(b).
precise time is not an essential ingredient of the crime of homicide. 26 Borja v. Judge Mendoza, 168 Phil. 83, 87; 77 SCRA 422, 426 (1977).
510
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

31
Kummer vs. People
the complaint was from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988, or a difference of
only one month. It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments and
the jurisprudence cited above, the change in the date of the commission of
the crime of homicide is a formal amendment it does not change the
nature of the crime, does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive
the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment, and is not
prejudicial to the accused. Further, the defense under the complaint is still
available after the amendment, as this was, in fact, the same line of defenses
used by the petitioner. This is also true with respect to the pieces of evidence
presented by the petitioner. The effected amendment was of this nature and
did not need a second plea.
To sum up, we are satisfied after a review of the records of the case that
the prosecution has proven the guilty of the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence has been successfully
overcome.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated April
28, 2006, convicting the petitioner of the crime of homicide, is
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Leticia I. Kummer.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Perez, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen,** JJ.,
concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.Before a private document offered as authentic be received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must first be proved; However,
the Supreme Court held that in the presentation of public documents as
evidence, due execution and authenticity thereof are already presumed.
(Heirs of Jose
_______________
** In lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo per Raffle dated
September 4, 2013.
511
VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 511
Kummer vs. People
Marcial K. Ochoa vs. G & S Transport Corporation, 676 SCRA 439 [2012])
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. (Taglay vs. Daray, 678 SCRA 640 [2012])
o0o

32

Вам также может понравиться