Anda di halaman 1dari 67

CASES FOR TRIAL TECHNIQUE On May 29, 2003, at around 9:00 a.m.

On May 29, 2003, at around 9:00 a.m., the stations Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Police Inspector
Oliver Villanueva (P/Insp. Villanueva), gave a briefing on the buy-bust operation. Police
Officer 2 Edcel Ibasco (PO2 Ibasco) was designated as poseur-buyer, while PO1 Roderick
1. G.R. No. 185717 June 8, 2011
Valencia (PO1 Valencia), PO1 Alfredo Mabutol, and PO2 Ronald Pascual were assigned as
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
back-up operatives. Their informant attended the briefing.
vs.
GARRY DE LA CRUZ y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to Biak-na-Bato corner Mauban Streets, Quezon
VELASCO, JR., J.: City and arrived there at around 9:30 a.m. The informant introduced PO2 Ibasco to the
The Case accused, who was standing in front of a shanty, as wanting to buy shabu. The accused asked
for PhP 100, and when PO2 Ibasco paid the amount, the former handed over to him a white
crystalline substance in a plastic sachet. Upon PO2 Ibascos prearranged signal, the other
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated June 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
members of the buy-bust team approached them. The accused, sensing what was
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727, which affirmed in toto the February 8, 2007 Decision2 in Criminal
happening, ran towards the shanty but was caught by PO1 Valencia at the alley. PO1
Case No. Q-03-117814 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 in Quezon City. The RTC
Valencia introduced himself as a police officer and frisked the accused, in the process
found accused Garry de la Cruz y dela Cruz (Garry) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
recovering the buy-bust money.
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
The buy-bust team then brought the accused to the station. The accused was turned over to
the desk officer on duty, along with the substance in the sachet bought from him and the
The Facts
recovered buy-bust money. After inquest, the Information was filed on June 3, 2003.
Accused was then committed to the Quezon City Jail.6
In an Information3 filed on June 3, 2003, accused was indicted for the crime allegedly
committed as follows:
Consequently, the substance inside the sachet believed to be shabu was sent to and
examined by a Philippine National Police forensic chemist, Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (Engr.
That on or about the 29th of May, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not Jabonillo). The laboratory result confirmed that the substance was positive for
being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act
as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero two (0.02) gram of methylamphetamine
Only PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified for the prosecution during the trial. The
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
testimony of Engr. Jabonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Version of the Defense

Upon arraignment on July 28, 2003, accused pleaded "not guilty" to the above
The accused denied selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco. In short, the accused used the defense of
charge.4 Trial5 on the merits ensued.
denial and alleged a frame-up by the arresting officers.
Version of the Prosecution
The accused testified that he was arrested on May 29, 2003 at around 9:00 a.m. inside his
house at Barangay Manresa, Quezon City while he was alone drinking coffee. While two
After conducting surveillance for a week, the Station Drug Enforcement Unit in La Loma, neighbors were talking in front of his house, a Tamaraw FX arrived. Five armed men alighted
Quezon City planned a buy-bust operation against a certain Garry who was in the Barangay from it, whereupon his neighbors ran away and were chased by them. The armed men then
Watch List. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency returned, saying, "Nakatakas, nakatakbo." (They had escaped and ran.) One of the armed
(PDEA). men saw the accused and entered his house. It was PO2 Ibasco, who frisked him and got
PhP 60 from his pocket. PO1 Valencia also entered his house and came out with a shoe box,
1|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
then said, "Sige, isakay nyo na." (Take him in the car.) He asked the armed men what his The RTC pointed out that Buencamino may, indeed, have called the police to arrest a certain
violation was but was told to merely explain at the precinct. "Taba," an alleged pusher in the area, but he was not present when the accused was
arrested. The trial court likewise did not accord evidentiary weight to the testimony of
In the police precinct, he was investigated and subsequently detained. They showed him a Lepiten, who testified that she saw the accused talking to "Taba" and that when the police
plastic sachet which they allegedly recovered from him. Then a man approached him and officers entered the house of the accused, she was unaware of what transpired inside. Thus,
demanded PhP 30,000 for his release, but he said he did not have the money. Thereafter, he the RTC concluded that her testimony did not provide clear and convincing justification to
was presented for inquest. cast doubt on the candid and straightforward testimonies of the police officers.

A witness, Rodolfo Buencamino (Buencamino), narrated that in the morning of May 29, 2003, Applying the presumption of the performance of official function, the lack of showing any ill
he called the police precinct to have a certain "Taba," an alleged drug pusher in their area, motive on the part of the police officers to testify against the accused, and the principle that
arrested. PO2 Ibasco and other police officers responded immediately. When the police the bare denial of an accused is inherently weak, the RTC convicted the accused.
officers arrived, Buencamino pointed to "Taba," who, however, was able to evade arrest.
Thereafter, he was surprised to see the accused inside the vehicle of the policemen. But he Consequently, with his conviction, the accused started to serve his sentence 8 and was
did not know why and where the accused was arrested since he did not witness the actual subsequently committed to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
arrest.
Aggrieved, accused appealed9 his conviction before the CA.
Another witness, Marbelita Collado Lepiten (Lepiten), testified that she was at the terrace of
her house on 135 Manba St., Manresa, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, when she The Ruling of the CA
noticed the accused talking to a certain "Taba," a resident of the area. When a maroon
Tamaraw FX stopped in front of the house of accused, "Taba" ran away and was pursued by On June 30, 2008, the appellate court rendered the appealed decision, wholly affirming the
two men who alighted from the vehicle. The two men returned without "Taba," who findings of the RTC and the conviction of appellant. The fallo reads:
evidently escaped, and entered the house of the accused. She did not know what happened
inside the house but she eventually saw the men push the accused outside into their vehicle.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed
Decision supra is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
The Ruling of the RTC
SO ORDERED.
On February 8, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion reads:
The CA upheld the findings of the trial court that the essential elements required for the
conviction of an accused for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 were present in the instant
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GARRY DELA CRUZ guilty beyond case. The appellate court brushed aside the irregularities raised by accused-appellant by
reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and hereby putting premium credence on the testimonies of the arresting police officers, who positively
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount identified accused-appellant in open court. One with the trial court, the CA found no
of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS. improper motive on the part of the police officers who, it said, were regularly performing
their official duties. Besides, relying on People v. Barlaan,10 the CA held that the irregularities
SO ORDERED. raised that there was no coordination with the PDEA and that no inventory was made and no
photograph taken of the seized drug, if true, did not invalidate the legitimate buy-bust
In convicting the accused, the RTC relied on and gave credence to the testimony of operation conducted. Moreover, the CA found that the corpus delicti, i.e., the
prosecution witnesses PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia. Citing People v. confiscated shabu and the PhP 100 bill, were presented as evidence of the commission of the
Jubail,7 which enumerated the elements required to be established by the prosecution for the offense.
illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the trial court found that the prosecution had established the
elements of the crime.
2|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
The CA also ruled that accused-appellants mere denial, as corroborated by Buencamino and proved by the prosecution. And second, his denial is worthy of credence upon corroboration
Lepiten, deserved scant consideration vis--vis the positive identification by the arresting by the credible witnesses presented by the defense.
officers who arrested him in flagrante delicto. Anent the questioned chain of custody, the CA
found it unbroken and duly proven by the prosecution. After a careful and thorough review of the records, We are convinced that accused-appellant
should be acquitted, for the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt his
The Issues commission of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.

Hence, We have this appeal. A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-
Only accused-appellant, however, filed his Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of
Brief),11 while the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the or used in the commission of the crime." 16 However, where there really was no buy-bust
Philippines, submitted neither a Manifestation nor a Motion. Consequently, on July 27, 2009, operation conducted, it cannot be denied that the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs
the Court dispensed with the OSGs submission of a supplemental brief. 12 Since no new cannot be duly proved despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
issues are raised nor supervening events transpired, We scrutinize the Brief for the Accused- duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in court by the arresting police officers. After
Appellant13 and the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee,14 filed in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727, in all, the indictment for illegal sale of prohibited drugs will not have a leg to stand on.
resolving the instant appeal.
This is the situation in the instant case.
Thus, accused-appellant raises the same assignment of errors, in that:
The courts a quo uniformly based their findings and affirmance of accused-appellants guilt
I on: (1) the straightforward testimony of the arresting police officers; (2) their positive
identification of accused-appellant; (3) no ill motive was shown for their testimony against
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY accused-appellant; (4) the self-serving defense of denial by accused-appellant; (5) the
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT seeming irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the arrest of accused-
NO. 9165. appellant not invalidating the operation; and (6) the testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten
not showing that the buy-bust operation was not conducted.
II
Although the trial courts findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed
on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied in a case under appeal,17 as here.
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE OF DENIAL.15

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be
The Courts Ruling
proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the
The appeal is meritorious. transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus
delicti.18
Accused-appellant argues that, first, the prosecution has not proved his commission of the
crime charged for the following irregularities: (1) the arresting officers did not coordinate In People v. Doria,19 the Court laid down the "objective test" in determining the credibility of
with the PDEA, as required under Sec. 86 of RA 9165; (2) no physical inventory was prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is the duty of the
conducted and photograph taken of the alleged seized drug in the presence of public prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation"from the initial
officials, as required by Sec. 21 of RA 9165; and (3) the chain of custody was not duly contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
3|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
drug subject of sale."20 We said that "[t]he manner by which the initial contact was made, x x Q: You said that you conducted surveillance for one week, did I hear you right?
x the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of
the illegal drug x x x must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that law- A: Yes, sir.
abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense."21
xxxx
No Surveillance Conducted
Q: So, you are saying you did not actually see him selling drugs at that time during the
The testimony of PO2 Ibasco on direct examination did not mention an alleged surveillance surveillance?
conducted by PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia prior to the alleged buy-bust operation, the
corresponding intelligence report, and the written communiqu with the PDEA. The defense A: We saw him, sir.
in cross-examination put to task both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia concerning these
matters, as attested to in the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension 22 executed by the two police
xxxx
officers on May 30, 2003. PO2 Ibasco testified that his unit, specifically PO1 Valencia and
himself, conducted surveillance on accused-appellant for a week prior to the buy-bust
operation on May 29, 2003 which, according to him, turned out positive, i.e., accused- Q: None. You did not even coordinate this operation with the PDEA?
appellant was, indeed, selling shabu.
A: We coordinated it, sir.
PO2 Ibasco on cross-examination testified, thus:
Q: What is your proof that you indeed coordinated?
ATTY. LOYOLA:
A: Its in the office, sir.
Being an operative, you are of course, trained in intelligence work?
ATTY. LOYOLA:
PO2 IBASCO:
May I make a reservation for continuance of the cross-examination considering that there are
Yes, sir. documents that the witness has to present.

Q: You said you conducted surveillance but you cannot show any proof that there is an COURT:
intelligence report, you have no proof?
What documents?
A: Yes, sir. There is, we were dispatched.
ATTY. LOYOLA:
Q: Where is your proof now?
The proof your Honor that there was indeed a coordination and the intelligence report.
A: Its in our office.
COURT:
Q: Your dispatch order for the surveillance do you have any?
Will you be able to produce those documents?
A: I dont have it now sir but its in the office.
A: Yes, sir. "Titingnan ko po."

4|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
PROSECUTOR ANTERO: A: We have conducted a surveillance one week before the operation and we conducted
surveillance "Pinakawalan namin ang informant."
Titingnan?
Q: What do you mean "pinakawalan ang informant"?
COURT:
A: So that we have a spy inside to verify whether Garry was really selling shabu.
You are not sure? You dont have any copy of those documents?
xxxx
A: You Honor, what we have in the office is the dispatch.23
Q: In fact you dont have any information report?
PO1 Valencia, likewise, on cross-examination testified:
A: We have, sir. Its in the office. Its with Insp. Villanueva.
ATTY. LOYOLA:
Q: And because you claim that you have submitted an information and report, of course, you
Mr. Witness, tell me during the orientation, you will agree with me that there was no should have come up with an intelligence report.
coordination made to the PDEA regarding this intended buy bust operation?
A: Yes, sir. Its also in the office of Insp. Villanueva.
PO1 VALENCIA:
xxxx
We have coordinated at the PDEA.
Q: And the alleged recovered item, the plastic sachet which contained white crystalline
Q: You say that but you have no proof to show us that there was coordination? substance was brought by whom to the PNP Crime Laboratory?

A: We have, sir. A: I cannot remember who brought it sir because it was a long time ago. 24

Q: What is your proof? These documentsspecifically the dispatch order, the intelligence report of the alleged
surveillance, and the written communiqu from the PDEA for the conduct of the surveillance
A: We have files in our office for coordination. and buy-bust operationwere not, however, presented in court. Evidently, these documents
are non-existent, tending to show that there really was no surveillance and, consequently, no
intelligence report about the surveillance or the averred written communiqu from PDEA
Q: Are you sure about that?
attesting to coordination with said agency. Worse, the prosecution never bothered to explain
why it could not present these documents. Thus, there is no basis to say that accused-
A: Yes, sir. appellant allegedly sold shabu a week before he was arrested.

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, based on the information, you already planned to conduct a buy bust Even putting this lapse aside, the other irregularities raised by accused-appellant in the
operation against the accused? backdrop of the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten tend to show that
there was really no buy-bust operation conducted resulting in the valid arrest of accused-
A: Yes, sir. appellant.

Q: But you will agree with me that there was no surveillance against the accused?

5|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Generally, non-compliance with Secs. 21 and 86 of RA 9165 does not mean that no buy-bust BUENCAMINO:
operation against appellant ever took place.25 The prosecutions failure to submit in evidence
the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Sec. I volunteered myself to testify.
21, Art. II of RA 9165 will not discharge the accused from the crime. Non-compliance with
said section is not fatal and will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items xxxx
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.26
Q: Can you tell us how, when and where the accused was arrested?
No Buy-Bust Operation
A: I was the one who called-up the precinct to arrest a certain Taba and not Garry. Taba was
But where there are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust the target of the operation.
operation, these irregularities take on more significance which are, well nigh, fatal to the
prosecution.
Q: When was that?

Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of
A: May 29, 2003.
Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellants denial and frame-up
theory. The Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice
of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians. 27 This Court has Q: Why did you call the police station?
been issuing cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug
cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug A: Ibasco talked to me to arrest Taba.
offenses.28
Q: Why are they going to arrest Taba?
The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of
the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their A: Because he is a pusher in the area.
official duties.29 Nonetheless, such a defense may be given credence when there is sufficient
evidence or proof making it to be very plausible or true. We are of the view that accused- Q: Why do you know Ibasco?
appellants defenses of denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case.
Indeed, jurisprudence has established that the defense of denial assumes significance only A: Because he was a previous resident of Barangay Manresa.
when the prosecutions evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt,30 as in the instant case. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt that there was a
Q: You said you called police officer [sic] what was the topic. Mr. Witness?
buy-bust operation conducted and that accused-appellant sold the seized shabu. After all, a
criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness of the defense.31 A: That Taba is already there and he already showed up and they immediately responded to
arrest Taba.
Notably, Buencamino voluntarily testified to the effect that he called the police asking them
to apprehend a certain "Taba," a notorious drug pusher in their area. PO2 Ibasco and Q: So, Ibasco immediately responded to your call?
company responded to his call and Buencamino helped identify and direct the policemen but
"Taba" unfortunately escaped. Thus, Buencamino testified: A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. BARTOLOME: Q: When they arrived in your place what happened else, if any?

Mr. Witness, who asked you to testify today? A: I pointed to Taba so they could arrest him.

6|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Q: Where they able to arrest Taba? appellant but in an open area in front of a shanty, such cannot be sustained in light of what
Lepiten witnessed: The policemen chased but were not able to arrest "Taba"; thereafter, the
A: No, sir. He was able to escape. policemen went inside the house of accused-appellant, emerging later with him who was led
to the vehicle of the policemen. Thus, Lepiten testified:
Q: Whey they were not able to arrest alias Taba what happened, next Mr. Witness? What
happened to Garry Dela Cruz? ATTY. BARTOLOME:

A: I was surprised because I saw Garry Dela Cruz already inside the vehicle and I dont know Mrs. Witness, where were you on May 29, 2003, if you could still remember?
why Garry was inside the vehicle.32
COURT:
Buencaminos assertion of knowing PO2 Ibasco was likewise not rebutted. Moreover, the
presentation of the police logbook on calls received in the morning of May 29, 2003 would What time?
indeed show if Buencamino or someone else made a call to the precinct about a certain
"Taba," but then, again, the prosecution did not bother to rebut the testimony of ATTY. BARTOLOME:
Buencamino. Verily, this time the presumption "that evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced"33 applies. In fact, the prosecution did not even assail Buencaminos At around 9:00 in the morning.
credibility as a witness but merely made the point in the cross-examination that he had no
actual knowledge of the arrest of accused-appellant. Thus, Buencamino was cross-examined:
LEPITEN:

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
I was at the terrace of the house we are renting while sipping coffee.

You were not with Garry at the time he was arrested?


Q: Where is that house located?

BUENCAMINO:
A: No. 135 Mauban Street, Barangay Manresa, Quezon City.

No, sir.
COURT:

Q: You dont know where he was arrested at that time?


Where is this, Novaliches?

A: I dont know where Garry was, sir.


A: No, your Honor, near San Francisco Del Monte.

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
xxxx

That will be all, your Honor.34


ATTY. BARTOLOME:

More telling is the testimony of Lepiten which, uncontroverted, shows that there was no buy-
While drinking coffee, what transpired next, Mrs. Witness or was there any unusual thing
bust operation. Her testimony corroborates the testimony of Buencamino that police
that happened?
enforcers indeed responded to Buencaminos phone call but were not able to apprehend
"Taba." This destroys the buy-bust operation angle testified to by PO2 Ibasco and PO1
Valencia. Since the buy-bust operation allegedly happened not inside the house of accused-
7|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
A: Yes, sir. While I was sitting on the terrace in front of the house we are renting is the Q: After that what else happened, if any?
house of Garry. Garry was talking to a certain Taba whom I know.
A: I just saw that they boarded Garry inside the FX.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: While you saw them talking to each other, what happened next?
COURT:
A: Suddenly a maroon FX stopped.
Any cross?
Q: Where?
PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
A: In front of the house of Garry.
No cross, your Honor.35
Q: When this maroon FX stopped, what happened next, if any?
Thus, taking into consideration the defense of denial by accused-appellant, in light of the
A: Taba ran, sir. foregoing testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten, the Court cannot conclude that there was
a buy-bust operation conducted by the arresting police officers as they attested to and
Q: What happened next, if any? testified on. The prosecutions story is like a sieve full of holes.

A: Two (2) men in blue pants and white shirt alighted from the maroon FX and ran after Non-Compliance with the Rule on Chain of Custody
Taba.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the
Q: Were they able to arrest Taba, Ms. Witness? seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to
A: No, sir. They were not able to catch him. receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.36 The CA found an unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated
shabu specimen. However, the records belie such conclusion.
Q: When they failed to arrest Taba, what did these two (2) men do, if any?

The testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia, as well as their Joint Affidavit of
A: They returned in front of the house and Garry and I saw them entered the house of Garry.
Apprehension, were bereft of any assertion on how the seized shabu in a heat-sealed sachet
was duly passed from PO2 Ibasco, the chosen poseur-buyer, who allegedly received it from
xxxx accused-appellant, to forensic chemist Engr. Jabonillo, who conducted the forensic
examination. While the testimony of Engr. Jabonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by
Q: What did they do, if any? the defense, as duly embodied in the RCT Order dated March 16, 2004, it is likewise bereft of
any assertion substantially proving the custodial safeguards on the identity and integrity of
A: I dont know what they did inside because I could not see them, sir. Then I saw them the shabu allegedly received from accused-appellant. The stipulation merely asserts:
went down and pushed Garry towards the FX.
x x x that he is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police; that his office received a
xxxx request for laboratory examination marked as Exhibit "A"; that together with said request is a
brown envelope marked as Exhibit "B"; which contained a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit

8|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
"B-1"; that he conducted a requested laboratory examination and, in connection therewith, While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
he submitted a Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit "C". The findings thereon showing the duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be
specimen positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit "C-1", and presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
the signature of the said police officer was marked as Exhibit "C-2". He likewise issued a doubt.401avvphi1
Certification marked as Exhibits "D" and "D-1", and thereafter, turned over the specimen to
the evidence custodian and retrieved the same for [sic] purposed proceeding scheduled In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of
today.37 custody, We cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The
law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of
While both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified on the identity of the plastic sachet duly guilt.41 In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the
marked with the initials "EIGC," there was no sufficient proof of compliance with the chain of accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish
custody. The records merely show that, after the arrest of accused-appellant, the specimen the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 42 As the Court often reiterated, it would be
was allegedly turned over to the desk officer on duty, whose identity was not revealed. Then better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict
it was the stations OIC, P/Insp. Villanueva, who requested the forensic examination of the one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. 43
specimen. In gist, from the alleged receipt of the plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of
shabu by PO2 Ibasco from the alleged buy-bust operation, the chain of custody of the In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a
specimen has not been substantially shown. The Court cannot make an inference that PO2 buy-bust operation, thus:
Ibasco passed the specimen to an unnamed desk officer on duty until it made its way to the
laboratory examination. There are no details on who kept custody of the specimen, who The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
brought it to the Crime Laboratory, and who received and kept custody of it until Engr. proven beyond reasonable doubt. While appellants defense engenders suspicion that he
Jabonillo conducted the forensic examination. The stipulated facts merely made an allusion probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence
that the specimen custodian of the Crime Laboratory had possession of the specimen and establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to
released it for the proceedings before the trial court. overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence
required.1avvphi1
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very
same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the
with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. 38 This, the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral
prosecution failed to do. The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that
establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.39 doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an
investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. An acquittal based on
As the Court aptly put in People v. Cantalejo: reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants innocence may be doubted, for a
criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
x x x the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs weakness of the evidence of the defense. Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be
raises doubt as to its origins. resolved in favor of the accused.44

x x x failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellant Garry De La Cruz y Dela
of regularity accorded to police officers. As a general rule, the testimony of police officers Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on basis of reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the the CA Decision dated June 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727 is SET ASIDE. The
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of accused-
performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
destroyed.
No costs.
9|Page A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
SO ORDERED. sentence at the Central Sub-Colony both for the offense of Homicide, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, commits (sic) another
offense, kidnapping one JULIE E. CAMACHO, a girl 12 years of age, and brought her
to the mountains, where said Julie E. Camacho was detained and deprived of her
2. G.R. Nos. 128106-07 January 24, 2003 liberty fro [sic] more than five days.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. CONTRARY TO LAW and attended by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism." 2
GONZALO BALDOGO, accused-appellant.
CALLEJO, SR., J.: Accused-appellant was arraigned on June 28, 1996 and entered a plea of not guilty to both
charges.3 Edgardo Bermas died before he could be arraigned.4 The two cases were ordered
This is an automatic review of the Joint Judgment,[i] dated October 18, 1996, of the consolidated and a joint trial thereafter ensued.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City, finding accused-appellant Gonzalo
Baldogo alias "Baguio" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely, Julie Camacho, Dr. Edilberto Joaquin,
Case No. 12900 and Kidnapping in Criminal Case No. 12903. The trial court imposed on Esteban Mamites and Julio Camacho, Sr., and offered documentary and object evidence on
accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death in Criminal Case No. 12900 and reclusion its evidence-in-chief.
perpetua in Criminal Case No. 12903.
II. The Antecedent Facts
I. The Indictments
Julio Camacho, Sr. and his wife, Heather Esteban, had four children, namely: Julio, Jr., a
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant and Edgar Bermas alias "Bunso" student of the Palawan State University in Puerto Princesa City and who stayed in Guaygo,
which read: Puerto Princesa City; Jorge, who was fourteen years old;5 Julie, who was 12 years old and a
grade six elementary pupil at the Iwahig Elementary School and Jasper, who was eight years
"That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1996 in the evening at the residence of old. Julio Sr. was employed as a security guard in the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony. He
Mr. Julio Camacho of Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and his family lived in a compound inside the sub-colony. Edgardo Bermas alias "Bunso," an
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused who were both inmate of the penal colony, was assigned as a domestic helper of the Camacho spouses.
convicted by final judgment of the offense of Homicide and while already serving Accused-appellant alias "Baguio," also an inmate of the colony, was assigned in January 1996
sentence, committed the above name offense by conspiring and confederating as a domestic helper of the Camacho family. Both helpers resided in a hut located about ten
together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and meters away from the house of the Camacho family.
evident premeditation and while armed with a bolo, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack one JORGE CAMACHO, hitting him In the evening of February 22, 1996, accused-appellant and Bermas served dinner to Julio
and inflicting upon him mortal wounds at the different parts of his body, which was Sr., Jorge and Julie in the house of the Camachos. At about 7:30 p.m., Julio Sr. left the
the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter. house to attend a bible study at the dormitory in the Agronomy Section of the Penal Farm.
Heather and her son, Jasper, were in Aborlan town. Only Jorge and his sister Julie were left
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident[,] in the house.
premeditation and recidivism. Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, March 5, 1996." 1
After Julio Sr. had left the house, Julie went to the sala to study her assignment.
x x x Momentarily, Bermas called Julie from the kitchen saying: " Jul, tawag ka ng kuya mo." Julie
ignored him. After five minutes, Bermas called her again but Julie again ignored him. Julie
"That on Thursday, February 22, 1996 at more or less 8:15 in the evening at the was perturbed when she heard a loud sound, akin to a yell, "Aahh! Ahh!" coming from the
Victim's residence, Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines kitchen located ten meters from the house. This prompted Julie to stand up and run to the
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused while serving kitchen. She was appalled to see Jorge sprawled on the ground near the kitchen, face down
10 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
and bloodied. The vicinity was lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Standing over Jorge were Romualdo Esparagoza, a trustee of the penal farm. The two rushed back to the Camacho
accused-appellant and Bermas, each armed with a bolo. 6The shirt of Bermas was residence and proceeded to the kitchen where they noticed blood on the floor. The two
bloodied.7 Julie was horrified and so petrified that although she wanted to shout, she could proceeded to the dirty kitchen and saw the bloodied body of Jorge dumped about three
not. She ran back to the sala with accused-appellant and Bermas in pursuit. Accused- meters away from the dirty kitchen. Julio Sr. and Esparagoza then brought Jorge to the
appellant overtook Julie, tied her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt and placed a piece of Iwahig Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival at 12:40 a.m. of February 23,
cloth in her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help from their neighbors. Bermas went 1996. Dr. Edilberto Joaquin examined the cadaver and found that the victim was stabbed on
to the room of Julie's brothers. Accused-appellant dragged Julie outside the house and the breast once and at the back seven times. He sustained a lacerated wound on the neck.
towards the mountain. Bermas tarried in the house. The layers of the neck, trachea and esophagus of Jorge had been cut. Jorge did not sustain
any defensive wound. Dr. Joaquin performed an autopsy of the cadaver and signed a medical
With the aid of a flashlight, accused-appellant, with Julie in tow, walked for hours towards certificate with his findings, thus:
the direction of the mountain. About a kilometer away from the house of the Camachos,
accused-appellant and Julie stopped under a big tamarind tree at the foot of the mountain. "MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
After about thirty minutes, Bermas arrived with a kettle and raw rice. Accused-appellant and
Bermas retrieved a bag containing their clothing and belongings from the trunk of the GENERAL DATA:
tamarind tree. They untied Julie and removed the gag from her mouth. The three then
proceeded to climb the mountain and after walking for six hours or so, stopped under a big JORGE CAMACHO y ESTEBAN, 14 years old, student, resident of Iwahig Prison and
tree where they spent the night. When the three woke up in the morning of the following Penal Farm, approximately 5'3 inches in-height, was brought to the hospital, (DOA)
day, February 23, 1996, they continued their ascent of the mountain. Seven hours thereafter, dead on arrival at 12:40 AM, 23 February 1996, approximate time of death 8:00 P.M.
they started to follow a descending route. Accused-appellant and Bermas told Julie that they February 22, 1996.
would later release her. At about 3:00 p.m., Bermas left accused-appellant and Julie.
However, accused-appellant did not let go of Julie. The two survived on sugar and rice
FINDINGS
cooked by accused-appellant. Once, they saw uniformed men looking for Julie. However,
accused-appellant hid Julie behind the tree. She wanted to shout but he covered her mouth.
1. Stab wound, deep, penetrating, approximately 1 inch in length, at the
level of the xyphoid process, anteriorly.
In the early morning of February 28, 1996, accused-appellant told Julie that he was leaving
her as he was going to Puerto Princesa City. He told her to fend for herself and return to the
lowland the next day. After their breakfast, accused-appellant left Julie alone to fend for 2. Stab wound, chest, back, approximately 1 inch length, right midclavicular
herself. A few hours after accused-appellant had left, Julie decided to return to the lowlands. line, level of the 3rd rib.
She found a river and followed its course toward Balsaham until she saw a hut. She called
upon its occupant who introduced himself as Nicodemus. Julie sought help from him. When 3. Stab wound, back, right midclavicular line, level of the 5th rib.
asked by Nicodemus if she was the girl whom the police authorities were looking for, she
replied in the affirmative. Nicodemus brought Julie to Balsaham where they met some 4. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length level of the 5th rib, left
personnel of the penal colony and police officers, and Nicodemus turned Julie over for midclavicular line.
custody to them.
5. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length, right midclavicular line,
Meanwhile, Julio, Sr. arrived home after his bible study at about 9:00 p.m. on February 22, 6th rib.
1996. He noticed that the television set was switched on but no one was watching it. He
looked for his children but they were nowhere to be found. He then proceeded to the hut 6. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length, right midclavicular line,
occupied by accused-appellant and Bermas but he also failed to find them. Julio Sr. then level of the 4th lumbar region.
rushed to the house of his older brother, Augusto Camacho, to look for his children, but
Augusto told him that Jorge and Julie were not there. Julio Sr. then sought the help of

11 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
7. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch in length, right third lumbar On February 22, 1996, at about 6:30 p.m., accused-appellant took his dinner in the kitchen.
region, deep, penetrating involving the liver. At about 7:00 p.m., while he was already in his quarters and preparing to sleep, Bermas
arrived, armed with a bloodied bolo measuring about 1 feet long and told accused-
8. Stab wound, back, approximately 3/4 inch, at the level of the 2nd lumbar appellant that he (Bermas) had just killed Jorge to avenge the maltreatment he received
region. from Julio Sr. Bermas warned accused-appellant not to shout, otherwise he will also kill him.
Petrified, accused-appellant kept silent. Bermas then brought accused-appellant to the
9. Lacerated wound, neck, anteriorly, deep, penetrating, cutting the layers of kitchen in the house of the Camachos where accused-appellant saw the bloodied body of
the neck and the trachea and esophagus. Jorge sprawled near the kitchen. Bermas called Julie three times, telling her that her brother
was calling for her but Julie at first ignored Bermas. Julie later relented and went to the
kitchen where Bermas grabbed her and threatened to kill her if she shouted. Bermas tied the
CAUSE OF DEATH
hands of Julie with a piece of cloth and placed a piece of cloth around her face to prevent
her from shouting.
Hypovolemia due to severe hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds
and laceration of the neck."8
Bermas, still armed with his bolo tucked on his waist and a knife on his hand, brought
accused-appellant and Julie outside the house. The three then trekked towards the
Wounds numbers 7 and 9 were fatal. It was possible that two sharp-edged and sharp mountain. On the way, Bermas picked a bag containing food provisions and his and accused-
pointed weapons were used in stabbing Jorge and that two assailants stabbed the victim.9 appellant's clothings. Accused-appellant thought of escaping but could not because Bermas
was watching him. With the help of a flashlight brought by Bermas, the three walked towards
On February 29, 1996, Julie gave her sworn statement and a supplemental sworn statement the mountain, with Julie walking ahead of accused-appellant and Bermas. After walking for
to the police investigators.10 Julio Sr. suffered mental anguish and sleepless nights because hours, they stopped by a tree to which Bermas tied Julie. At one time, while Bermas and
of the death of Jorge. accused-appellant were scouring for water, Bermas kicked accused-appellant and pushed him
into a ten feet deep ravine. The right hand and foot of accused-appellant sustained bruises.
The prosecution adduced in evidence excerpts of the personal file of accused-appellant kept He likewise sustained a sprain on his foot. Bermas left accused-appellant and Julie after 1
in the penal colony showing that he had been convicted of homicide by the Regional Trial days.
Court of Baguio City and that he commenced serving sentence on November 19, 1992 and
that the minimum term of his penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997. 11 In the meantime, accused-appellant managed to climb out of the ravine and heard Julie
calling his name. Julie later told accused-appellant that before Bermas left, the latter told her
III. The Defenses and Evidence of Accused-Appellant that he was going to kill accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Accused-appellant asserted that Accused-appellant and Julie remained in the mountain after Bermas had left. At one time,
Julie implicated him because she was coached and rehearsed. He testified that he was accused-appellant and Julie saw soldiers who were looking for her. Accused-appellant did not
assigned as a helper in the house of Augusto Camacho, the Chief of the Industrial Section of reveal his and Julie's location to the soldiers because he was afraid that he might be killed.
the colony and the older brother of Julio Sr. Augusto told accused-appellant that his brother, On February 25, 1996, accused-appellant untied Julie. He told her that he will set her free as
Julio Sr., wanted to have accused-appellant transferred as his domestic helper. However, soon as his foot shall have healed.
accused-appellant balked because he had heard from Edgardo Bermas, the helper of Julio
Sr., that the latter was cruel and had been maltreating Bermas. Nonetheless, in December On February 27, 1996, accused-appellant told Julie that she can go home already. He
1995, accused-appellant was transferred as a domestic helper of Julio Sr. Accused-appellant ordered her to go down the mountain and proceed to Balsaham on her way back home.
confirmed that indeed Julio Sr. was cruel because whenever the latter was angry, he Although his foot was still aching, accused-appellant went down from the mountain ahead of
maltreated accused-appellant by spanking and boxing him. These would occur about two Julie and proceeded to Balsaham. He then walked to Irawan where he took a tricycle to the
times a week. public market in the poblacion in Puerto Princesa City. He then took a passenger jeepney and

12 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
alighted at Brooke's Point where he was arrested after one week for the killing of Jorge and modifying circumstance appreciated and pursuant to the provisions of the second
the kidnapping of Julie. paragraph, No. 2, of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, and not being entitled to
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her perpetua, with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life, and of perpetual
liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain absolute disqualification; to pay the offended party, Julie Camacho for physical
before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and moral shock, moral damages of
he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but P100,000; and to pay the costs.
accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.
The case as against co-accused Edgar Bermas is ordered dismissed by reason of
IV. The Verdict of the Trial Court extinction of criminal liability occasioned by his death pending conclusion of the
proceedings as against him.
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered its decision, the decretal portion of which
reads: SO ORDERED."12

"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, a Joint Judgment is hereby rendered in: V. Assignment of Error

A. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12900 finding the accused Gonzalo Baldogo, alias Baguio, In his appeal brief, accused-appellant avers that:
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder as defined and
penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of "I
Republic Act No. 7659, and appreciating against him the specific aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage and use of superior strength, without any THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, and pursuant to the provisions of the REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND KIDNAPPING.
second paragraph, No. 1, of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby
sentenced to death in the manner prescribed by law; to pay the heirs of the II
deceased Jorge Camacho;
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF
1. Actual and compensatory damages: DENIAL.
For expenses incurred for funeral and
other expenses incident to his death --- P45,000.00 III
2. Moral damages --------------------------
-- 100,000.00 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND GENERIC AGGRAVATING
3. Civil indemnity for the death of the CIRCUMSTANCE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH DESPITE THE
victim, Jorge Camacho ------------------- 50,000.00 FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE SAME.
or the aggregate amount of ------------- 195,000.00
IV
B. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12903 finding the accused GONZALO BALDOGO, alias,
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY UPON THE
'Baguio,' guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of kidnapping and
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IN THE (SIC) CRIMINAL CASE #12900."13
serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, and there being no
13 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
VI. Resolution of this Court the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering
tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant
The first two assignments of errors being interrelated, the Court will delve into and resolve or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. The brazen face
the same simultaneously. of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching
overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are
Accused-appellant avers that he had nothing to do with, and hence should not be claimed alone seen by him."15
for, the death of Jorge and the kidnapping and detention of Julie. Accused-appellant claims
that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he The rule, however, is not iron clad. This Court has enumerated exceptions thereto, namely:
did what Bermas ordered him to do. Accused-appellant was even protective of Julie. He (a) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court;
insists that the latter was not a credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to probative (b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence; (c) when the
weight because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her trial court ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued facts and
kidnapping and detention by Bermas. circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.16 In this
case, the trial court found the youthful Julie credible and her testimony entitled to full
We find the contention of accused-appellant farcical. At the heart of the submission of probative weight. Accused-appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated to this Court the
accused-appellant is the credibility of Julie, the 12-year old principal witness of the application of any of the aforestated exceptions.
prosecution and the probative weight of her testimony.
The Court agrees with accused-appellant that the prosecution was burdened to prove his
This Court has held in a catena of cases that the findings of facts of the trial court, its guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the felonies for which he is charged. This Court has held
calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight that accusation is not synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the
of the collective evidence of the parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged had been committed and that
accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not conclusive effect. The raison d'etre of accused-appellant precisely committed the same. The prosecution must rely on the strength
this principle is that this Court has to contend itself with the mute pages of the original of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused.17 The
records in resolving the issues posed by the parties: reasonable standard rule which was adopted by the United States way back in 1978 is a
requirement and a safeguard, in the words of Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United
States Supreme Court, "of due process of law in the historic, procedural content of due
"x x x The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or
process." The United States Supreme Court emphasized in Re: Winship 18 that in a criminal
expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden
prosecution, the accused has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the
pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the
possibility that he may lose his liberty or even his life upon conviction and because of the
forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in
certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction.
evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has
nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or
in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the In the cases at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence to prove that accused-
case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and appellant killed Jorge. However, the prosecution adduced indubitable proof that accused-
reasoned verdict."14 appellant conspired with Bermas not only in killing Jorge but also in kidnapping and detaining
Julie.
In contrast, the trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close
range the attitude, conduct and deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy if two or more persons
testimonies before said court. Echoing a foreign court's observation, this Court declared: agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved by direct
evidence or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the
accused, before, during and after the commission of a felony pointing to a joint purpose and
"Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed
design and community of intent.19 It is not required that there be an agreement for an
abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to
appreciable period prior to the commission of a felony; rather, it is sufficient that at the time
the mind's eye of the judge who tries the case. To him appears the furtive glance,
14 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
of the commission of the offense, all the conspira`tors had the same purpose and were 7. Even after Bermas had left accused-appellant and Julie in the forest in the afternoon of
united in its execution.20 In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 21 All the accused are February 23, 1991, accused-appellant continued detaining Julie in the forest until February
criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation.22 For a 27, 1996, when he abandoned Julie in the forest to fend for herself.
conspirator to be criminally liable of murder or homicide, it is not necessary that he actually
attacks or kills the victim. As long as all the conspirators performed specific acts with such The evidence of the prosecution was even buttressed by the judicial admissions of accused-
closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design in appellant, thus:
bringing about the death of the victim, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the death
of said victim.23 1. After releasing Julie on February 27, 1996, accused-appellant proceeded to Puerto
Princesa City and on to Brooke's Point where he was arrested a week after said date. 30
In these cases, the prosecution adduced conclusive proof that accused-appellant indeed
conspired with Bermas to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie as shown by the following cogent facts 2. Both accused-appellant and Bermas had a motive to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie, that is, to
and circumstances: avenge the repeated maltreatment and physical abuse on them by Julio Sr., the father of
Jorge and Julie.31
1. When Julie responded to the repeated calls of Bermas for her to go to the kitchen on his
pretext that Jorge wanted to talk to her, Julie saw accused-appellant and Bermas, each The flight of both accused-appellant and Bermas from the house of Julio Sr. to the mountain
armed with a bolo, about half a meter from Jorge who was sprawled on the ground, bloodied where they found refuge after killing Jorge, and their motive to kill Jorge Jr. and kidnap and
all over.24 detain Julie in conjunto constitute potent evidence of their confabulation and of their guilt for
the death of Jorge and kidnapping and detention of Julie.32
2. Even as Julie fled from the kitchen for dear life to the sala of their house, accused-
appellant and Bermas ran after her. Accused-appellant tied the hands of Julie with a piece of The bare denial by accused-appellant of criminal liability for the crimes charged is inherently
cloth and inserted a piece of cloth into her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help from weak. Accused-appellant's claims that he even protected Julie from harm and that he was
their neighbors.25 forced by Bermas to kidnap Julie are of the same genre. 33 The bare denial by accused-
appellant of the crimes charged constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot
3. With a flashlight on hand, accused-appellant then exited from the house, dragged Julie prevail over the categorical and positive testimony of Julie and her unequivocal identification
towards the direction of the mountain while Bermas remained in the house to rummage of accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes charged.34
through the things in the bedroom of her brothers. Accused-appellant stopped for a while for
Bermas to join him.26 Accused-appellant's insistence that he was forced by Bermas, under pain of death, to
cooperate with him in killing Jorge and kidnapping and detaining Julie is merely an
4. Before the killing of Jorge, accused-appellant and Bermas placed their clothing and afterthought. For duress to exempt accused-appellant of the crimes charged, "the fear must
personal belongings in a bag and buried the bag under a tree, and when accused-appellant be well-founded, and immediate and actual damages of death or great bodily harm must be
and Bermas were on their way to the mountain after killing Jorge, they excavated and present and the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
retrieved the bag from under the tree.27 accused for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat."35 Accused-appellant is
burdened to prove by clear and convincing evidence his defense of duress. He should not be
5. Accused-appellant and Bermas brought with them to the mountain a kettle filled with raw shielded from prosecution for crime by merely setting up a fear from, or because of, a threat
rice which they cooked in the forest.28 of a third person."36 As Lord Dennan declared in Reg. Vs. Tyler,37 "No man from fear of
circumstances to himself has the right to make himself a party to committing mischief on
6. When Julie saw uniformed men who were looking for her and wanted to shout for help, mankind." In these cases, in light of the testimony of Julie and the inculpatory acts of
accused-appellant covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help. 29 accused-appellant no less, there is no doubt that the latter acted in concert with Bermas and
is himself a principal by direct participation. That accused-appellant abandoned Julie after six
days of captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less exempt him from criminal
liability for the killing of Jorge and the kidnapping and detention of Julie.
15 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Accused-appellant failed to prove his claim that Julie was coached on how and what to testify (For Murder)
on. Indeed, when asked to identify the person or persons who coached Julie, accused-
appellant failed to mention any person: The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder with the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation, based on the following findings and ratiocination:
"Q You heard the testimony of Julie Camacho that she is pointing to you to
have kidnapped her and participated in the killing of her brother Jorge, what can you "The slaying of Jorge Camacho took place about 8:30 o'clock in the evening of
say to that? February 22, 1996. It was carried out after the accused have been through tidying-
up the kitchen, the dining room and the kitchen wares the family of the Camachos
A That is not true. used in their early dinner before 7:00 o'clock that evening. But even before dinner,
the accused have already made preparations for their flight, shown by the fact that
Q You donot (sic) know the reason why? In fact you treated her well, why she they already had their clothes, other personal belongings and food provisions stacked
pointed you as one of the authors of the crime? in their respective travelling bags then placed in a spot where they can just pick
them up as they take to flight."42
A Maybe somebody coached her.
The trial court also appreciated against accused-appellant the qualifying aggravating
Q Who do you think coached her? circumstance of abuse of superior strength with the following disquisition:

A I cannot mention the name but I am sure that somebody coached her."38 "The victim, Jorge Camacho, is a lad only 14 years of age and unarmed when
brutally slain. On the contrary, both accused are of age and confirmed convicted
felons. Any one of them would already be superior in strength and disposition to
It bears stressing that when she testified, Julie was merely 12 years old. The Court has
their hapless and innocent victim. How much more with the combined strength and
repeatedly held that the testimony of a minor of tender age and of sound mind is likewise to
force of the two of them.
be more correct and truthful than that of an older person so that once it is established that
they have fully understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimony should be
given full credence and probative weight.39 Julie had no ill motive to tergiversate the truth Their choice of the object of their brutality is indicative of their unmistakable intent of
and falsely testify against accused-appellant. Hence, her testimony must be accorded full taking advantage of their superior strength. The likely object of their resentment, for
probative weight.40 purported cruelty to them, is Prison Guard Julio Camacho, father of the victim. They
could have directed their criminal intent on Julio Camacho himself. But Julio
Camacho could be a match in strength and agility to any of them or even to the
VII. Crimes Committed by Accused-Appellant
combined force of both of them. So, to insure execution of their criminal intent
without risk to them for the defense which the offended party might put up, they
The Court shall now delve into and resolve the issue of what crime or crimes accused- directed their criminal acts against the deceased who is very much inferior in physical
appellant is guilty of. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of two separate crimes and combat even only to any one of them."43
not the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide under the last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659. 41 The
While the Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty of murder, it does not agree with the
trial court is correct. There is no evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained first by
rulings of the trial court that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of
accused-appellant and Bermas before he was killed. The last paragraph of Article 267 of the
superior strength. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must
Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and the victim
establish the confluence of the following requisites:
is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or serious illegal detention.

"x x x (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
Re: Criminal Case No. 12900
manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient

16 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow penalty of reclusion perpetua.51 Conformably with current jurisprudence, accused-appellant is
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. x x x" 44 hereby ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00
and the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. Although Julio Sr. testified that he
The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, like any other qualifying spent P45,000.00 during the wake and burial of the victim, the prosecution failed to adduce
circumstance, must be proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding of evident any receipts to prove the same. Hence, the award of P45,000.00 by way of actual damages
premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has has no factual basis and should thus be deleted.
decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.45The prosecution must
adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and Re: Criminal Case No. 12903
prepared before it was effected.46 The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after
deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The (For Kidnapping)
law does not prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to
commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be resolved on the basis The trial court convicted accused-appellant of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised
of the extant factual milieu. Penal Code, as amended, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court is
correct.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact that
accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code was taken from Article 267 of the Spanish Penal Code,
about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that which reads:
they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein
preparatory to escaping from the colony. There is no evidence establishing when accused-
"Art. 267Detencin ilegal grave.Ser castigado con la pena de reclusin temporal
appellant and Bermas hid the bag under the tree. The prosecution even failed to adduce any
el particular que secuestrare o encerrare a otro o en cualquier forma le privare de
evidence of overt acts on the part of accused-appellant, nor did it present evidence as to
libertad."
when and how he and Bermas planned and prepared to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie and to
prove that the two felons since then clung to their determination to commit the said crimes.
Although accused-appellant and Bermas were armed with bolos, there is no evidence that "Secuestrare" means sequestration.52 To sequester is to separate for a special purpose,
they took advantage of their numerical superiority and weapons to kill Jorge. Hence, abuse remove or set apart, withdraw from circulation.53 It also means to lock-up or imprison.
of superior strength cannot be deemed to have attended the killing of Jorge. 47 Nighttime "Encerrare" is a broader concept thansecuestrare.54 Encerrare includes not only the
cannot likewise be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no evidence imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for
that accused-appellant and Bermas purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the killing or to whatever length of time. As explained by Groizard, "encerrar" es meter una persona cosa
insure its execution or accomplishment or to evade their arrest. 48 Neither is dwelling en parte de donde no pueda salir"; detener o arrestar, poner en prisin, privar de la libertad
aggravating because there is no evidence that Jorge was killed in their house or taken from alguno." He continued that "la detencin, la prisin, la privacin de la libertad de una
their house and killed outside the said house. persona, en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio por cualquier tiempo en virtud de la cual
resulte interrumpido el libre ejercicio de su actividad."55 On his commentary on the Spanish
Penal Code, Cuello Calon says that the law " preve dos modalidades de privacion de libertad,
In light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the killing of Jorge was qualified by
el encierro y la detencion. Encerrar significa recluir a una persona en un lugar de donde no
treachery. When Jorge was killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14 years
puede salir, detener a una persona equivale a impedirle o restringirle la libertad de
old. The Court has previously held that the killing of minor children who by reason of their
movimiento. Para que el sujeto pasivo no quiera permanecer en el sitio donde esta recluido,
tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended by treachery. 49 Since
pues no es posible llamar encierro ni detencion a la estancia de un a persona en lugar del
treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance. 50
que no quiere salir."56
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
In this case, Julie, a minor, was not locked up. However, she was seized and taken from her
Act 7659 isreclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating
house through force and dragged to the mountain. Since then, she was restrained of her
circumstances in the commission of the crime, accused-appellant should be meted the
liberty by and kept under the control of accused-appellant and Bermas. She was prevented
17 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
from going back home for a period of about six days. Patently then, accused-appellant is said judgment had become final and executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or
guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining Julie. The crime was aggravated by dwelling substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment
because Julie was taken from their house by accused-appellant and Bermas. However, had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the
dwelling was not alleged in the Information as an aggravating circumstance as required by prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the penal colony
Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which reads: does prove the fact that final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. 65 There
being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, accused-appellant should
"SEC. 9. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised penal
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions Code.66
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or VIII. Civil Liability of Accused-Appellant for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
subsection of the statute punishing it."57 Detention

Even if dwelling is proven but is not alleged in the Information as an aggravating The trial court awarded the amount of P100,000.00 to Julie by way of moral damages for the
circumstance, the same will not serve to aggravate the penalty.58 felony of kidnapping with serious illegal detention, predicated on her having suffered serious
anxiety and fright when she was kidnapped and dragged to the mountain where she was
Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code 59 is alleged in both detained for several days. The trial court is correct. Julie is entitled to moral damages. 67 In
Informations. Accused-appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping while light of the factual milieu in this case, the amount is reasonable. Julie is also entitled to
serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi- exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.68
recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. 60 The prosecution is burdened to prove the
said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION:
copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said
judgment had become final and executory.61 The raison d'etre is that: 1. In Criminal Case No. 12900, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and is hereby meted
"x x x Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to such information, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no modifying circumstances attendant to the
there was a joinder of issues not only as to his guilt or innocence, but also as to the commission of the felony. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay to the heirs of the
presence or absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged. The prosecution was victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the amount of P50,000.00 as of
thus burdened to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the moral damages. The award of P45,000.00 as of actual damages is deleted.
existence of the modifying circumstances. It was then grave error for the trial court
to appreciate against the accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of 2. In Criminal Case No. 12903, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
recidivism simply because of his failure to object to the prosecution's omission as kidnapping with serious illegal detention defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as
mentioned earlier."62 amended by Republic Act 7659, and there being no modifying circumstances attendant to the
commission of the felony is hereby meted the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. Accused-
In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record of appellant is hereby ordered to pay moral damages to the victim, Julie Camacho, in the
accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide in Criminal Case No. 10357-R amount of P100,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6) with a penalty of from six years and one day
as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day as maximum and that the sentence SO ORDERED.
of accused-appellant commenced on November 19, 1992 and that the minimum term of the
penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997.63 The excerpt of the prison record of accused- 3. G.R. Nos. 116132-33 August 23, 1995
appellant is not the best evidence under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Court64 to prove the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and to prove that

18 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, The prosecution presented complainant Antonette Modesto; her mother, Elsa Modesto, PO3
vs. Fernando Pascua; Dr. Ruperto J. Sombilon, Jr., a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau
AURELIO DELOVINO Y UDAL, accused-appellant. of Investigation (NBI); and Alfredo Batario, Antonette's former teacher. The defense
presented Lagrimas Delovino and Ana Pacantara, the wife and the aunt of the accused,
respectively; Reynaldo Improgo, a civilian volunteer officer; Dr. Ruperto Sombilon, Jr.; Alicia
DAVIDE, JR., J.: Abaez; and the accused himself.

On 13 November 1992, 17-year old Antonette Modesto filed with the Regional Trial Court The evidence for the prosecution established the following:
(RTC) of Pasay City two complaints for forcible abduction with rape against the accused.
They were docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-1845 and Criminal Case No. 92-1846 and Antonette Modesto was a senior high school student of the Arellano University. She and the
assigned to Branch 116 of the said court. accused were neighbors in the reclamation area in Pasay City. At about 12:00 noon of 20
October 1992, while she was waiting for a ride to school at Libertad Street, Pasay City, the
The accusatory portions of the complaints read as follows: accused placed his hand on her shoulder and poked a knife, which was covered with a
handkerchief, at her side. He threatened to kill her if she would shout for help or run away.
He ordered her to walk towards the corner of F.B. Harrison Street and Libertad Street and to
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 92-1845
board a passenger jeepney bound for Baclaran. He made her sit between him and the driver
in the front seat. The accused held on to his knife. Upon reaching Baclaran, he alighted and
That on or about the 4th day of November, 1992, in Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines ordered her to also disembark.
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
AURELIO DELOVINO Y UDAL, by means of force, violence, intimidation, threats and
Thereafter, the accused brought Antonette to Dasmarias, Cavite, on board another jeepney.
will [sic] lewd designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take
Upon reaching Cavite at around 1:00 p.m., he took her to a deserted house, where he
and carry away complainant Antonette Modesto, a minor 17 years of age and
started to kiss her. She resisted, but he continued to threaten her with his knife. When she
thereafter brought her at Queens Land Motel, this city and again by means of force
struggled and screamed for help, he boxed her twice at her stomach, thereby weakening her.
and intimidation and with the use of deadly weapon, lie and have carnal knowledge
He then gagged her with a handkerchief and tied her hands from behind. He undressed her
with the undersigned complainant, against her will and
and inserted his penis inside her vagina while she remained helpless on the floor.
consent.1
Notwithstanding her struggles, the accused succeeded in his ejaculation.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 92-1846
Not long after, the accused raped Antonette again, and after satisfying his bestial instinct, he
allowed her to dress up. He brought her back to Pasay City at around 5:00 p.m. Before
That on or about the 20th day of October, 1992, in Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines, leaving her, he warned her not to tell anyone about the incident or he would kill her and her
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, family. When she reached home, she proceeded to her room and cried. She did not tell
Aurelio Delovino Y Udal, by means of force, violence, intimidation, threats and will anyone of the shame inflicted on her. 4
[sic] lewd designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and
carry away complainant Antonette Modesto, a minor 17 years of age and thereafter
Then, at about 10:00 a.m. of 4 November 1992, Antonette left home for school. While
brought her to Cavite and again by means of force and intimidation and with the use
aboard a pedicab, the accused joined her and seated himself beside her. He had a knife
of deadly weapon, lie and have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant,
wrapped in a newspaper, which he poked at her. She was forced to alight with him at Roxas
against her will and consent.2
Boulevard, Pasay City, where the accused flagged down a taxi which took them to
Queensland Motel, Pasay City. Inside the motel, the accused started kissing her. When she
Upon his arraignment on 21 January 1993, the accused pleaded not guilty and waived his resisted, the accused boxed her twice at the stomach. He undressed her and, with his knife,
right to a pre-trial.3 The cases were then consolidated and jointly tried. ripped off her bra. He inserted his penis into her vagina until he reached his climax.
Thereafter, he sexually assaulted her again. By late afternoon, they both dressed up. Once

19 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
more, the accused threatened her to keep quiet about the incident, otherwise he would kill On 4 November 1992, they went again to Cavite to join an excursion. Since the excursion did
her and her family. They left the motel by taxi, and when they parted at the reclamation not push through, they just stayed and had lunch at his aunt's house. They returned to Pasay
area, he reiterated his warning. When she reached home, she went to her room and cried. 5 in the afternoon. That was the last time they saw each other. 17

It was on 10 November 1992 when her mother, Elsa Modesto, saw her crying in her room This alleged special relationship with the complainant was corroborated by Ana Pacantara,
that Antonette divulged what had happened to her. She and her parents then immediately Lagrimas Delovino, and Reynaldo Improgo.
proceeded to the police substation to lodge her complaint. 6 There, she narrated her ordeal to
PO3 Fernando Pascua, who then recorded her complaint in the police blotter 7 and Ana Pacantara declared that the accused and the complainant had their regular rendezvous
accompanied her to the house of the accused. As might be expected, the accused denied the in her house in Cavite, particularly on 2 September, 29 September, 20 October, and 4
charges and was then turned over to the Investigation Division. 8 November 1992. They acted like lovers and rested together in the bedroom, with Antonette
even borrowing her duster.18
The next day, Antonette, accompanied by her mother, went to the NBI for a medical
examination.9 The medico-legal officer who examined her, Lagrimas Delovino testified that when she visited Antonette's sister at the San Juan de Dios
Dr. Ruperto J. Sombilon, Jr., noticed no external injuries on her but found the presence of an Hospital on 7 November 1992, Elsa Modesto informed her (Lagrimas) that Antonette and the
"old-healed hymenal laceration," 10 which could have been caused by sexual intercourse with accused were having an affair and that if the accused would not stop the relationship,
a male. 11 "something bad" would happen to him.19

Finally, through the testimony of Antonette, the prosecution proved that the accused offered, Reynaldo Improgo claimed that he is a neighbor of Antonette and the accused in the
through her parents, to pay P40,000.00 to amicably settle these cases, which offer she reclamation area and that he had seen them together on several occasions.20
declined;12 and that as a consequence of the commission of these crimes, she had been
experiencing sleepless nights and was forced to quit her schooling.13 As a witness for the defense, Dr. Sombilon opined that the "old-healed complete
laceration"21 which he had indicated in his report could be around three months old and,
According to the contrariant version of the accused, who was 33 years old at the time of the therefore, could not have been sustained on 20 October or 4 November 1992. He concluded
occurrence of the acts complained of and married with four children, Antonette had a special that Antonette was no longer a virgin at the time of the alleged rapes.22
feeling for him and eventually became his sweetheart; yet, he never took undue advantage
of such relationship by having sexual union with her. In her rebuttal testimony, Antonette denied having an affair with the accused and having
gone to Cavite on 2 September, 29 September, and
He first noticed the special feeling of Antonette when he bought various items from her 4 November 1992. On 2 September and 29 September 1992, she was actually attending her
family's sari-sari store and she handed him more than what he paid for. Taking the cue, he classes in school.23Elsa likewise denied having confronted and threatened Lagrimas
suggested a date with her, which she welcomed.14 Delovino.24

Their first date was on 2 September 1992 when they discreetly met at Harrison Plaza and Alfredo Batario, Antonette's professor at the Arellano University, corroborated Antonette's
watched a movie. Then, they proceeded to Dasmarias, Cavite, where they had a brief stay claim that on 2 September and 29 September 1992, Antonette had attended his Social
in the house of his aunt, Ana Pacantara, to whom he introduced Antonette. Their second and Studies class from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m., as shown in his school register. 25 He declared,
third trips to Cavite were on 29 September and 20 October 1992. 15 On the latter occasion, however, that from 20 October 1992 onwards, Antonette had been absent and considered
they slept together for an hour in the house of his aunt. Antonette even borrowed dropped from the class.26
aduster from his aunt, since she was still in her school uniform. While alone together in the
room, they kissed each other but did not have sexual intercourse. Thereafter, they played In its decision27 dated 25 October 1993 but promulgated on 24 November 1993, the trial
bingo with his aunt before leaving for home. 16 court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in each of the two cases and
disposed as follows:

20 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-1845 and in Criminal Case No. 92-1846, The first assigned error is baseless. The trial court convicted the accused on the basis of
accused Aurelio Delovino y Udal is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime proof beyond reasonable doubt which the evidence for the prosecution had established. Its
of rape; and he is sentenced, in each of the cases, to suffer the penalty of reclusion reference to the weak evidence for the accused was evidently made to demonstrate his
perpetua and to pay complainant Antonette Modesto y Duque the sum of P25,000.00 failure to overcome the strength of the prosecution's evidence.
as moral damages.
The second assigned error involves the issue of the credibility of the complainant. It is
No pronouncement is made as to costs. doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is
received on appeal with the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to
It gave full faith and credit to the testimony of the offended party because her declarations observe the witnesses on the witness stand and determine if they are telling the truth or
describing how, through force and intimidation, the accused was able to have sexual not.30 In People vs. De Guzman,31 this Court aptly stated:
intercourse with her were positive, clear, and convincing and were made in a spontaneous
and straight forward manner, leaving no doubt in the mind of the court that she was telling In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its
the truth. evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe
them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between
According to the trial court, the force and intimidation in these cases consisted in the fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That
accused's boxing the complainant and threatening her with a knife. And, since the knife used line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the
is a deadly weapon, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death, but because the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the
imposition of the death penalty had been prohibited by the Constitution, the penalty should truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the
only be reclusion perpetua.28 sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or
the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted
It refused to believe the accused's claim that the complainant was in love with him and was in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has
his sweetheart because, assuming this to be true, she would not have filed these cases. It nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or
further found no improper motive on her part to falsely accuse him of the commission of the in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the
crimes in question. case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and
reasoned verdict.
The trial court did not, however, convict the accused of the complex crime of abduction with
rape as charged because, although he had forcibly abducted the complainant, the In the first decade of this century, a foreign court likewise observed:
prosecution had failed to prove lewd designs.
Truth does not always stalk baldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed
In this appeal, the accused contends that the trial court gravely erred in (1) convicting him abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to
not on the basis of the strength of the prosecution's evidence but rather on the weakness of the mind's eye of the judge who tries the case. To him appears the furtive glance,
the evidence for the defense; (2) giving credence to the improbable and inconsistent the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering
testimony of the private complainant; and (3) failing to appreciate the testimony of the NBI tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant
medico-legal officer in his favor.29 or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. The brazen face
of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching
overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are
The Appellee disagrees with him and prays that we affirm the assailed decision with the
alone seen by him.32
modification that the moral damages be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.

The recognized exceptions to the foregoing doctrine are when such evaluation was reached
We find no merit in this appeal. On the contrary, as hereinafter discussed, we find the
arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
accused guilty in each of the two cases of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected the result of the case. 33
and not just of rape.
21 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
The accused has miserably failed to convince us that the exceptions apply to these cases. He guilt38 pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
has not challenged the unequivocal pronouncement of the trial court that the complainant Court, which reads in part as follows:
testified in a "spontaneous and straightforward manner, leaving no doubt in the mind of the
court that she was telling the truth," and that her declarations were "positive, clear and In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or
convincing." The best that he could do was to suggest the improbability of the commission of those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused
the abductions considering that they occurred in a public place and in broad daylight and the may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
complainant could have shouted for help or called the attention of the people around her.
The suggestion is not persuasive because it fails to consider the unrebutted testimony of In his third assigned error, the accused faults the trial court for its failure to consider the
Antonette that he poked a knife on her side and threatened to kill her if she would run away testimony of Dr. Sombilon that the "old-healed complete laceration" in Antonette's hymen
or shout for help. He even forgot to comment on the evidence for the rapes. This studied was already three months old when he conducted the examination on 11 November 1992.
silence on the rapes amounts to an admission of the sexual congresses. He then asseverates that inasmuch as the laceration was inflicted long before 20 October
1992 and 4 November 1992 when the crimes in question were committed, he could not have
Our own evaluation of the evidence not only fully supports the finding of the trial court that caused it.
the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant through force and intimidation on 20
October 1992 and 4 November 1992, but discloses, as well, proof beyond reasonable doubt We disagree. That the laceration was three months old does not prove that the accused had
of the commission of forcible abduction as a means for the commission of the rapes. no carnal knowledge of Antonette on 20 October and
4 November 1992. Antonette established with moral certainty that the accused had raped her
The testimony of the complainant, although uncorroborated, is credible and convinces us on those dates. Any prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in the hymenal
with moral certainty of the accused's guilt. No improper or ulterior motive was shown why laceration is irrelevant in these cases, for virginity is not an element of rape under Article 335
she would falsely testify against the accused, who was her neighbor. The latter categorically of the Revised Penal Code.39
admitted on cross-examination that he knew no reason why the complainant would charge
him of rape and publicly make known the fact. 34 It is settled that where there is no evidence Moreover, the prosecution cannot be said to have relied on the old-healed hymenal laceration
and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by as evidence of rape. It primarily relied on the testimony of the complainant which, standing
improper motive, the presumption is that the said witness was not so actuated and his alone and even without the medical examination, was sufficient to convict.
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.35
A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Otherwise, grave and
The complainant's conduct in these cases further convinces us that she told the truth and irreparable injustice would be inflicted upon hapless victims if the crime were committed in
filed these cases solely to obtain justice. She reported the commission of the crime to the remote areas where no doctor could conduct a medical examination. So too, if the victim
police authorities, allowed an examination of her private parts, and thereafter suffered the would not submit to it because what immediately pre-occupied her mind after the traumatic
ordeal of a public trial. It is difficult to believe that an unmarried woman, like her, would tell experience was not necessarily the filing of a complaint but rather the fear of what the
a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and thereafter permit assailant would further inflict upon her should she reveal his criminal act, or the
herself to be the subject of a public trial unless she were motivated by an honest desire to embarrassment and humiliation accompanying a public disclosure of the ignominy and
seek justice. No young decent Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally dishonor she had suffered in the hands of her tormentor.40
abused and ravished unless that is the truth; it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. 36
We cannot sustain the finding of the trial court that although the complainant was brought
The accused's denial of sexual intercourse does not deserve even a passing glance. Denial is against her will to the Queensland Motel in the first case and to Cavite in the second case,
an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution failed to prove the element oflewd designs. Lewd design means unchaste
the complainant.37 design.41 We find that in both cases the principal purpose of the accused was to rape the
complainant and that her abduction was only a means to commit the rape. Rape, under any
Moreover, the accused failed to deny the testimony of Antonette that he had offered to pay clime and civilization, will always be unchaste.42 Thus, the abduction of the complainant was
P40,000.00 to amicably settle these cases. Such an offer was an implied admission of obviously with lewd designs.
22 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Accordingly, the accused should be held liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction (RPC), respectively. He was sentenced to suffer the penalties of reclusion temporal and
with rape defined and penalized under Article 342 (forcible abduction) and Article 335 (rape) reclusion perpetua.
of the Revised Penal Code. Pursuant to Article 48 of the said Code, the penalty for the more
serious crime, which is rape, shall be imposed in its maximum period. Since the two rapes The Facts
were committed with a deadly weapon, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death pursuant
to the third paragraph of Article 335, to be imposed in its maximum period death. But The charge against accused-appellant stemmed from two Informations:
since these cases were committed when the imposition of the death penalty was still
prohibited under the Constitution,43 onlyreclusion perpetua may be imposed.
Criminal Case No. 95-17070

Also, pursuant to the current policy of this Court, moral damages should be awarded in each
That on or about 16th day of March, 1995, in the Municipality of Murcia, Province of Negros
case and increased from P25,000.00 to P40,000.00.
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, armed with a firearm, with treachery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED, and the decision of Branch 116 of the nighttime, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Criminal Cases on EDMUND PRAYCO y OSABEL, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the body of the
Nos. 92-1845 end 92-1846 is modified as above indicated. As modified, accused AURELIO latter which caused the death of the said victim.
DELOVINO is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape, as defined and penalized under Article 342 and Article 335, respectively,
Contrary to law.3
of the Revised Penal Code, in each of the said cases, and pursuant to Article 48 thereof, he is
in each case hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaand to indemnify
complainant Antonette Modesto the sum of P40,000.00 as moral damages. Criminal Case No. 95-17071

Costs against the accused. That on or about 16th day of March, 1995, in the Municipality of Murcia, Province of Negros
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, armed with a firearm, with treachery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of
SO ORDERED.
nighttime, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
on LEOPOLDO GUIRO, JR. y PEREZ alias "Nene" thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the
4. G.R. No. 189301 December 15, 2010 body of the latter which caused the death of the said victim.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Contrary to law.4
JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE a.k.a. "PEPING," Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.: On November 28, 2001, the trial court ordered the consolidation of the two cases. When
arraigned with assistance of counsel, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to both charges.
Thereafter, a joint trial ensued.
The Case
During the trial, the prosecution offered the testimonies of Shenette Guiro, the wife of the
This is an appeal from the January 30, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
deceased victim Leopoldo Guiro; Jose Tomaro; Rebecca Montino Apdo; Senior Police Officer
G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00294 entitled People of the Philippines v. Jose Pepito D. Combante
1 (SPO1) Rolando Salamisan; Inspector Jose Labuyo; Police Inspector William Senoron; PO1
a.k.a. "Peping," which affirmed with modification the July 2, 2003 Decision2 in Criminal Case
Rommel Pregil; Dr. Jimmy Nadal; and Dr. Emmanuel Bando. On the other hand, the defense
Nos. 95-17070 & 95-17071 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50 in Bacolod City.
presented as its witnesses Magno Montinola and accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant Jose Pepito D. Combate stands convicted of the crime of Murder and
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
Homicide, as defined and penalized under Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code
23 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
On March 16, 1995, at around 9 oclock in the evening, Tomaro parked his passenger appellant saw Leopoldo pull something out from his waist. He then heard a gunshot and saw
jeepney at the garage of Leopoldos mother, Patria Guiro, located at Purok 2, Barangay Leopoldo fall to the ground. He pushed Montinola aside and they ran away.
Minoyan in Murcia, Negros Occidental. He then proceeded to the house of Leopoldo where he
usually sleeps after driving the jeepney owned by Leopoldos parents. After a few moments, he heard more gunshots coming from the direction of where Leopoldo
and his group were situated. He was stricken with fear so he went home. Later, he learned
Upon entering the gate, Tomaro met Leopoldo and Edmund Prayco, who were on their way that he was the suspect in the killing of Leopoldo and Edmundo. Thus, to avoid trouble, he
out. Leopoldo invited him to join them in drinking liquor but he declined saying he was fled to Victorias City, Negros Occidental where he was arrested by the Murcia police on
already tired. He continued on his way and was about to ascend the stairs when he heard a October 13, 2001.
gunshot. He rushed back to the road and there he saw accused-appellant pointing a gun at
the fallen Leopoldo. When Edmund was about to intervene, accused-appellant also shot The story of accused-appellant was corroborated by Montinola.
Edmund at a very close range. After shooting Edmund, accused-appellant turned his
attention back to Leopoldo and shot him for a second time. Ruling of the Trial Court

Tomaro then rushed to help Leopoldo and pleaded for his life. Instead of heeding his plea, After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of its July 2, 2003
accused-appellant pointed his gun towards Tomaro and pulled the trigger but the gun did not Decision reads:
fire. At that instant, Tomaro jumped on accused-appellant and was able to grab the gun.
Tomaro tried to shoot accused-appellant but the gun still did not fire. Hastily, accused-
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Jose Combate,
appellant fled to the direction of Bacolod City.
Jr. y Dallarte alias Peping, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE in
Criminal Case NO. 95-17071 as Principal thereof. There being no modifying circumstances,
Leopoldo and Edmund were later brought to the Bacolod Sanitarium and Hospital. Edmund the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL in its medium
was declared dead on arrival, while Leopoldo died the following day. period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall serve a prison term of
Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor to Fifteen (15) years of Reclusion
Version of the Defense Temporal.

Accused-appellants defense, on the other hand, was confined to a denial, to wit: By way of civil liability, the accused is condemned to pay the heirs of the late Leopoldo Guiro
the following:
In the evening of March 16, 1995, accused-appellant was in his house drinking liquor when
Montinola, a close friend, arrived to fetch him. He was told to report to the barangay hall and 1. The sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity.
to render duty as a tanod. Before leaving, Montinola also partook of a small quantity of
liquor. 2. The sum of P932,712.00 as compensatory damages and;

On their way to the barangay hall, they passed by the house of Leopoldo, who was drinking 3. The sum of P56,319.59 as reimbursement for the burial expenses.
liquor by the side of the street fronting his house, along with Tomaro, Edmund, and someone
else who accused-appellant could not identify. He and Montinola were walking on the left
In addition, the accused is ordered to pay Shenette Guiro the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
side of the street going towards the direction of the Mambucal Resort, while Leopoldo and
damages.
his group were on the right side. Accused-appellant then extended a greeting to Leopoldo,
who responded with a sarcastic remark. Accused-appellant and Montinola ignored the
rudeness thrown their way and just continued walking. The accused is also declared GUILTY of MURDER for the death of Edmund Prayco as charged
in the Information in Criminal Case No. 95-17070 as Principal thereof. There being no
modifying circumstances, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
They, however, soon noticed Leopoldo crossing the street and started to follow them.
Edmund likewise also followed them but on the other side of the street. Suddenly, accused-
24 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
PERPETUA. He is condemned to pay the heirs of the late Edmund Prayco the sum of To accused-appellant, the inconsistencies thus described erode the credibility of the
P50,000.00 as death indemnity and the sum of P30,000.00 as compensatory damages. 5 witnesses when taken as a whole.

Ruling of the Appellate Court We do not agree.

On January 30, 2008, the CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court and modified the Time-tested is the doctrine that the trial courts assessment of the credibility of a witness is
award of damages. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.7 The Supreme Court will not interfere
with that assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has overlooked some
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial court, Branch 50 of material facts or gravely abused its discretion.8
Bacolod City dated 2 July 200[3] is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of
compensatory damages in both cases is deleted, and in lieu thereof, exemplary damages of Complementing the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor and insignificant
P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Leopoldo Guiro and another P25,000.00 to the heirs of inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of
Edmund Prayco. In all other respects, the assailed decision is affirmed. witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not contrived or rehearsed. 9 As the Court put
it in People v. Cristobal, "Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the
SO ORDERED.6 credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack
of scheming."10
The Issue
A careful review of the records shows that the RTC, as well as the CA, committed no
Hence, this appeal is before us, with accused-appellant maintaining that the trial court erred reversible error when it gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as
in convicting him of the crimes of homicide and murder, despite the fact that his guilt was opposed to accused-appellants bare denials.
not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not merely on its
The Courts Ruling truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated
parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established
by witnesses, everything stated by them on direct, cross, and redirect examinations must be
We sustain accused-appellants conviction.
calibrated and considered.11 It must be stressed in this regard that facts imperfectly or
erroneously stated in an answer to one question may be supplied or explained as qualified by
Factual findings of the trial court should be respected the answer to other question. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly
applied to this jurisdiction.12 As explained in People v. Osias:
In his Brief, accused-appellant says that the trial court failed to consider several
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. First, as to Tomaro, who It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and
directly implicated accused-appellant, his testimony was unsubstantiated and did not conform disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it has been aptly said that even when witnesses
to the physical evidence. According to Tomaro, Edmund was shot at close range yet no are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is not required that
powder burns were found around the entry wound. Second, as to the testimony of Shenette the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof
Guiro, accused-appellant harps on the fact that she never mentioned Tomaro being present deemed worthy of belief may be credited.
at the scene of the crime and that she only heard one gunshot while the other witnesses
heard three or four. Lastly, as to the testimony of SPO1 Salamisan, accused-appellant points
The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the
out that SPO1 Salamisan testified that he only saw one spot of blood when there were two
crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of
victims.
the crime charged x x x.13 (Emphasis supplied.)

25 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
In this case, we agree with the trial court that the alleged inconsistencies merely refer to Q: He pointed his gun to Prayco and fired his gun. At the time he fired his gun, how far was
minor details which do not affect the witnesses credibility. In disregarding the alleged he from Prayco?
inconsistent statements, the trial court explained:
COURT
The inconsistencies are more imagined than real. The inconsistencies, like the ownership of
the passenger jeepney, whether said jeepney is owned by Guiro or his mother, are so trivial Witness indicating a very short distance where the Court Interpreter is situated which is less
and does not at all affect credibility. than (1) meter away.15 (Emphasis supplied.)

The accused also makes much fuss about the fact that Shenette Guiro heard only one (1) As aptly held by the CA, such testimony is in fact consistent with the lack of powder burns on
shot while the other prosecution witnesses as well as the accused and his witness Magno Edmunds body, viz:
Montinola, heard three (3) to four (4) shots. The accused conveniently forgot that Shenette
Guiro was asleep when the shooting took place. She was awakened by the shot she heard The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature and extent of the injury caused on
and that shot might have been the last shot. the victim. In close range fire, the injury is not only due to the missile but also due to the
pressure of the expanded gases, flame and other solid products of combustion. In contrast,
The accused flays the testimony of Jose Tomaro as incredible and unbelievable when the said distant fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet alone. A shot fired from a
witness testified that he ran and cradled Guiro in his arms after the latter was shot. The distance of more than 60 cm or about two (2) feet does not produce the burning, smudging
accused asserts that it is unnatural for a person to unnecessarily expose himself to danger. or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire, short range fire and medium range
fire.
The argument need not detain the Court. It is a settled rule on evidence that witnesses to a
crime react in different ways. (Pp. vs. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615). Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians whenever there is blackening of the
margin at the entrance of the gunshot wound. The blackening is due to smoke smudging,
"There is no standard behavior when one is considered with a strange, startling or gunpowder tattooing and, to a certain extent, burning of the wound margin.
frightening situation." (Pp. v. De Leon, 262 SCRA 445)
In this case, the fact that there were no powder burns found in EDMUNDs body indicates
Moreover, Jose Tomaro has no quarrel with the accused. He has every reason to expect that that the shots were fired at a distance of more than two (2) feet which is consistent with
he will not be assaulted as he was not making any aggressive move against him. 14 Jose Tomaros testimony that Edmund was shot at about less than 1 meter away from
appellant.16
Likewise, we are not persuaded as to the alleged inconsistency of Tamaros testimony that
Edmund was shot at close range but the physical evidence revealed that there were no Defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification
powder burns around the entry wounds. In his testimony, Tamaro described the incident as
follows: For his defense, accused-appellant wants this Court to believe his innocence and offers his
version of the facts wherein he did not commit the crime. This Court is not persuaded.
COURT:
Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part
Q: Now according to your testimony, the next time around, Combate was pointing his gun at of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial. 17Accused-
Prayco? appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to
perjure and accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were
WITNESS moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption
that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their
A: Yes, sir. testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. 18

26 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Lest it be overlooked, accused-appellant fled to Victorias City, Negros Occidental right after sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 221927 and Article 222028 of the Civil Code.
the incident, an act that is evidence of his guilt. It is well-established that the flight of an (Emphasis supplied.)
accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. 19 Indeed, the wicked flee when Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as "compensatory damages
no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.20 awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong." 29 They
may also be considered and allowed "for resulting pain and suffering, and for humiliation,
Award of damages indignity, and vexation suffered by the plaintiff as result of his or her assailants conduct, as
well as the factors of provocation, the reasonableness of the force used, the attendant
This Court will now endeavor to end, once and for all, the confusion as to the proper award humiliating circumstances, the sex of the victim, [and] mental distress." 30
of damages in criminal cases where the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua
or death. As a rule, the Court awards three kinds of damages in these types of criminal The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Rey
cases: civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages. We shall discuss all three. Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible,
of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering
First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the inflicted."31
offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart from
other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages And lastly, the Court awards exemplary damages as provided for in Arts. 2229 and 2230 of
in civil law.21 This award stems from Art. 100 of the RPC which states, "Every person the Civil Code, viz:
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction
Civil liability ex delicto may come in the form of restitution, reparation, and for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
indemnification.22 Restitution is defined as the compensation for loss; it is full or partial damages.
compensation paid by a criminal to a victim ordered as part of a criminal sentence or as a
condition for probation.23 Likewise, reparation and indemnification are similarly defined as the Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
compensation for an injury, wrong, loss, or damage sustained. 24 Clearly, all of these imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such
correspond to actual or compensatory damages defined under the Civil Code.25 damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

The other kinds of damages, i.e., moral and exemplary or corrective damages, 26 have Clearly, as a general rule, exemplary damages are only imposed in criminal offenses when
altogether different jural foundations. the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, be they generic or
qualifying. However, there have been instances wherein exemplary damages were awarded
The second type of damages the Court awards are moral damages, which are also despite the lack of an aggravating circumstance. This led the Court to clarify this confusion in
compensatory in nature. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals explained the nature and purpose of People v. Dalisay, where it categorically stated that exemplary damages may be
moral damages, viz: awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where
the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous
Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for manifold conduct of the offender, to wit:
injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be understood to be in Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, courts generally awarded
the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary
compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although incapable of exactness and or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the
no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article
amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the
that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in
27 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was conduct of the defendant associated with such circumstances as willfulness,
not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages. x x x wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud
or gross fraud that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive
xxxx damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be
awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either
Nevertheless, People v. Catubig laid down the principle that courts may still award exemplary case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and
damages based on the aforementioned Article 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance others like him from similar conduct in the future.
has not been alleged, so long as it has been proven, in criminal cases instituted before the
effectivity of the Revised Rules which remained pending thereafter. Catubig reasoned that Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the
the retroactive application of the Revised Rules should not adversely affect the vested rights presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show
of the private offended party. the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as
Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229,
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Thus, in People v. Matrimonio, the
dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance Court imposed exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or
attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v.
consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only Cristobal, the Court awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption,
if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman.
Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste, People v. Victor, People v. Orilla, Recently, in People of the Philippines v. Cristino Caada, People of the Philippines v. Pepito
People v. Calongui, People v. Magbanua, People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Neverio and The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., the Court awarded
Fortada, People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez, and People of the Philippines v. exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and
Julio Manalili. And in the second set are People v. Llave, People of the Philippines v. Dante corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
Gragasin y Par, and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia. Again, the difference between
the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than
effectivity of the Revised Rules. Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio
Morales words in her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,
xxxx "[t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the
present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages
to set a public example or correction for the public good."32
Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary
damages taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the
commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are Before awarding any of the above-mentioned damages, the Court, however, must first
awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus consider the penalty imposed by law. Under Republic Act No. (RA) 7659 or An Act to Impose
the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes, certain crimes under the RPC and special penal laws were
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective
amended to impose the penalty of death under certain circumstances.
damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a
vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or
a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, For a full appreciation of the award on damages, it is imperative that a thorough discussion
but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the of RA 7659 be undertaken. Each crime will be discussed as well as the proper amount of
use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and damages for each crime.
for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that Under RA 7659, the following crimes are punishable by reclusion perpetua: piracy in
there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible general,33 mutiny on the high seas,34 and simple rape.35

28 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
For the following crimes, RA 7659 has imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law
qualified piracy;36qualified bribery under certain prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
circumstances; parricide;38 murder;39 infanticide, except when committed by the mother of
37
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor or either of the maternal grandparents
for the same purpose;40 kidnapping and serious illegal detention under certain In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
circumstances;41 robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under certain following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
circumstances;42 destructive arson, except when death results as a consequence of the
commission of any of the acts penalized under the article;43 attempted or frustrated rape, 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating
when a homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof; plunder; 44 and carnapping, circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
when the driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of
the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. 45
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
RA 7659 imposes the penalty of death on the following crimes:
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and
(a) In qualified bribery, when it is the public officer who asks or demands the gift or there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
present.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of
(b) In kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (i) when the kidnapping or detention the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
person; (ii) when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; (iii) accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
when the victim is raped, subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible penalties, the
(c) In destructive arson, when as a consequence of the commission of any of the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
acts penalized under Article 320, death results. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the court
can impose either reclusion perpetua or death, depending on the mitigating or aggravating
(d) In rape: (i) when by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim becomes circumstances present.
insane or homicide is committed; (ii) when committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: (1) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age But with the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by Death Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. It
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of provides that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
the parent of the victim; (2) when the victim is under the custody of the police or when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. 46
military authorities; (3) when the rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of
As a result, courts now cannot impose the penalty of death. Instead, they have to impose
consanguinity; (4) when the victim is a religious or a child below seven years old; (5)
reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of damages,
when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency
following the ruling in People v. Salome47 and People v. Quiachon,48 is "the penalty provided
Syndrome (AIDS) disease; (6) when committed by any member of the Armed Forces
by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty
of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency;
actually imposed on the offender."49
and (7) when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation.
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of
death were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in People v.
Nevertheless, all these must be taken in relation to Art. 63 of the RPC, which provides:
29 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Victor,50 that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when punishable by death In this case, neither of the exemption applies. The earnings of Leopoldo at the time of his
should be PhP 75,000. We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic death were above minimum wage set by labor laws in his respective place at the time of his
societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an death.58 As testified to by his wife, Shenette Guiro, Leopoldo was earning between PhP 200
expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against to PhP 300 per day. This is more than minimum wage. Hence, absent any documentary
chastity."51 Such reasoning also applies to all heinous crimes found in RA 7659. evidence, the award of compensatory damages must be deleted.

In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v. Arizapa, 52 PhP Likewise, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages by the CA in Criminal Case No.
50,000 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading or proving them, for in 95-17070 is proper for lack of any basis. The trial court did not discuss why it awarded
rape cases, it is recognized that the victims injury is concomitant with and necessarily results compensatory damages to the heirs of Edmund.
from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
damages.53 Subsequently, the amount was increased to PhP 75,000 in People v. Soriano. 54 Interest on damages

As to exemplary damages, existing jurisprudence has pegged its award at PhP When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex
30,000,55 despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The reason, as previously delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages;
discussed, is to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example for public good. (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in
proper cases.59 In People v. Tubongbanua,60 interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was
Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed because of RA 9346, ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by
the imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those found in RA 7569, the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,61 People v. Buban,62 People v.
must be used as the basis for awarding damages and not the actual penalty imposed. Guevarra,63 and People v. Regalario.64 Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case.
Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity
On the other hand, when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary
reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP 50,000 damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary
damages.56lavvphi1 WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00294
finding accused-appellant Jose Pepito D. Combate guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED
Accordingly, in Criminal Case Nos. 95-17070 and 95-17071, the exemplary damages awarded with MODIFICATION. As modified, the ruling of the trial court should read as follows:
by the CA in the amount of PhP 25,000 should be increased to PhP 30,000.00 in line with
prevailing jurisprudence. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Jose Combate,
Jr. y Dallarte alias Peping, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE in
Moreover, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages for unearned income by the Criminal Case NO. 95-17071 as Principal thereof. There being no modifying circumstances,
CA in Criminal Case No. 95-17071 is proper. This Court pronounced in People v. Mallari:57 the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL in its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall serve a prison term of
The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor to Fifteen (15) years of Reclusion
damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages therefore may be Temporal.1avvphi1
awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence provided that there is testimony that
the victim was either (1) self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current By way of civil liability, the accused is condemned to pay the heirs of the late Leopoldo Guiro
labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victims line of work no the following:
documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than
the minimum wage under current labor laws. 1. The sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and

2. The sum of P56,319.59 as reimbursement for the burial expenses.


30 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
In addition, the accused is ordered to pay Shenette Guiro the sum of P50,000.00 as moral CONTRARY TO LAW.
damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
During arraignment on June 25, 1992, accused-appellant assisted by his counsel, 4 entered a
The accused is also declared GUILTY of MURDER for the death of Edmund Prayco as charged plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial of the case ensued.
in the Information in Criminal Case No. 95-17070 as Principal thereof. There being no
modifying circumstances, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION The evidence for the prosecution, culled from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
PERPETUA. He is condemned to pay the heirs of the late Edmund Prayco the sum of succinctly synthesized in the Appellee's Brief submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General,
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary established the following facts:
damages.
In the evening of November 5, 1990, Maritess Marzo, single and a third year
Finally, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be applied to the award of high school student, was asleep in the room of her boarding house located
civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages from the finality of judgment until at Bonifacio St., Diffun, Quirino (p. 2, tsn, July 9, 1992). Fronting said
fully paid in the two (2) aforementioned criminal cases. boarding house and separated by a road is the house of Romy Sagun where
he and his family reside (p. 3, tsn, March 31, 1993).
SO ORDERED.
At about midnight of November 5, 1990, Maritess was awakened by sounds
5. G.R. No. 110554 February 19, 1999 of footsteps approaching her. Maritess shouted but a man whom she
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, recognized as Romy Sagun, her neighbor, poked his bolo at her head (p. 4,
vs. tsn, Aug. 11, 1992) and uttered, 'Do not shout or else I will kill you and
ROMY SAGUN @ POKPOK, accused-appellant. tomorrow you will not be living any more' (p. 5, supra). Then, Sagun shifted
his bolo to the neck of Maritess, who was lying on her side, and started
removing her skirt and panty (pp. 7-8, supra). Sagun took off his pants and
QUISUMBING, J.: laid on top of Maritess (p. 10, supra); opened her legs and inserted his organ
into Maritess' (p. 12, supra) and started gyrating for about five minutes.
Accused-appellant Romy Sagun @ Pokpok assails the decision 1 dated April 23, 1993, of the Maritess struggled and pushed Sagun but to no avail. Thereafter, Sagun
Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, 2 of Cabarroguis, Quirino, in Criminal Case No. 891, finding stood up, put on his pants and left (p. 13, supra). Maritess felt that Sagun's
him guilty of the crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion male genital partly penetrated her's (p. 15, supra).
perpetua,and to pay private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as damages without
subsidiary imprisonment. After Sagun left, Maritess woke up her boardmates and informed them that
somebody entered the boarding house but did not reveal that she was raped
On September 25, 1991, the Provincial Prosecutor, Anthony A. Fox, filed with the court because of Sagun's death threat (p. 15,supra). The following morning,
a quo an information,3charging accused-appellant of the crime of rape, allegedly committed however, Maritess informed her landlord, Rudy Agsalud that Sagun entered
as follows: her room and sexually abused her. Rudy Agsalud immediately reported the
incident to the police authorities (p. 6, supra).
That on or about 12:00 o'clock midnight on November 5, 1990, in Barangay
Bonifacio, Municipality of Diffun, Province of Quirino, Philippines, and within On November 6, 1990 (p. 9, tsn, Aug. 17, 1992), Maritess submitted herself
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ROMY SAGUN alias to a medical examination. Dr. Moises Lazaro, the examining physician,
POKPOK, armed with a bolo, by means of force and intimidation and lewd testifying on the results of his examination, pertinently declared as follows:
design, did then and there there (sic) willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have sexual intercourse with MARITESS A. MARZO against her will. Q - Doctor, you were saying that there was a partial penetration on the
vagina. How many centimeters was the deep of the penetration?
31 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
A - As I said from the opening to the hymen 1-1.5 cm. May be the tip of the On cross examination, witness testified that he went to the boarding house
penis penetrated the hymen but it did not break the hymen. Because we of the complainant on the alleged night of the incident after a drinking spree
have to consider the circumstance whether there is resistance or force . . . with his nephew. That it was only when he was already drunk that gave him
the idea of going to the boarding house of the complainant. At that time, he
entered the (boarding house, complainant was reviewing, she was alone. He
went near the p complainant to talk to her being a neighbor. That he used to
go to the .boarding house. He was asking complainant why she was
reviewing at1that late hour of the night. He was seated near the door of the
house while 1Maritess Marzo was reviewing in the sala of the house. That in
the first floor, of the house, there are no rooms while the second floor, it has
rooms. s
u
p
That the drinking spree took place in his house. That after buying cigarette
hed did not rgo home directly because he dropped by at the boarding house
a
of the complainant. He talked with the complainant. After he was warned
that she is going
) to report his coming in the house of Mrs. Agsalud, he left
and that was the time he went home. He told complainant that he was
visiting her being
5 a neighbor and sensing that she was mad, he left.

Accused-appellant denied having committed said crime. His counter statement of the facts as On clarificatory question of the court, accused testified that he knows that
tersely summarized by the trial court, is as follows: complainant was alone at that night, and that he entered the house to talk
with her considering that she is a neighbor. He entered the boarding house
He knows Maritess Marzo, the complainant. She was boarding in the house of the complainant because he could not get his sleep that night. He just
of Mercedes Agsalud sometime in November 1990. Student at the Quirino wanted to talk with the complainant. That he entered the boarding house of
State College. Complainant's boarding house is about 45 meters from their Maritess Marzo past 9:00 o'clock that evening. That he does not know of any
house. In the evening of November 5, 1990, he was in their house with his reason why the complainant filed the case against him. Before November 5,
wife and children. Before 9:00 o'clock of the same evening, he had a 1990, he never visited Maritess Marzo because she used to go home in their
drinking spree with his nephew. After consuming two bottles of beer grande, barangay except on November 5, 1990. That he did not have any
he went to buy cigarette. On his way home, he noticed that the door of the misunderstanding between Maritess Marzo and her parents before November
boarding house of complainant was opened. She was reviewing. His nephew 5, 1990 neither has he any misunderstanding before November 5, 1990 with
at that time was already asleep. He entered the boarding house of the Mrs. Agsalud. That he left Quirino sometime on November 9, 1990 in order
complainant, sat down on the chair about four meters from her. Complainant to have a driving job in Tondo, Manila because his former employer Engr.
inquired why he entered the house. Told complainant that he just came for a Valido went abroad. That he came to know for the first time that he was
visit because she is a neighbor. Because he was drunk, complainant had to charged for rape when his wife went to Manila before Christmas in 1990. 6
go upstairs. Complainant told him to leave the house or else she will report
him to Mrs. Agsalud. With that warning, he went home. He denied the In its decision dated May 10, 1993, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond
testimony of the complainant to the effect that he threatened her with a reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged, and rendered judgment as follows:
bolo, undressed her, removed her panty, mounted at her and had sexual
intercourse with her. That there is no truth about the testimony of the IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the guilt of the accused of the crime
complainant because nothing had happened to her. That he does not know charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
why the complainant testified against him. accused is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUAplus all the accessory

32 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
penalties provided for by law and to indemnity the complainant Maritess result, conviction may be based justifiably on the plausible testimony of the private
Marzo the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS without complainant herself.
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the cost. The
detention of the accused shall be fully credited in his favor. In the present case, we find the trial court's reliance on the testimony of the complainant
based on solid evidentiary grounds. She had no improper motive whatsoever, as admitted by
SO ORDERED.7 accused-appellant himself, 11 to impute such a very serious offense to him. It is accepted
doctrine, that in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the victim to
Hence, this appeal from the lower court's decision. Significantly, accused-appellant makes falsely testify against the accused, her testimony deserves credence. 12
only one assignment of error:
The spontaneity of complainant's testimony could not be discredited by mere denials of
THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND accused-appellant. For an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony,
ERRED N GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. 13 Denial is an intrinsically
COMPLAINANT AND, ON THE BASIS THEREOF, IN CONVICTING THE weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of nonculpability to merit
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM AND IN credence. 14 Furthermore, in the light of the complainant's positive identification of accused-
AWARDING DAMAGES AGAINST HIM. appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, the latter's defense of bare denial must necessarily
fail, as her positive testimony overrides his negative testimony. 15 Note that accused-
In his brief, accused-appellant contends that the trial court gravely erred in giving credence appellant's own version of a "friendly visit" he made to complainant in her boarding house on
to the testimony of the complainant because it is tainted with inconsistencies and November 5, 1990, puts him squarely at the place and time of the alleged offense.
improbabilities. Drawing our attention to the medico-legal findings, he avers that the medical
certificate issued by the physician who conducted the physical examination negates As pointed out by the lower court, complainant testified in a direct and straightforward
complainant's claim of carnal knowledge as her hymen remains intact. He likewise bewails manner. She even demonstrated in court how she was raped by accused-appellant.
the fact that complainant's acts and deeds the day after the alleged rape was committed are Complainant cried when she testified; her tears added poignancy to verity born out of human
simply incredulous, as no rape victim could have easily recovered from the effects of such a nature and experience. 16 There was no grave abuse of discretion when the trial court
traumatic experience. considered the testimony of complainant worthy of full faith and credit, thus:

Thus, at the outset, it may be noted that accused-appellant places at issue the credibility of . . . Complainant's detailed and straight forward narration and demonstration
private complainant, upon whose testimony he was convicted. Once again, however, we in court how she was abused and raped bear the earmarks of truth. There is
have to stress that the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best no showing that she was ill motivated in filing the case against the
performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in accused.17
the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses presented at the trial. The
trial judge is thereby placed in a vantage position to discriminate finely between what is true Moreover, it is simply inconceivable that complaining witness, a 17-year-old lass 18 from a
and what is false8 in the versions given by the witnesses of the opposing parties. Appellate remote barrio in Rafael Palma, Diffun, Quirino, who was inexperienced with the ways of the
courts will not disturb the findings on the credibility, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court world, would fabricate a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
to the testimony of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the trial court had overlooked thereafter submit herself to the indignity of a public trail or endure a lifetime of ridicule, if
or disregarded arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case. 9On this she had not, in fact, been a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have
score, accused-appellant's plea that it was error to rely on the testimony of the complaining the culprit apprehended and punished. As well said, when a woman says she has been
witness is less than persuasive. raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.

The crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence it As borne out by the evidence, complainant was forced to submit to appellant's bestial desires
is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus. 10 As a through violence and intimidation. 19 When appellant pointed his bolo at complainant's neck,
while he was removing her skirt and underwear, there was indeed force and intimidation
33 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
directly against her person. When he warned her not to shout unless she wanted to die, his Moreover, settled is the rule that for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or
evident intentions to harm her could not be disputed. Even when appellant put down the intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as to be
bolo to remove his pants, the threat and intimidation continued, since he could pick up the irresistible. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the
bolo anytime, to stab her. In any event, the significant consideration is that, the violence and purpose which the accused had in mind. 26
intimidation were continuous as to engender fear for the safety of her life and limb.
Appellant would want to capitalize on the fact that there was no full or deep penetration of
Intimidation is said to be addressed to the mind of the victim. It is subjective and its complainant's vagina to negate the finding that rape had been committed. But penetration of
presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule, but must be viewed in the light of the a woman's sex organ is not an element of the crime of rape. Penile invasion of and contact
victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime. 20 It may be of the moral kind, with the labia would suffice. Note that even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of
such as the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife. 21 It is enough that it produces force, intimidation, or unconsciousness is already rape in our jurisdiction. 27 In order to
fear--fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial lust of the accused, something would sustain a conviction for rape, penetration of the female genital organ by the male is not
happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she indispensable. Neither rupture nor laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is required.
reports the incident. 22Intimidation would also explain why sometimes there are no traces of Thus, the fact that the complainant's hymen is intact and there is no sign of laceration will
struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker. 23 not negate a finding that rape was
committed. 28 In this case, what counts is the fact of contact with and penetration of the
Based on the record with the testimony of the complainant in the light of experience and sexual organ, no matter how slight. 29 There was, therefore, on this point no error on the
common sense, we entertain no doubt that appellant employed such amount of intimidation part of the trial court in concluding that indeed rape has been committed.
and violence sufficient to consummate rape. Appellant admittedly had been drinking and the
influence of alcohol on his conduct was undeniable. Moreover, according to the complainant, Accused-appellant likewise contends that complainant's acts and deeds after the assault was
appellant is much stronger than her. The physical superiority of appellant would show not unnatural and not in accord with the ordinary experience of mankind, for a rape victim
only when his body violently held down complainant's but also when her mind was subdued usually suffers trauma or even a nervous breakdown. But it has been repeatedly held by the
by his intimidating words and weapon at hand. Court, that different people react differently to emotional stress. There is no standard form of
behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind
Moreover, though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by an array of physical forces, he when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. 30 As held in People v.
so overpowers her mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of Luzorata, 31 "this Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should
greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is recognized in jurisprudence as behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt
rape. 24 Physical resistance need not be established in rape, when intimidation is exercised with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not
upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace be tainted with any modicum of doubt.
because of fear for life and personal safety. 25
Certain victims of rape might never be able to complain or file criminal charges against the
Undoubtedly, in the present case, complainant could not have safely resisted accused- rapist. They might bear the ignominy and pain of the offense in private, rather than reveal
appellant's unchaste urge as the latter poked the bolo he was holding first at her head, then their shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to kill or hurt the
at her neck. Threats, intimidation, violence, fear and terror all combined to suppress the will victims. 32 But the silence of the victim of rape, or her failure to disclose her state without
to resist, kick, shout or struggle against the rapist. Thus, despite her lack of strong resistance loss of time to persons close to her and to report the matter promptly to the authorities, will
or failure to shout in order to attract the attention of her boardmates, who were just sleeping not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested or that her charges
a few meters away in another room, she could not be considered as giving consent to his against the accused are baseless, untrue and fabricated. Mere failure to report the incident
attacker's bestial deed. Evidence shows that the appellant had undressed the complainant immediately will not cast doubt on the credibility of the charge. Even if delay could not be
and forcibly taken off her underwear while he was holding a bolo aimed at her neck, before attributed to death threats and intimidation made and exercised by the accused on the
he took off his pants and had sex with her. The consummation of the offense of rape could victim, 33 such failure in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy
not be any clearer. the truthper se of the complaint.

34 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Moreover, accused-appellant could not capitalize on the minor inconsistencies in the actual damages, P1,663,668.00 for the loss of earning capacity of the victim, P50,000.00 as
testimony of the complainant, even if they do exist. Such minor inconsistencies tend to moral damages and the costs of suit.
bolster, rather than weaken, her credibility for they show that her testimony was not
contrived nor rehearsed. Besides, errorless testimony could not be expected when The Information charged MARIO with murder allegedly committed as follows:
complainant is recounting details of a harrowing experience. No matter how courageous she
is, the act of filing a complaint and appearing in court would exact a heavy psychological and That on or about September 19, 1993 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
social toll on the victim who is usually twice victimized: by the rapist during the act of rape said accused conspiring and confederating with one whose true name, real
and by misguided elements of society which devalue the victim's worth. She would not be identity and present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping
expected to possess total recall and complete composure on the witness stand. each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and use
To conclude, we find the assigned error in this appeal utterly without basis. The conviction of personal violence upon one JOAQUIN NACIONAL Y BANEZ by then and there
the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape is supported by the shooting the latter with an unknown caliber revolver hitting him at the back
prosecution's evidence which could not be overthrown by the accused-appellant's self-serving of his right ear, thereby inflicting upon the said Joaquin Nacional y Banez a
denials. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we note that the award of moral damages mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his
is in order. 34 They are awarded to victims of rape cases involving young girls between death.2
thirteen and nineteen years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on
their youthful feminine psyche. 35 Such award is distinct from indemnity awarded to MARIO pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment on 17 December 1993.3
complainant for the injury that she suffers because of the offense committed on her person.
In this case, both indemnity and moral damages are justifiably called for.
Witnesses for the prosecution were Adelfa Nacional, Bienvenida Nacional, PO3 Rosales M.
Fernandez, PO3 Ireneo Manalili and Dr. Maximo Reyes. Witnesses for the defense were
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the court a MARIO, Domingo Pelio, Eva Torio and Edmundo Ventura.
quo imposing the penalty ofreclusion perpetua on accused-appellant is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ORDERED to pay the complainant
Adelfa Nacional, the wife of Joaquin Nacional, the victim, testified that on 19 September
indemnity in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos and moral damages also in the
1993, at around 10:00 p.m., in Area C, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila, she fetched
amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). Costs against appellant.
Joaquin from a wake. Before proceeding home, they first bought cigarettes from a store
owned by Joaquin's sister, Bienvenida Nacional. While were buying cigarettes, Adelfa was
SO ORDERED. about one arm's length to the left of Joaquin. She noticed two persons walk behind them.
One of the two, whom she identified as MARIO, moved to about a foot and a half behind her
6. G.R. No. 122746 January 29, 1999 husband, pulled a gun from his waist, pointed the gun below her husband's right ear and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, shot her husband. MARIO and his companion then ran towards a nearby alley. Joaquin fell to
vs. the ground and Adelfa shouted for help. According to Adelfa, the crime scene was illuminated
MARIO VILLANUEVA y FAUSTINO, accused-appellant. by a fluorescent lamp. 4

Adelfa recognized MARIO because she often saw him at the plaza which was near Adelfa's
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: house and a usual venue for cockfights. She remembered that about a year before the
incident, she saw her husband in front of their house having an "altercation" with MARIO
In a decision 1 rendered in Criminal Case No. 93-127826, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, over a cockfight. 5
Branch 28, found accused-appellant MARIO VILLANUEVA y FAUSTINO (hereafter MARIO)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as charged, and sentenced him to suffer the Adelfa again saw MARIO on the night of 22 September 1993 at the police station after she
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P53,800.00 as and Bienvenida Nacional were informed that MARIO had been apprehended. From a line-up
of eight persons, Adelfa identified Mario as her husband's killer. 6
35 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Adelfa spent P32,000.00 for her husband's coffin and P5,000.00 during the wake. Other Cyanosis, lips and nailbeds.
expenses related to her husband's funeral were paid for by her mother-in-law.
Contused abrasions: zygomatic area, right 2.0 x 2.0 cms.; mandibular area,
Adelfa further testified that her husband earned about P2,500.00 a week from selling fish, medical aspect, 1.0 x 0.5 cm.
and that because of his death, she suffered grief and wounded feelings, which could not "be
paid in terms of money." 7 Moreover, she also lost someone who could help her. 8 Gunshot wound, entrance, ovaloid, 0.7 x 0.8 cm., contusion collar widest at
its infero-lateral border, edges inverted with area of smudging and tatooing,
The prosecution wanted to present Yolanda Nacional, the victim's mother, to prove the 5.0 x 4.0 cms., located at the scalp, post-auricular area, right, 3.0 cms.
amount spent for funeral, but the defense stipulated that the victim's heirs spent P53,800.00 behind and 0.5 cm. above the right external auditory meatus, directed
for the purpose. 9 forwards, upwards and medially, involving the scalp, fracturing the right
temporal bone, into the cranial cavity, penetrating the right temporal lobe at
Bienvenida Nacional, the victim's sister, corroborated Adelfa's testimony as to the the brain where a deformed bullet was lodged and subsequently recovered.
circumstances attending the commission of the crime, but as viewed from a different angle
since Bienvenida was positioned about one arm's length in front of the victim. She tried to Other visceral organs, congested.
help lift her brother after he was shot, but in her nervousness and fear from seeing blood
flow from her brother's head, she was unaware that she had already run to the police station Stomach, contains small amount of rice and other partially digested food
to get help. At the station, she had the incident recorded in the police blotter and gave a particles.
physical description of MARIO and his companion. She was informed on 22 September 1993
that MARIO had been apprehended. 10 CAUSE OF DEATH: GUNSHOT WOUND AT THE HEAD.

Bienvenida surmised that the killing of her brother Joaquin was due to an altercation The fatal bullet entered from behind the victim's right ear with an upward trajectory,
between him and MARIO over a bet in a cockfight. During that altercation, which occurred at thus it was retrieved in the right temporal area. There was smudging or tattooing at
the plaza some ten days before the incident, Bienvenida pacified the two and told her brother the bullet's entry point, indicating that the muzzle of the gun was between three to
to go home, and the latter obeyed. She described her brother as the calmer one between the six inches away from said entry point. There were abrasions on the right zygomatic
two, and that during the altercation, he answered MARIO's grave and serious curses with area, that is, below the eye, indicating that the victim fell to the ground on his face
less grave curses. 11 This altercation was different from that reported by Adelfa which with force.15
occurred a year before the crime.
Domingo Pelio, the first defense witness, testified that he and MARIO were neighbors in
PO3 Rosales M. Fernandez arrested MARIO on the night of 22 September 1993, after Parola Compound, Tondo. On 19 September 1993, between 9:00 to 10:00 in the evening,
following a lead provided by another officer. Later that night, Fernandez arranged a police Pelio went to MARIO's house to ask for help in replacing a fuse in Pelio's fuse box at his
line-up where Adelfa Nacional pointed out MARIO as her husband's killer. Fernandez divulged house. MARIO was not at home, however, because according to his wife, MARIO was in
that MARIO was not assisted by counsel at the line-up, and admitted that Edgar Rioferio was Malinta, Caloocan City. After the incident in question, Pelio heard rumors from his neighbors
also arrested but the inquest fiscal ordered his release. 12 that MARIO was involved in said incident; and after he learned of MARIO's arrest, Pelio
went to police headquarters to ask MARIO about the killing. MARIO said that he had nothing
PO3 Ireneo Manalili received Bienvenida Nacional's report on the night of the incident and to do with the killing. Pelio then executed an affidavit attesting to MARIO's innocence, which
entered it in the police blotter. 13 With Bienvenida, he went to the crime scene to investigate. he filed with the City Prosecutor's Office. 16

Dr. Maximo Reyes, National Bureau of Investigation Medico-Legal Officer, conducted the Eva Torio testified that she knew MARIO as the brother of her neighbor and friend Nilda. On
post-mortem examination on the victim. His findings were summarized in an autopsy 19 September 1993, at about 2:00 p.m., MARIO brought carabao skin to the Torio residence
report 14 as follows: at Sitio Gitna, Kaybiga, Caloocan City, for Eva's husband's birthday party. From 2:00 to 4:00
that afternoon, MARIO, one Boyet, and Eva's husband prepared and cooked the carabao
36 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
skin. The group brought five cases of beer then engaged in a drinking session. She stayed The trial court determined that there was treachery in the killing of Joaquin Nacional since
with the group, although she did not join in the drinking but only sat beside her husband. the attack came from behind the victim with a concealed weapon which was suddenly fired
She slept at 10:30 p.m. while the three were still drinking. The next morning, at around 6:00 at the victim. The victim was completely unaware of the attack and was thus totally
p.m., Torio went to Nilda's house where MARIO slept. She asked him to build a fusebox for defenseless. The court then decreed as follows:
her, which he completed between 8:00 to 9:00 that morning. 17
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
Edmundo Ventura testified that he joined in the drinking session, which lasted until midnight. crime of murder in the shooting of Joaquin Nacional y Banez, the accused,
MARIO never left the group except when he took his dinner, but he returned shortly Mario Villanueva, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
thereafter. When the drinking session ended, Ventura left with MARIO and a certain Rony perpetua, the medium period of the penalty prescribed for murder under
Macapobre, and Ventura saw MARIO enter Nilda's house. 18 Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, there being no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance. The duration of said penalty shall be that provided
MARIO reiterated the story told by the defense witnesses. The trial court summarized his in Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code before it was amended by R.A. No.
testimony as follows: 7659.

[T]hat on September 19, 1993, at 10:00 . . . in the evening, he was in Sitio The accused is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Joaquin Nacional in the sum
Gitna, Kaybiga, Kalookan City; that he left his house that day at about 10:30 of P50,000.00; to pay the widow, Adelfa Nacional, and the mother, Yolanda
in the morning, passed by Divisoria and bought carabao and cow skins or Nacional, actual damages in the sum of P53,800.00; to pay the heirs of
hides, which he bought with him to Gitna to be cooked or made Joaquin Nacional for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased in the sum
into kilawinas pulutan in the house of Jun Torio; that they finished cooking at of P1,663,680.00; and to pay moral damages to the widow, Adelfa Nacional,
4:00 p.m., and after they had bought beer they started drinking up to 12 . . . in the sum of P50,000.00; and finally, the accused must pay the costs.
midnight; that he did not leave Sitio Gitna, Kaybiga, Kalookan City; and that
he went home to his house in Area C, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila, on SO ORDERED.
September 20, 1993, at 11:00 . . . in the morning. 19
The award for loss of earning capacity was computed in accordance with the decision
Additionally, MARIO explained that the victim was once a friend of his, but Adelfa in Monzon v. Intermediate Appellate Court. 23 His Motion for reconsideration 24 having been
Nacional accused him of killing the victim because sometime in 1992, "in a highway denied by the trial court in its order 25 of 18 September 1995, MARIO interposed this appeal.
near [MARIO's] place," the victim lost P20.00 to MARIO in a game of cara y
cruz. 20 The victim's family also harbored ill feelings towards MARIO because he In his Appellant's Brief, MARIO claims that the trial court erred in:
refused to testify for Joaquin Nacional in two criminal case, including one for the
killing of a son of MARIO'scompadre, where Joaquin Nacional was one of the 1. not giving credit to the accused-appellant's testimony and
accused. 21 that of his witnesses, and in disregarding his defense of
alibi;
In its decision 22 of 14 June 1995, the trial court gave full faith and credence to the
testimonies of the witness for the prosecution, describing them as candid, straightforward 2. giving credence to the testimonies of the two prosecution
and frank. The trial court took judicial notice of the volume of traffic from Caloocan City to witnesses, who are related to the victim; and in holding that
Tondo, and concluded that it was not impossible for MARIO to have been at the scene of the the accused-appellant was positively and spontaneously
crime at the time of its commission. The trial court likewise dismissed MARIO's contention identified by these prosecution witnesses; and
that the Nacionals wanted to get even with him for his refusal to testify for Joaquin Nacional
in the criminal cases filed against the latter. The court noted that these cases were filed
3. concluding that the guilt of the accused for the crime of
several years before the victim was even married, hence MARIO's refusal to testify was
murder has been established by evidence beyond reasonable
inconsequential.
doubt.
37 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
As to the first error assigned, MARIO scores the trial court for venturing into conjecture, A Yes, sir.
particularly in the following portion of the decision:
Q And what did she do if any?
Sitio Gitna, Kaybiga, Kalookan City is located midway between, and lies along
Gen. Luis Street which joins Novaliches and the Valenzuela Exit of the North A She also cried.
Expressway. General Luis St. is a two lane road where many vehicles, private
and public, pass everyday, but as the day wanes and advances into the night Q And did she tell you anything, while you were embracing
the traffic volume lessens at between the hours of 9:00 and 11:00 and travel your husband?
is fast either way to Novaliches or to the North Expressway, such that in less
than an hour, one can get to Tondo, Manila, whether through Novaliches
A Yes, sir. According to her, it was Mario who shot my
along Quirino Highway to Balintawak, or from Valenzuela Exit along the
husband. 27
North Expressway to Balintawak, then EDSA to Grace Park, Kalookan City,
then to J. Abad Santos Avenue to Tondo. Of these facts this court can take
judicial notice. And in a taxicab, of which the accused by his own testimony, MARIO further claims that Adelfa's testimony was less than candid and straightforward as
is a driver, the travel time will be much less. It was not physically impossible illustrated by the following segment:
for the accused to be at the scene of the shooting of Joaquin Nacional. 26
Q And then Mrs. witness, while he [Joaquin Nacional] was
where the trial court assumed that traffic from MARIO's original location to the crime then buying cigarettes, he was standing about one arm's
scene was light and that he could readily avail of means of transportation. length, what happened next?

MARIO insists on his testimony that he was in Caloocan City in the middle of a drinking A Somebody arrived and shot my husband at the back of the
spree, which was corroborated by number of defense witnesses. MARIO claims that he and lower portion of his right ear sir. 28
his witnesses were candid, straightforward and frank, and considering that the corroborating
witnesses were neither related to him nor good friends of his, they had no reason to lie. and argues that if Adelfa positively identified him as the gunman, she should have
forthwith stated his name instead of simply referred to him as "Somebody."
Although MARIO admits it could have been possible for him to be at the crime scene, he
asserts that the prosecution failed to establish this possibility as fact by proof beyond MARIO also questions his arrest three days after the commission of the crime. If he was
reasonable doubt. indeed positively identified, he should have been immediately arrested. Additionally, at the
police line-up on 24 September 1993. Adelfa identified Edgar Rioferio y Medano as MARIO's
Anent the second assigned error, MARIO expresses doubts that prosecution witnesses were companion on the night of the crime, yet Rioferio was released by the police.
able to positively identify him as the killer of the victim. In the first place, no ocular
inspection of the crime scene was ever conducted, hence lighting conditions, which the trial On the third assigned error, MARIO claims the prosecution presented no hard evidence, such
court concluded were sufficient for a positive identification, were not definitely determined. as a paraffin test, fingerprints, blood samples or clothing, to indubitably link him to the crime.
He adds that even if a place were lit, "light casts shadows and can play tricks with a person's The prosecution merely had and relied on the prosecution witnesses' testimony; which
sight." Also, MARIO was shorter than the victim, hence it was possible for the victim to have MARIO claims was insufficient to dispel reasonable doubt. In sum, he assesses the
blocked the view of Bienvenida and prevented her from clearly seeing the assailant. prosecution's evidence as circumstantial and conjectural.
Moreover, Adelfa Nacional's identification was flawed since it was merely instilled in her mind
by Bienvenida Nacional, as shown by Adelfa's testimony: In the Appellee's Brief, the Solicitor General belittles MARIO's defense of alibi, and asserts
that for alibi to prosper, an accused must prove not only that he was not at the crime scene
Q Do you still remember Madam witness, what did you and at the time of the commission of the crime, but that it was absolutely impossible for him to
your sister-in-law do if any, after your husband was shot? have been there at that time. Furthermore, assuming that the defense witnesses were telling

38 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
the truth that they were drinking with MARIO, none of them categorically admitted that they not know MARIO's whereabouts from 10:30 p.m. of 9 September 1993 to 6:00 a.m. the
kept an eye on him at all times from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight of 19 September 1993. following day; 30 Edmundo Ventura admitted that MARIO momentarily left the drinking
Hence, MARIO was unable to demonstrate the feasibility of his alibi. session and the Torio residence to take dinner; 31 and Domingo Pelio revealed that a trip
from Malinta, where MARIO allegedly was on 19 September 1993, to Manila, would take only
On MARIO's contention that the eyewitnesses' relation to the victim clouded their reliability, half an hour, and at any rate, Pelio did not personally know that MARIO was in Malinta. 32
the Office of the Solicitor General replies that relationship is not equal to bias; on the
contrary, a witness' relationship with the victim would deter him or her from indiscriminately We acknowledge that the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the travel time from
implicating anybody in the crime. As to MARIO's comment on the lighting conditions at the Caloocan City to Tondo, since the same can not be considered a law of nature, nor was it
crime scene, responds that a witness' familiarity with another person makes it easy for the shown to be capable of unquestionable demonstration or to be of public knowledge, nor
former to identify the latter. Adelfa and Bienvenida Nacional were not only familiar with could it have been known to the trial judge due to the nature of his judicial functions. 33 But
MARIO, but they knew him quite well, thus making it easy for them to identify him. The point the point remains that MARIO failed to prove that he could not have been at the crime scene
as regards MARIO's height was likewise inconsequential since two eyewitnesses clearly at the time of the commission of the crime. On the contrary, he even admitted that it was
recognized and positively identified him as the assailant. If at all, that MARIO was shorter possible for him to be at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission, but he was
than the victim conformed with the evidence that the fatal bullet took an upward trajectory. confident that the prosecution failed to disprove this circumstance by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. MARIO's confidence betrays a misconception of which party has the
As to Bienvenida's reference to MARIO in her testimony as "Somebody," the Office of the burden of providing alibi. It is settled that alibi is an affirmative defense 34 and, considering
Solicitor General asserts that it is not necessary for the name of the accused to be specified that it is easy to concoct, when an accused relies thereon, he has the burden of proving
by a witness in an affidavit or testimony since victims of crimes can not always identify their it, i.e., that he could not have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 35
assailants by name.
MARIO failed in this task, as in fact he relinquished his duty to the prosecution, which, in
Lastly, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that although the police waited for three turn, was not bound to perform the same for him.
days before arresting MARIO, said action or inaction was the fault of the authorities and not
a factor that could affect the eyewitnesses' credibility. The already feeble defense of alibi further weakens in the face of positive identification of the
accused. Equally cognizant of this canon, MARIO sought to cast doubt on his positive
There being sufficient evidence to convict MARIO, the Office of the Solicitor General identification by the eyewitnesses, speculating as to the presence of shadows and the
dismisses as unnecessary the other evidence that MARIO seeks. If presented, these pieces of relative positions of the victim and the assailant. These speculations are, however, unworthy
evidence would only be corroborative of the eyewitnesses' positive identification of MARIO as of consideration and must remain mere speculations, for the eyewitnesses categorically
the assailant. At any rate, choosing which evidence to present to the trial court is the stated that they saw MARIO shoot the victim.
prosecutor's prerogative.
MARIO also misunderstood Adelfa when he interpreted the latter's testimony to mean that
We find no merit in this appeal. Bienvenida suggested to her that MARIO shot the victim. Construing Adelfa's testimony in its
entirety, and not merely taking a portion out of context, we find that Bienvenida merely
Alibi, upon which MARIO's defense hinges upon, is the weakest of defenses. For alibi to confirmed what Adelfa saw. In fact, on cross-examination, Adelfa insisted that she saw
prosper, an accused must prove that not only was he absent at the scene of the crime at the MARIO shoot her husband, thus:
time of its commission, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be so situated at
said instance. 29 MARIO set out to prove his alibi by claiming that he was in Caloocan City Q: Now, while you were embracing your husband who was
engaged in a drinking spree from 2:00 p.m. to midnight. But as the Office of the Solicitor lying on his back and you were crying profusely and
General pointed out, MARIO failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have continuously someone from behind said that a certain
been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. None of the corroborating "Mario" shot your husband?
witnesses kept so close a watch on MARIO as to be able to account for his whereabouts
during the entire period from 2:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight: Eva Torio admitted that she did PROSECUTOR
39 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Again, Your Honor, the witness already said that she cannot one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the
remember what happened after the shooting. trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
ATTY. LEYBLE during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered; might affect the result of the case. 38 For this case boils down to an appraisal of
My question, Your Honor, is that since she remembered that the credibility of the witnesses, and we cannot undertake the assessment with accuracy
there were many people around and at the time she was when all we have before us are the cold, unspeaking records of the case; otherwise we
crying if she heard somebody saying that it was "Mario" who would make the same mistakes that Mario committed. Instead, we rely on the evaluation by
shot her husband, Your Honor. the trial judge, who had the advantage of directly observing witness' deportment and manner
of testifying, as well as having certain potent aids in understanding and weighing the
testimony of witnesses, such as the emphasis, gesture and inflection of the voice of the
COURT
witnesses while on the stand. 39
Let the witness answer.
We see no oversight on the part of the trial court which would justify nullifying its
determination of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Not even MARIO's allegation of
WITNESS bias against the eyewitnesses due to their relationship to the victim persuades us.
Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does
36
A: I did not hear anything. I saw it myself. it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. The natural interest
of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would
That Adelfa referred to MARIO as "Somebody," instead naming him, is of no moment. One deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits, otherwise, the guilty would
must consider that the examining counsel was taking Adelfa step by step through her story, go unpunished. A witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her
and the question propounded to her did not require that she immediately name the assailant. testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in
But earlier in her testimony Adelfa identified MARIO by name because the questions asked vindicating the crime to accuse thereof somebody other than the real culprit. 40
her were as follows:
Regarding MARIO's refusal to testify for Joaquin Nacional in the criminal cases against the
Q What was the cause of death your husband? latter, the Nacionals could not have borne any ill motive against MARIO due to the same,
because said cases were in fact dismissed, even without MARIO's testimony. Without any ill
A He was shot sir. motive to encourage them to falsely testify against MARIO, we find the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses to be credible and trustworthy, consistent with the trial court's assessment of
Q By whom? these witnesses.

A By Mario Villanueva sir. 37 Because credible witnesses had already demonstrated MARIO's culpability, there was no
need to present further evidence linking him to the crime. There is no requirement of a
certain quantity of evidence before one may be justly convicted for an offense. The only
At any rate then, Adelfa identified "Somebody" as none other than MARIO.
requisite is that the prosecution prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution in the instant case successfully accomplished its task.
We fail to see how the arrest of MARIO three days after Adelfa reported the crime to the
police could mean that Adelfa failed to identify MARIO. Clearly a third party's action or
Finally, the trial court correctly held that there was treachery in this case. There is treachery
inaction cannot affect a witness credibility.
when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly or specifically to ensure its execution,
MARIO'S reliance on the transcripts of the testimonies, which he quoted out of context, has without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 41 The
led him to unfounded conclusions and justifies our well-ingrained rule that when the issue is
40 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
victim was not aware of any impending attack against his person, and even Adelfa Nacional, A Yes, Your Honor.
who had seen MARIO approach her husband, was surprised by the suddenness with which
MARIO shot her husband. Under these circumstances, the victim was clearly deprived of an xxx xxx xxx
opportunity to defend himself, thus ensuring the execution of the offense without risk to
MARIO. Hence, there was treachery. FISCAL VIOLA:

There is, however, the matter of lost income awarded by the trial court in favor of the heirs Q By the way Mrs. Witness, when your husband died
of the victim. Although the award was not objected to by MARIO, we feel the same is when he was stabbed [sic] how old was he at that time?
unjustified, hence must be deleted. In fixing the award, the trial court relied on the
unsubstantiated and incomplete testimony of Adelfa Nacional, specifically the following:
A 28 years old, sir.

Q Do you have children by Joaquin Nacional?


Q And what was his physical condition at that time?

A Yes, Your Honor.


A He was healthy, sir.

Q How many?
Q And do you think with that present condition physical
condition up to what age can he still work to provide finance
A Two, Your Honor. for your family?

Q When Joaquin Nacional was alive who support it? ATTY. LEBLE:

A Me, sir, I was selling fish then. I think the witness incompetent, Your Honor.

Q Joaquin Nacional was not supporting your children? FISCAL VIOLA:

A Sometimes Your Honor, he helps me in vending fish. She competent Your Honor, she is the wife, Your Honor.

Q Do you know what was his income more or less per COURT:
month?
At any rate there is a rule for that provided by the Supreme
A Sometimes Your Honor, we earned P5,000.00 a week. Court. 42

Q How much was he earned share of Joaquin Nacional in The rule alluded to by the trial judge dates back to Alcantara v. Surro, 43 where the Court,
that earning? using the American Experience/Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial or Combined
Experience Table of Mortality, estimated the life span of an average human being to be up to
A P2,500.00, Your Honor. 80 years old, and with that in mind, computed the estimated income to be earned by the
deceased had he or she not been killed. But the compensation for lost income is in the
Q Was that his regular income? nature of damages, 44 and as such requires due proof of the damage suffered. 45 For lost
income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income.
Adelfa gave only a self-serving, hence unreliable, statement of her husband's income. Also,
41 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
the award for lost income refers to the net income of the deceased, that is, his total income which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his
less his average expenses. 46 In the instant case, no proof of the victim's expenses was heirs in such amount as may be proven at the trial.
presented, thus there can be no reliable estimate of his lost income.

WHEREFORE, the decision in Criminal Case No. 93-127826 by Branch 28 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, rendered on 14 June 1995, finding accused-appellant MARIO VILLANUEVA y
FAUSTINO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the award for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is deleted. The
rest of the decision stands.

Costs against accused-appellant.1wphi1.nt

SO ORDERED.

7. G.R. No. 129556 November 11, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
REY GADO, accused-appellant.
During trial, the prosecution adduced the inculpatory facts through Fernando Reyes, Melencio
Manalang, Sr. (the victim's father), and Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, then Acting Chief of the NBI
Medico-Legal Division, which may be summarized as follows:

MELO, J.: On the evening of January 30, 1992, the victim and some of his friends were having a
drinking session at the house of Juanito Vicente. Shortly thereafter, the victim decided to
Accused-appellant Rey Gado seeks reversal of the judgment of conviction rendered by leave and accused-appellant Rey Gado and Juanito Vicente decided to bring him home. With
Branch 276 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in them were a certain Emma and her brother whose name the victim failed to mention. On
Muntinlupa City. their way, and while they were along Fleur De Liz Street, the victim was held by his
companions and he was stabbed in the abdomen by Rey Gado. As the victim freed himself
The Information dated July 14, 1992 charging accused-appellant and his co-accused Emma from his assailants, the latter fled. He immediately grabbed a stone and hurled it at them.
Gallos with Murder pertinently alleged:
While he was proceeding home, he was chanced upon by barangay tanod Fernando Reyes
That on or about the 30th day of January, 1992, in the who offered to help him home. At about 9 o'clock that evening, he reached their house. He
Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, Philippines, and immediately slumped on the floor and asked his father to bring him to the hospital. Upon his
within and jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- father's query, the victim identified Rey Gado as his assailant.
named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with While aboard a jeep on their way to Perpetual Help Hospital at Las Pias, Metro Manila, the
intent to kill, with treachery, while armed with a bladed victim once more related what happened to him, identifying the other companions of Rey
weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and Gado. He was given medical attention at Perpetual Help Hospital but about four hours
feloniously stab Melencio M. Manalang, Jr. in his abdomen as thereafter, at around 2 o'clock early morning of January 31, 1992, he succumbed.
a result of which said victim sustained a serious body injury

42 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
On September 15, 1992, an Information charging Rey Gado and Emma Gallos was filed in THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
court. An order for the arrest of the accused was accordingly issued on September 17, 1992, APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
but the same was left unserved. The trial court ordered the case to be archived on February
22, 1993. It was not until May 30, 1994 when Rey Gado, one of the two accused, was served After carefully going over accused-appellant's arguments as well as the evidentiary record,
an alias writ of arrest by the PNP Criminal Service Command of the Cavite Provincial Office we find his appeal wanting in merit.
while detained at Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna due to a charge of Robbery/Hold Up
before the Municipal Trial Court of Carmona, Cavite (p. 11, Record). On the issue of witness Fernando Reyes's retraction, the trial court, in its order denying the
motion for reconsideration of accused-appellant, explained thus:
On November 21, 1994, both accused-appellant Rey Gado, and his co-accused Emma Gallos,
who voluntarily appeared in court upon notice, were arraigned and both entered a plea of After carefully evaluating the grounds relied upon in the
not guilty. Emma Gallos was then also ordered to be detained. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR NEW TRIAL, this
Court holds that the conviction of accused Rey Gado is not
The two accused, on their part, sought refuge in their defense of alibi. Rey Gado claimed to only based on the affidavit of the eye witness which
have been tending the store of his brother at Sucat, Cupang, Muntinlupa, about five admittedly was recanted by the affiant, but also on the
kilometers away from the place where the incident happened, while Emma Gallos averred declaration of the victim who told his father Melencio
that she was at home tending to her sick daughter. Manalang, Sr. that he was stabbed by accused; at a time
when this victim Melencio Manalang, Jr. felt he was
The trial court rendered judgment acquitting Emma Gallos. Rey Gado was, however, weakening, and therefore conscious of an impending death .
convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to suffer "the penalty of reclusion perpetua . ..
. . and [to] indemnify the heirs of his victim the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay P50,000.00 as
reimbursement for the medical and burial expenses. . ." Hence, the present appeal anchored
on the following assigned errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE


AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS FERNANDO REYES.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING MELENCIO


MANALANG'S TESTIMONY AS A DYING DECLARATION.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT LENDING CREDENCE


TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S ALIBI.
We find no further reason to entertain the argument of accused-appellant on this matter. We
IV shall instead look into whether or not sufficient evidence remains to sustain the conviction of
accused-appellant for the crime charged.

43 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Accused-appellant vigorously takes exception to the trial court's admission of the testimony kasamang isang babae nagngangalang EMMA at isang lalaki
of Melencio Manalang, Sr., who testified in regard to the statements and declarations of his na hindi ko alam ang pangalan na kapatid ni EMMA. Noong
son concerning his assailants, claiming that the said declarations are not in the nature of a nasa daan na sila ang Fleur de Luz St. sa ilalim ng puno ng
dying declaration for the simple reason that they were not made under a clear consciousness aratiles ay doon na raw siya sinaksak ni REY GADO sa may
of an impending death. tiyan. Noong nakabitaw si MELENCIO MANALANG, JR. ay
nakadampot pa siya ng bato at pinukol ang grupo nina REY
We are not persuaded. GADO na nakanya-kanya na ng takbo. Noong pauwi na siya
ay nasalubong daw niya si FERNANDO REYES, isang
Forthwith, we must stress that with regard to the credibility of Melencio Manalang, Sr. as Barangay Tanod na siyang naghatid sa kanya sa bahay.
witness, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's findings. The settled and time-tested Pagdating sa bahay ay inihatid na namin siya sa hospital ng
jurisprudence is that the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of Perpetual Help Medical Center, Las Pias, Metro Mla. na
witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts for the reason that trial courts have the kung saan siya ay nalagutan ng hininga ng bandang alas-dos
advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify (People vs. Cabiles, G.R. ng madaling araw ng January 31, 1992.
No. 112035, January 16, 1998; People vs. Moran, 241 SCRA 709 [1995]; People vs. Gamiao,
240 SCRA 254 [1995]). In the absence of any arbitrariness in the trial court's findings and
evaluation of evidence which tends to show that it overlooked certain material facts and
circumstances, such findings and evaluation of evidence should be respected on review
(People vs. Dio, 226 SCRA 176 [1993]). The presiding judge of the trial court had the
opportunity to actually observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses on the witness
stand while being asked direct-examination questions by the prosecution, cross-examination
questions by the defense, as well as clarificatory questions by the trial judge himself.
Between the trial judge and this Court, the former is in a far better position to determine
whether a witness is telling the truth or not. From the records before us we find no reason to
disturb the trial court's assessment and to discredit Melencio Manalang, Sr. as a witness.

The central issue to be resolved is whether the statements, uttered by the victim before he
died partake of the nature of a dying declaration or not.

The Court finds in the affirmative.

Through the dying declarations of the victim as related by his father, Melencio Manalang, Sr.
before Atty. Pepito Tan at the National Bureau of Investigation, National Capital Region (Taft
The witness reiterated the material points of this sworn statement during his testimony
Avenue, Manila), the identity of the killer was established in this case, to wit:
before the trial court. He also established the basis for the admissibility of the dying
declaration, as an exception to the hearsay rule, to wit:
07. T: Maari bang isalaysay mo ang buong pangyayari ayon
sa pagkakakuwento sa iyo ng biktima na si MELENCIO
COPY
MANALANG, JR.?

Q. You said that the victim when he arrived


S: Ayon po sa aking anak, nag-inuman silang magbabarkada
at your house he was holding his wounds?
sa bahay ni JUANITO VICENTE at nang siya ay malasing na
inihatid siya ni REY GADO at JUANITO VICENTE na may
44 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
A. Yes, your honor. A. He told me that he was stabbed by Rey
Gado, your honor.
Q. Immediately when he arrived at your
house, what did he do? Q. And, so he asked you to bring him to the
hospital because he was getting weak?
A. He sat down, your honor.
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. He sat down, where?
Q. He told you that he was only feeling
A. He sat down on the floor, your honor. weak. Did you tell him or did you ask him if
he did something or if he wants to eat or
Q. And, you talk at him? anything?

A. Yes, your honor. A. I did not say anything, your honor.

Q. And, he was just sitting on the floor, and Q. Did he say, he did something?
was he was holding his wounds?
A. No, your honor.
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. He just told you to bring him to hospital
Q. And, did you see any blood coming from because he was getting weak?
his wounds?
A. Yes, your honor.
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. Now, did you ask him where he was
Q. Now, did you ask him how he felt? stabbed?

A. He told me to bring him to the hospital, A. Yes, your honor, he said that he was
your honor. stabbed in the stomach, your honor.

Q. Did he tell you why he should be taken to (


the hospital? p
p
.
A. Because he is getting weak, your honor.
1
Q. Now, did you ask him why he was getting 7
weak? -
2
0

45 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
, nature of his wounds (People vs. Sarabia, 127 SCRA 100 [1984] and the fact that the said
victim died shortly afterwards (People v. Araja, 105 SCRA 133 [1981]).
t
s Even assuming that the victim's utterances were not made under a firm belief of an
n impending death, the victim's statements may, at the very least, form part of the res gestae.
, For the admission of evidence as part of the res gestae, it is required that (a) the principal
act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence, (b) the statements forming part thereof were
A made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive, and (c) the statements refer to
p the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances (People vs. Siscar, 140 SCRA 316
r [1985]). We have ruled that while the statement of the victim may not qualify as a dying
i declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of impending death (People vs.
l Palamos, 49 Phil. 601 [1926]), it may still be admissible as part of the res gestae if it was
made immediately after the incident (People vs. Reyes, 52 Phil. 538 [1928]), or a few hours
1 thereafter (People vs. Tumalip, 60 SCRA 303 [1974]). Definitely, the victim's statement in the
0 case at hand was made immediately after the incident, before he could even have the
, opportunity to contrive or concoct a story. Of relevance, too, is the fact that on two
occasions, first at their house, and later while he was being brought to the hospital, he
1 identified one and the same person as his assailant.
9
9 Where the elements of both a dying declaration and a statement as part of the res
5 gestae are present, as in the case at bar, the statement may be admitted as a dying
) declaration and at the same time as part of the res gestae (People vs. Balbas, 122 SCRA 859
[1983]).
As a rule, a dying declaration is hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. In order that a
dying declaration may be admissible as evidence, four requisites must concur, namely: that From a perusal of the decision of the trial court, one gets the impression that the supposed
the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's eyewitness account was heavily relied upon. Thus, on motion for reconsideration, accused-
death; that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness appellant pointed to the inevitable fact that because of retraction by the supposed
of an impending death; that the declarant is competent as a witness; and that the eyewitness of the sworn statement executed by him before the investigating officer, full
declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide, in which the credence thereto may no longer be accorded. The trial court justified the conviction anyway,
declarant is a victim (People vs. Israel, 231 SCRA 155 [1994]; People vs. Lazarte, 200 SCRA upon the strength of the dying declaration as related by Melencio Manalang, Sr.
361 [1991]).
The court has re-assessed the evidence of the prosecution minus the supposed eyewitness
Capitalizing on the fact that the victim was still able to stand and walk even after the first account to determine whether it would be correct to convict accused-appellant of murder,
declaration was made, accused-appellant contends that there could not have possibly been a and not simple homicide. This Court finds ample basis to uphold the conviction of accused-
belief of a looming and impending death on the part of the victim. appellant for the killing of Melencio Manalang, Jr. qualified by treachery, as alleged in the
Information.
We cannot quite agree. From the established facts in the case at bar, the trial court correctly
considered the declaration of the victim a dying declaration and, therefore, admissible. The While the victim was being brought to the Perpetual Help Hospital at Las Pias, Metro Manila
declarant was conscious of his impending death. This may be gleaned not only from the boarded on a jeep hired for the purpose, the victim related the following to his father.
victim's insistence right after he reached their house that he should immediately be brought
to the hospital and that he was becoming weaker by the moment, but also from the serious
FISCAL DE JOYA:
46 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Q. What was your conversation, between ,
you and your son?
A
A. He told me that he was stabbed by Rey p
Gado under the tree of alatires, ma'am. r
i
Q. And what else did your son tell you? l

1
A. He was able to free himself from the
0
person who was holding him, he got a stone
,
and he cast stone to the person who
stabbed him, ma'am.
1
9
Q. You said that your son told you that one 9
Rey Gado stabbed him? 5
)
A. Yes, ma'am.
It seems fairly established, therefore, that more than one person attacked the victim. While
Q. What else did your son tell you about the he was being stabbed by accused-appellant, some of the companions of accused-appellant
said stabbing incident? were holding the victim in a defenseless position. The manner in which the stabbing was
done tended directly and specially to ensure its execution, affording the victim no chance to
A. Besides the is being stabbed, he told me put up any defense. This constitutes alevosia. The killing, therefore, was qualified to murder.
that this Rey Gado has companions in the It is to be noted also that accused-appellant and his companions were supposed to assist the
name of Emma Gallos, Juanito Vicente and a victim home. However, instead of bringing him safely home, accused-appellant and his
certain person who is a tall guy and one companions ganged up on the victim, who had no inkling of any impending attack, having
John Doe, ma'am. placed himself in the safekeeping of persons who then turned vicious assailants.

( The defense of alibi presents itself to be very weak vis--vis the evidence adduced by the
p prosecution pointing to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Besides, as
p correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in the People's Brief.
.
For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused
9 to prove that he has been elsewhere when the crime was
- committed but he must further demonstrate that it would
1 have been physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
0 the crime at the time of its commission. (People vs.
, Esquilona, 248 SCRA 139 [1995]).

t
s
n
47 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
p A party is entitled to an adequate compensation for such
. pecuniary loss actually suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such damages, to be recoverable, must not only be
8 capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a
- reasonable degree of certainty. We must emphasize that
9 these damages cannot be presumed, and courts, in making
, an award must point out specific facts which could afford a
basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual
A damages are borne.
p
p
e
l
l
e
e
'
s

The Baward of actual and compensatory damages in the case at bar must, therefore,
r
be reduced to the amount duly proved at the trial which is to P23,217.65.
i
e
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the
f
MODIFICATION as to the actual damages as hereinabove indicated. No special
.
pronouncement is made as to costs.
)
SO ORDERED.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Murder is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death, both indivisible penalties. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances, the trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellant to the lower penalty G.R. No. 116279 January 29, 1996
of reclusion perpetua.
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
The trial court likewise correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. vs.
However, we do not see how the award of actual damages in the same amount may be ROGELIO CRISTOBAL, accused-appellant.
justified in the light of the evidence tending to show that only the total amount of P23,217.65
was actually spent (see: Exhibit F-II, p. 9 Folder of Exhibits). It is elementary that actual and DECISION
compensatory damages, unlike moral and exemplary damages, cannot be left to the sole
discretion of the court. In Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 3348 [1995] we DAVIDE, JR., J.:
stressed that:
Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to
justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral

48 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim CONTRARY TO LAW.
for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act,1 an outrage upon decency and dignity that hurts
not only the victim but the society itself. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 604 and assigned to Branch 32 of the said
court.
The pain rape causes becomes more excruciating when the victim carries the life of an
unborn within her womb. That tender and innocent life, born of love and its parents' A warrant of arrest was issued on 18 October 1987. Because it was returned unserved,
participation in the mystery of life, is thereby placed in undue danger. Such was the case of an alias warrant of arrest was issued on 1 February 1988, which was also returned unserved.
Cherry Tamayo, a married woman. She was twenty-eight years old, with one child and The trial court then ordered the archival of the case and the arrest of the accused. 11
another on the way, when tragedy struck. She was sexually assaulted on 31 March 1986.
Fortunately, the life in her womb survived. It was only on 27 July 1993 when accused Rogelio Cristobal was arrested and detained at the
provincial jail. 12 On 21 October 1993, the Provincial Prosecutor filed a Manifestation for the
She accused Rogelio Cristobal of rape in a sworn complaint 2 filed with the Municipal Trial revival of the case,13 which the court favorably acted upon.14
Court (MTC) of Maddela, Quirino, on 8 April 1986.
Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
Having found sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that the crime charged has
been committed and the accused was probably guilty thereof, the court ruled that the The prosecution presented the offended party, Cherry Tamayo, and the physician who
accused should be held for trial.3 Accordingly, it issued a warrant for his arrest4 and fixed his conducted a medical examination on her, Dr. Mercedita S. Erni-Reta. The defense presented
bail bond at P17,000.00. 5 The accused was arrested but was later released on the accused Rogelio Cristobal and his employer, Wilfredo Manzano, who is married to the
bail.6 Thereafter, the court increased the amount of bail to P30,000.00 and, consequently, accused's cousin, Emilia Manzano. Being merely corroborative to the testimonies of the first
ordered the rearrest of the accused.7 Unfortunately, by this time, he was nowhere to be two defense witnesses that at the time of the alleged commission of the crime the accused
found. was hired by the Manzano spouses to plow their field, 15 the testimony of Mrs. Emilia Manzano
was admitted by the prosecution to expedite the disposition of the case.16
On 26 August 1986, the MTC ordered the case to be "sent to the files without prejudice to its
subsequent prosecution as soon as the defendant is apprehended." 8 Almost a year after, or The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:
specifically on 24 August 1987, the said court ordered the records of the case to be
forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal for proper disposition. 9
In the morning of 31 March 1986, Cherry Tamayo, a resident of Barangay San Dionisio I,
Maddela, Quirino, went to the nearby Bilala Creek to wash her family's clothes. She was
On 15 September 1987, the Provincial Fiscal of Quirino filed with the Regional Trial Court alone. At around midday, between the hours of 12:00 and 1:00 and after accomplishing her
(RTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino, an information10 charging accused Rogelio Cristobal with the task, she decided to take a bath in the creek. She was about to start when somebody held
crime of rape committed as follows: her neck from behind and thereafter forcibly laid her down the ground. Only then did she
recognize her attacker, the accused Rogelio Cristobal. Cherry managed to stand up and run
That between the hours of 12:00 to 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March 31, 1986 away, but Rogelio caught up with her and delivered two fistblows to her stomach. Not
in Barangay San Dionisio I, Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino, Philippines content with this, Rogelio, while viciously holding her hair, pressed down Cherry's face into
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by the water. Rogelio then took her three meters away from the creek and forcibly laid her
means of force, threat and intimidation and with lewd design, wilfully, unlawfully and down on the ground. Because of her weakened and pregnant state, Cherry could not
feloniously have sexual intercourse with one CHERRY A. TAMAYO against the will of struggle any further. Rogelio removed her clothes and panties. He then went on top of her,
the latter. inserted his private organ into hers, and succeeded in satisfying his lust on her. 17 Afterwhich,
he slapped and threatened Cherry with death if she would talk. 18
That the aggravating circumstance of the accused having committed the crime in
uninhabited place attended the commission of the crime. The threat went unheeded as Cherry, upon reaching her home, immediately told her
husband of what had happened to her. Her husband accompanied her to the police station of
49 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Maddela, Quirino, to report the incident and then to Dr. Mercedita Erni-Reta for medical The Appellee disagrees with him and prays that the assailed decision be affirmed with
examination.19 modification of the award for moral damages, which should be increased from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00.29
Dr. Erni-Reta found that Cherry's vaginal canal had a laceration at the erythematous border
at 2:00 and chemoses at 3:00 at the vaginal os. 20 On the witness stand, Dr. Erni-Reta Central to the accused's assigned errors is the issue of the credibility of the complainant. It
confirmed these findings.21 She added that, upon internal examination, she found seminal has long been settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts
fluid in the vaginal canal which must have been there for no longer than twenty-four hours.22 will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a
better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed
The defense, on the other hand, established the following to refute the version of the their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.30 It has been aptly said:
prosecution:
In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its
On 31 March 1986, Rogelio Cristobal was plowing the land of the spouses Wilfredo and Emilia evaluation Of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe
Manzano located in Salay, San Agustin, Isabela. He started plowing at 7:00 a.m. and went them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between
with Wilfredo to the latter's home for lunch at around 11:00 a.m.. Emilia was with them for fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That
lunch. The three of them talked until 2:00 p.m.. He went home thereafter, attended to his line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the
children, and then brought out his carabao to graze in Talaytay, Dagubog Grande, which is reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the
about 200 meters away from his house. 23 Then he went to the house of Melchor Cristobal. truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the
While he was at Melchor's house, a policeman by the name of Jimmy Benedicto arrested him sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or
for the crime of rape and brought him to Councilor Benjamin Dumlao. He was subsequently the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted
taken to the 166th PC Detachment in San Dionisio, Maddela, Quirino, where he was in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has
interrogated and where he spent the night. In the morning, he was brought to the municipal nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or
court to face the charges filed against him.24 in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see
all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned
In its decision25 dated 28 March 1994, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond verdict.31
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the complainant, Cherry Tamayo, in the amount of P30,000.00. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily, when
the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
The trial court found clear and convincing the categorical testimony of Cherry Tamayo of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. 32 None of these exceptions
having been accosted from behind, knocked to the ground, boxed, submerged in water, exists in this case.
taken three meters from the creek, and raped.26In view of her positive identification of the
accused, it disregarded the defense of alibi set up by the latter, which it found to be a weak It is also settled that when a woman Says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that
one. It ruled that for the defense of alibi to prosper the accused must show physical is necessary to show that she has been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of
impossibility to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The accused was credibility the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 33
within three kilometers only from Bilala Creek where the rape was committed. Such distance
is near enough to cover by walking in a matter of thirty minutes. 27 It was not, therefore, Moreover, the accused was unable to prove any ill motive on the part of the complainant. In
physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. fact, in his answer to the court's questions, he categorically stated that there was no grudge
between him and the complainant.34 Where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason
In this appeal, the accused contends that the trial court erred in (1) convicting him on the or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or
basis of the private complainant's inconsistent testimony, and (2) not giving due weight to falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the said testimony is worthy of full faith and
his defense of alibi.28 credit. 35

50 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Additionally, no married woman in her right mind, like Cherry Tamayo, would subject herself modifications. As modified, the award of moral damages is increased from P30,000.00 to
to public scrutiny and humiliation in order to perpetuate a falsehood. Neither would she take P40,000.00, and the accused is further ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of
the risk of being alienated from her husband and her family. If Cherry Tamayo then resolved P25,000.00.
to face the ordeal and relate in public what many similarly situated would have kept secret,
she did so simply to obtain justice. Costs against the accused.

To cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant, the accused cites an inconsistency in the SO ORDERED.
testimony of the complainant. He points out that at first, the complainant said that her 9. G.R. No. 150756 October 11, 2006
panties were removed by the accused while she was already lying down, but later she said EDUARDO LEYSON, EDUARDO BANTULO alias "BOY," DOMINADOR BANTULO alias
that it was before she was laid down on the ground that the accused stripped her of her "DOMING," EDUARDO PADAYAG alias "EDRING," EDDIE PADAYAG alias "OYONG,"
panties. The accused failed to elevate this inconsistency to the level of a major one sufficient and RODOLFO PADAYAG alias "JUAN,"petitioners,
to strip the complainant of credibility. Being too trivial, such inconsistency does not rock the vs.
pedestal upon which the complainant's credibility rests. In fact, it enhances her credibility, as PEDRO LAWA, JENNIFER MOSO, LINO MENDI, MAMER BAGON, JOEL BAGON, LEA
it manifests spontaneity and lack of scheming. 36 TACULOD, LILIA BAGON, GLORIA ANDA, ALICIA GILON, EDDIE BAGON, PEDRO
BAGON, ROMEO JARMIN, and THE COURT OF APPEALS (Third
As to the second assigned error, the accused submits that although as a general rule alibi is Division), respondents.
a weak defense, it gained strength in this case in the light of the aforementioned
inconsistency in the complainant's testimony. We are not persuaded. Since, as discussed
above, such inconsistency does not pierce the complainant's credibility, the, second assigned DECISION
error has therefore no leg to stand on.

The alibi of the accused thus maintains its weak and impotent state. For the defense of alibi
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
to prosper, it must establish the physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 37 The accused's testimony placing himself
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 23756 affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), General
somewhere else was corroborated by the testimony of Wilfredo and Emilia Manzano. But he
Santos City, Branch 23, in Criminal Case No. 12205, except as to the penalty imposed on
failed to establish physical impossibility because the alibi places him within only three
petitioners Eduardo Leyson, Sr., Eduardo Bantulo, Dominador Bantulo, Eduardo Padayag,
kilometers from where the crime was committed, a manageable distance to travel in a few
Eddie Padayag and Rodolfo Padayag.
minutes.
The Antecedents
For sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman, the accused has shown moral corruption,
perversity, and wickedness. He has grievously wronged the institution of marriage. The
imposition then of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others from committing On February 28, 1997, an Information charging petitioners with arson was filed before the
similar acts or for correction for the public good38 is warranted. 39We hereby fix it at RTC of General Santos City:
P25,000.00.
That on or about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of September 7, 1996 at Nopol, Conel,
Pursuant to the current policy of this Court, the moral damages awarded by the trial court General Santos City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
should be increased from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00. the above-named accused Eduardo Leyson, as ranch owner, and the accused Ramon
Soy, Dominador Bantulo alias Doming, Bernardo Bantulo alias Boy, Eduardo Padayag
alias Edring, Eddie Padayag alias Oyong and Rodolfo Padayag alias Juan, who are the
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED, and the decision of Branch 32 of the
cowboys or farm-hands of accused Eduardo Leyson, conspiring, confederating and
Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, in Criminal Case No. 604 convicting the accused
mutually helping one another with malice aforethought, with intent to destroy and
ROGELIO CRISTOBAL of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED, subject to the foregoing
51 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
cause damage and in order to drive away the different complainants from the area of The Case for the Prosecution
the ranch of Eduardo Leyson which they have been cultivating for years, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire on the thirteen (13) houses one Sometime in October 1993, Eduardo Leyson allowed some members of the B'laan Tribe to till
after the other of the complainants causing damage representing the value of the portions of his 29-hectare landholding in Nopol, Conel, General Santos City which he called
houses and their personal belongings which were reduced to ashes with their Nopol Hills Ranch. The following members of the B'laan Tribe were allowed to build their
corresponding value as follows: houses and till portions of the land, provided that they would deliver to Leyson 50% of their
produce: Romeo Jarmin, Judith Jarmin, Mamer Bagon, Joel Bagon, Teresita Bagon, Lilia
Bagon, Eddie Bagon, Pedro Bagon, Pedro Lawa, Jennifer Moso, Lino Mendi, Leah Taculod,
1. Pedro Lawa - P67,795.00
Gloria P. Anda, Alicia B. Gilon, and Bonifacio Batata.
2. Jennifer Moso - 7,000.00
Romeo Jarmin built his house on the ranch sometime in December 1993. The roof was made
3. Lino Mendi - 37,500.00 of cogon, the walls of split bamboo, and the side of a coconut tree was used for flooring. The
portion of the ranch where he planted corn and palay was about 3 hectares. 3 Mamer Bagon,
4. Mamer Bagon - 85,950.00 his brother-in-law, lived about 50 meters away from him, also in a house made of
wood.4 Mamer Bagon planted palay, coconut trees and other agricultural plants and gave
5. Joel Bagon - 8,500.00 50% of his produce to Leyson.5 Joel, Teresita, Lilia, Eddie, Pedro, all surnamed Bagon, also
built their respective huts in the ranch. Pedro Lawa, who also built a house on the
6. Teresita Bagon - 19,000.00 landholding, also delivered to Leyson his share of the produce from his agricultural crops as
agreed upon.
7. Lea Taculod - 31,160.00
However, on July 20, 1996, Leyson called all the farmers to a meeting and told them to
8. Lilia Bagon - 25,000.00 vacate his ranch. The farmers refused to leave the premises.6
9. Gloria P. Anda - 7,000.00
At about 4:00 p.m. on September 1, 1996, Leyson and his son Winkie, together with his
10. Alicia B. Gilon - 98,735.00 employees Ramon Soy, Dominador Bantulo, Juan Padayag and Eduardo Padayag and some
policemen, arrived in the ranch. They were armed, and Leyson himself had a long
11. Eddie Bagon - 27,140.00 firearm.7 They fired their guns at the farmers in an effort to drive them away from the land.
Although no one was hurt, the farmers were petrified. They fled from the ranch and sought
12. Pedro Bagon - 28,710.00 sanctuary at the barangay hall. The next day, Romeo Jarmin, Mamer Bagon, Bonifacio Batata
and the other farmers returned to their houses to retrieve their farm animals. 8 Leyson and
13. Romeo Jarmin - 25,000.00 his men threatened to inflict bodily harm on them unless they left the ranch. The farmers
reported the incident to Barangay Captain Manuel Abadimas and to Benjamin Sumog-Oy, the
Executive Assistant for Community Affairs of the City Mayor of General Santos City. 9
with the total value of P468,490.00, more or less, and to their damage and prejudice
in such amount. At about 10:00 a.m. on September 7, 1996, Romeo Jarmin returned to his house in the ranch
with Mamer Bagon and Bonifacio Batata. Bonifacio Batata wanted to get his share of the
CONTRARY TO LAW.2 agricultural crops from Alicia Gilon.10 Jarmin proceeded to the house of his brother-in-law,
Mamer Bagon, and saw Leyson with his employees Rodolfo Padayag, Dominador Bantulo,
Petitioners, assisted by counsel, were arraigned on September 25, 1997 and entered their Eduardo Bantulo, Eduardo Padayag, Eddie Padayag and Ramon Soy. 11 Two of the men were
respective pleas of not guilty. armed with M-16 carbine rifles, another with an M-16 rifle, and yet another with an
armalite.12 When they saw the armed men, Jarmin and Batata hid in a canal near the cogon

52 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
area. The armed men fired their guns in the air. One of them set fire on the houses of been eaten by his cattle, including the damages sustained by the farmers and the amount
Mamer Bagon, Pedro Bagon, Alicia Gilon, Joel Bagon, Romeo Jarmin, Pedro Lawa. The thereof. He averred, however, that the cost of the wood used in constructing the huts should
houses of the other farmers were also set aflame. He, along with Mamer Bagon and not be included because the farmers had taken the same from his ranch. 17Leyson stated that
Bonifacio Batata, watched as the houses burned down to mere rubble. The value of the he would pay for the damages sustained by the farmers.
structures and personal belongings that were lost in the fire, as well as their respective
owners, are as follows: The Case for the Accused

a. Pablo Lawa, for his house & the items inside P67,000.00 Petitioners denied having burned the huts of the complainants and interposed the defense of
alibi.
b. Jennifer Moso, for her house 7,000.00
Leyson testified that his co-accused Dominador Bantulo, Eduardo Bantulo, Eduardo Padayag,
c. Lino Mendi, for his house, corn plants, and lost personal properties 37,500.00 Jun Padayag and Eddie Padayag, were employees in his eight-hectare farm located at Lower
Nopol, Purok 7, Barangay Mabuhay, General Santos City.18 Ramon Soy, however, was not his
d. Mamer Bagon, for his house, 8 chickens, shoes, pants, 2 sacks rice, 2 employee. Leyson claimed that this property is different from his ranch. He had a contract
sacks corn 85,000.00 with Pioneer Seeds Production for the use of his property for the production of corn seeds.19
e. Joel Bagon, for his house 8,500.00
He narrated that during the period of September 1 to 11, 1996, he was supervising his men
f. Teresita Bagon, for her house 19,000.00 in the harvesting and loading of corn in his farm which was about 6 kilometers from his
ranch, one to two hours away by horse ride.20They did not go to his ranch on September 1 to
g. Lea Taculod, for her house, 1/2 sack rice, a plow, and a guitar 31,000.00 7, 1996.21 He admitted that he allowed Pedro Lawa, Judith Jarmin, who was the wife of
Romeo Jarmin, Leah Taculod, Romeo Mozo, Eddie Bagon, Mamer Bagon, Joel Bagon, Lilia
h. Delia Bagon, for her house & personal belongings 30,000.00 Bagon and her two sons, to farm portions of his ranch and to construct their huts
thereon.22 He asked them to leave the place after two years, but they refused to go, and
i. Gloria P. Anda, for her small hut 7,000.00 even filed a complaint against him before thebarangay captain, who endorsed it to the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 23 Sometime in August 1996, he went to
j. Alicia B. Gilon, for her house, corn planted in l/2 hectares of land, 35 his ranch to repair the perimeter fence and saw 47 heavily armed men who appeared to be
punos of banana plants, 10 head chickens, and carpentry tools 98,000.00 professional squatters and MILF elements.24
k. Eddie Bagon, for his house & other belongings 27,000.00
Dominador Bantulo testified that he and Bernardo Bantulo were brothers, employed by
l. Pedro Bagon, for his house and Other lost properties 28,700.00 Leyson as laborers in the farm. Rodolfo and Eduardo Padayag were also Leyson's laborers.
All of them resided in Leyson's house in Lower Nopol, Purok 7. Romeo Jarmin was also
m. Romeo Jarmin, for his house 25,000.0013 employed as Leyson's "cowboy."25 Dominador denied any involvement in the burning of the
farmers' houses. He claimed that he and his co-accused were harvesting corn in Leyson's
farm in Lower Nopol from September 1 to 11, 1996. Leyson and his son later asked him to
The farmers reported the matter to Sumog-Oy who then invited members of the media, operate the trailer-tractor, while the others loaded the corn. 26 They did not leave the place
police and barangay personnel to the ranch on September 10, 1996. Leyson and the six because they were prohibited from visiting their families. They had to watch the seeds. 27
employees responsible for the burning of the farmers' houses were pointed out to Sumog-
Oy.14 He examined the debris and what remained of the farmers' razed houses. Pictures of The other accused likewise denied the charge. They insisted that they were in the farm of
the site were also taken.15 Sumog-Oy also saw cattle owned by Leyson feasting on the crops Eduardo Leyson harvesting and loading corn from September 1 to 11, 1996.
of the farmers nearby.16 When Sumog-Oy asked Leyson what the latter planned to do about
the incident, the latter replied that he wanted to be furnished the list of the crops which had

53 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Renilo Punay, a laborer of Pioneer Seeds Production, corroborated the testimony of the
7. Lea Taculod, for her house, 1/2 sack rice, a plow, and a 26,000.00
accused. He narrated that he was the roving guard of the company and stayed with the men
guitar
as they harvested and loaded corn for Pioneer Seeds Production from September 1 to 11,
1996. His tour of duty was from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. the following day.28 There were times 8. Delia Bagon, for her house & personal belongings 25,000.00
that the accused left the farm, but only one at a time to get food. 29 He further testified that
at 4:30 p.m. on September 1, 1996, the accused were in Leyson's farm, which was about 5 9. Gloria P. Anda, for her small hut 7,000.00
to 6 kms away from the ranch.30 They were also in the farm on September 7, 1996 at 10:00
a.m. 10. Alicia B. Gilon, for her house, corn planted in l/2 hectares 93,000.00
of land, 35 punos of banana plants, 10 chickens, and
On August 10, 1997, the court rendered judgment convicting all the accused of arson, except carpentry tools
Leyson who was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. However, all the accused
were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the damages sustained by the private 11. Eddie Bagon, for his house & other belongings 22,000.00
complainants. The fallo of the decision reads:
12. Pedro Bagon, for his house and other lost properties 23,700.00
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding the accused DOMINADOR 13. Romeo Jarmin, for his house 20,000.00
BANTULO alias DOMING, EDUARDO BANTULO alias BOY, EDUARDO PADAYAG alias
EDRING, EDDIE PADAYAG alias OYONG, RODOLFO PADAYAG alias JUAN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ARSON, and there being no aggravating or The accused found guilty should suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by
mitigating circumstance, each of them is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate law. Also, they are ordered to pay the cost of suit.
penalty of two years four months and one day as minimum, to eight years, as
maximum. All of them, including Eduardo Leyson, are severally liable for the actual SO ORDERED.31
damages of private complainants.
The accused appealed the decision to the CA, alleging that
Accused EDUARDO LEYSON, SR. is hereby ACQUITTED. However, he is hereby
ordered to pay jointly and severally with the other accused the following amounts to THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE IDENTITIES OF THE
the private complainants: PERSONS WHO BURNED THE HOUSES OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS WERE CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED.
1. Pablo Lawa, for his house & the items inside P62,000.00
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED EDUARDO BANTULO
2. Jennifer Moso, for her house 7,000.00 ALIAS BOY, DOMINADOR BANTULO ALIAS DOMING, EDUARDO PADAYAG ALIAS
EDRING, EDDIE PADAYAG ALIAS OYONG, AND RODOLFO PADAYAG ALIAS JUAN
3. Lino Mendi, for his house, corn plants, and lost personal 32,500.00 DESPITE REASONABLE DOUBTS ON THE IDENTITIES OF THE PERSONS WHO
properties ALLEGEDLY BURNED THE HOUSES.32

4. Mamer Bagon, for his house, 8 chickens, shoes, pants, 2 80,000.00 On July 31, 2001, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC with
sacks rice, 2 sacks corn modification as to the sentence of the appellants. The fallo of the decision reads:
5. Joel Bagon, for his house 8,500.00
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with the modification
6. Teresita Bagon, for her house 14,000.00 that accused DOMINADOR BANTULO, EDUARDO BANTULO, EDUARDO PADAYAG,
EDDIE PADAYAG and RODOLFO PADAYAG are hereby sentenced to suffer the

54 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
penalty of reclusion perpetua. In all other respects, the appealed decision with the affidavits given to the police investigators. While Jarmin pointed to and identified
is AFFIRMED.33 petitioner Eduardo Leyson during the trial as one of those who burned the houses, in his
affidavit,35 Jarmin failed to mention Leyson, and even erroneously declared that the men
According to the appellate court, the testimony of Batata and Jarmin, corroborated by Lino were "cowboys." Petitioners further point out that Jarmin had admitted that he returned to
Mendi, were credible and entitled to full probative weight. It took into account Leyson's the farm only on September 2, 1996; hence, it was impossible for him to have seen the
admission that he would pay for the damages sustained by the private complainants. The burning of the houses on September 11, 1996.
appellate court rejected as barren of factual basis the appellants' defenses of denial and alibi.
Bonifacio Batata admitted when he testified that even before the burning of the houses on
Leyson and his men filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied; September 7, 1996 he already knew petitioner Leyson, yet, never identified him as one of the
hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari, where petitioners submit the following perpetrators in the affidavit which he gave to the police investigators. 36 In fact, Batata, in his
contentions: affidavit, never identified any of petitioners as the perpetrators. Moreover, Batata and Jarmin
could not have seen the burning of the houses so as to properly identify the culprits,
BOTH COURTS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE IDENTITIES OF THE considering that the surface of the canal where they claim to have hidden was covered by
PERSONS WHO BURNED THE HOUSES OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE CLEARLY three feet cogon grass, and Jarmin and Batata were only 5 feet and four inches tall. While
ESTABLISHED. THIS FINDING IS PURE SPECULATION, SURMISE AND CONJECTURE, Batata declared that he saw petitioners burn the houses of private respondents, he later
BEING CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN THIS CASE. changed his testimony and declared that he saw only one of them setting the houses on fire.
Batata even admitted that he did not see the face of the arsonist. And contrary to the ruling
of the CA, Lino Mendi did not see the burning of the houses.
xxx

Petitioners conclude that conformably with the aphorism falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the
BOTH COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED EDUARDO BANTULO
testimonies of Jarmin and Batata have no probative weight.
alias "BOY" DOMINADOR BANTULO alias "DOMING," EDUARDO PADAYAG alias
"EDRING," EDDIE PADAYAG alias "OYONG" and "RODOLFO PADAYAG alias "JUAN,"
DESPITE DOUBTS ON THE IDENTITIES OF THE PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY BURNED For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the ruling of the CA is buttressed
THE HOUSES OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. THIS FINDING IS A by the testimonial and documentary evidence on record. The alleged inconsistencies between
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS. the testimonies of Jarmin and Batata and their respective affidavits pertain to minor and
peripheral matters, and did not necessarily discredit them. The OSG asserts that Leyson,
having been acquitted merely on reasonable doubt, is nevertheless civilly liable to private
xxx
respondents. It points out that he even obliged himself to pay for the damages sustained by
private respondents.
BOTH COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING EDUARDO LEYSON, SR. CIVILLY
LIABLE TOGETHER WITH THE CONVICTED ACCUSED, THUS, THE TRIAL COURT
We agree with the rulings of the RTC and the CA that petitioners conspired to burn the
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WRONGLY APPLIED THE LAW ON CIVIL LIABILITY OF
houses of private respondents on September 7, 1996.
AN ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE.34

Well-entrenched rule is that the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA on appeal, are
The issues to be resolved in the present case are: (1) whether the prosecution was able to
accorded with high respect, if not conclusive effect by this Court. The assessment by the trial
prove the guilt of petitioner, except petitioner Leyson, of the crime of arson under Article 320
court of the credibility of the witnesses and its calibration of the probative weight thereof are
of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) whether petitioner Leyson is civilly liable for alleged
even conclusive on this Court, absent clear evidence that facts and circumstances of
damages to the private complainants.
substance which if considered would alter or reverse the outcome of the case were ignored,
misinterpreted or misconstrued.37
Petitioners aver that respondents failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
arson. The testimonies of respondent Romeo Jarmin and Bonifacio Batata were inconsistent

55 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
The testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts. in practice pernicious, first, because there is frequently a misunderstanding
The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor of its proper force, and secondly, because it has become in the hands of
a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly
everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and unimportant in themselves."40
considered.
The general rule is that inconsistencies and discrepancies between the testimony of a witness
It must be stressed that facts imperfectly or erroneously stated in answer to one question in contrast with what he stated in an affidavit do not necessarily discredit him. Affidavits
may be supplied or explained as qualified by his answer to other question. The given to police and barangay officers are madeex parte and often incomplete or incorrect for
principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. 38 The lack or absence of sufficient inquiries by the investigating officer. 41 It is of judicial knowledge
doctrine deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the that sworn statements are almost incomplete and often inaccurate and are generally inferior
same is not an inflexible one of universal application. 39 The testimony of a witness can be to the testimony of a witness in open court.42
believed as to some facts and disbelieved as to others:
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of the witness relative to minor or
Nor can we subscribe to the proposition that since the trial court did not give credit peripheral matters and not to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the
to Edwin and Lina's testimonies that they positively identified Edgardo, it should, accused from the crime charged or the elements of such crime are not grounds for the
pursuant to the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," likewise disregard their acquittal of the accused.
testimonies as against the appellant and accordingly acquit him. In People vs. Dasig,
this Court stated that the maxim is not a mandatory rule of evidence, but rather a It is not correct for petitioners to claim that Jarmin43 in his affidavit, did not implicate
permissible inference that the court may or may not draw. In People vs. Pacada, we petitioner Leyson for the burning of the houses. In fact, Jarmin declared therein that
stated that the testimony of a witness can be believed as to some facts and petitioner Leyson conspired with his co-petitioners to burn the houses of private respondents
disbelieved as to others. And in People vs. Osias, we ruled that: because they refused to vacate the ranch.44 Moreover, petitioner Leyson, with his co-
petitioners, was present when the houses were burned on September 7, 1996, as he was
It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect even armed with a long firearm. Petitioner Leyson even assured Sumog-oy later that he
to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it has been would pay for the damages sustained by private respondents. The testimony of Sumog-Oy on
aptly said that even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified the matter reads:
in some material particulars, it is not required that the whole of their
uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof deemed Q And you talked to Mister Leyson?
worthy of belief may be credited.
A Yes, sir, and in fact I asked him what things he will do considering that his
The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of cattle were feasting on the crops of the B'laans and he told me that all these things
the crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the will be listed and he will pay for them.45
perpetrators of the crime charged x x x."
Sumog-oy reiterated his testimony on cross examination:
Professor Wigmore gives the following enlightening commentary:
Q Because you of course asked Mister Leyson if he could assist those people?
"It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself worthless first, in
point of validity, because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a A No sir, I just asked him what is he planning to do that his cattle were feasting
kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others, it is on the crops of the B'laans.
absolutely false as a maxim of life; and secondly, in point of utility, because
it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must
do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. It is also
56 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Q And so you asked particularly on the crops that as you said were feasted by his A All of them, Mister Leyson and his cowboys.47
cattle?
Apparently, Jarmin did not know whether petitioners were farmhands or cowboys of
A Yes sir including the houses and he said to list all the things that were damaged petitioner Leyson. But whether petitioners were the farmhands or cowboys of petitioner
and then including the crops amount and he also mentioned about the houses and in Leyson is of little significance. The fact of the matter is that petitioner Leyson employed his
fact he told me that they should not charge the cost of the woods because the co-petitioners, who were given long firearms when they drove away the private respondents
woods used for the construction of the houses were just cut from his ranch, he said. from the farm on September 1 to 2, 1996; and on September 7, 1996, they fired shots and
burned private respondents' houses.
Q And that was the response of Mister Leyson when you asked him if he could
assist these people? Petitioner Leyson ordered his men to intimidate the private respondents with bodily harm if
they did not leave the ranch. Indeed, as testified by Jarmin, petitioner Leyson was with his
A I did not particularly ask him to assist, it was his own suggestion. co-petitioners on September 7, 1996 when private respondents' houses were burned:

Q So he suggested that he would assist these people? Q Where are your houses now?

A Because I told him, "what are you going to do now that the houses of these A Our houses were burned on September 7, 1996.
people were destroyed and your cattle were feasting on the crops" and he told me
that "just tell them to list the things that were destroyed including the amount and I Q How many houses were burned on September 7, 1996?
will pay them."
A 13 houses were burned down.
Q Pay them as his assistance to these people?
Q Around what time were the houses burned?
A He just plainly said, "I will pay."
A 10 o'clock in the morning.
Q In other words, his offer to pay was in response to your questioning him what
he would do to the destroyed houses and on the damaged crops, correct? Q Who were those persons who burned the houses Mister Jarmin?

A That is the logical interpretation sir. A Their companions were Ramon Soy, Doming Bantolo, Juan Padayag, Boy, Ebring
Padayag together with Mister Eduardo Leyson.
Q That is the correct interpretation?
Q Are they in court today Mister Jarmin?
A Probably the logical interpretation.46
A There are only four here in court now.
On redirect examination, Jarmin declared that, in his affidavit he wanted to charge not only
petitioner Leyson's employees but also the "cowboys" as well: Q Will you please point at them.

Q Mister Witness, do you understand the words or how do you understand the A That is one (witness pointing to a person wearing a striped t-shirt who
words "to file a complaint against the cowboys of Mr. Eduardo Leyson", as far as answered by the name of Rodolfo Padayag). That person Doming Bantolo (who
against whom you are filing? answered by the name of Dominador Bantolo) and that person (who answered by

57 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
the name of Fernando Bantolo) and Mister Eduardo Leyson (pointing to a person A I actually went inside the area because my carabao was inside the area.
wearing red t-shirt who answered by the name of Eduardo Leyson).
Q And you were able to get your carabao?
Q Will you tell us how they burned your houses?
A Yes, sir.
A They set on fire on the cogo[n] roofing with a match. 48
Q Who were your companions in returning to that place on September 2, 1996?
We agree with petitioners' contention that during his direct examination on June 24, 1998,
Jarmin testified that after they were driven off with gun fire from their houses on September A Mamer Bagon and Bonifacio Batata.
2, 1996, they were never able to return to their farmhouses "until today." However, when
queried by the trial court if he returned to the farm after September 2, 1996, Jarmin declared Q And were they able to get their work animals?
that he came back on September 2 and on September 7, 1996:
A This Bonifacio Batata has no animal of his own there because he just went there
COURT: to harvest palay.

Q Did you not return on September 2? Q What is the complete name of Batata?

A I returned there to get some vegetables and to get my carabao. A Bonifacio Batata.49

Q So that was the only time you returned? Evidently, when Jarmin was asked whether he returned to the farm after September 2, 1996
he understood the question to refer to him and to the other private respondents. Indeed, the
A Yes, Your Honor. only persons who returned to the farm on September 7, 1996, were Jarmin himself, Mamer
Bagon and Batata. The other private respondents no longer returned to their farmhouses.
Q On September 2, 1996?
We agree with petitioners' contention that Lino Mendi did not witness the burning of his
A The last time to go there was on September 7. house and the houses of the other private respondents on September 7, 1996 and that he
learned of the burning and all the perpetrators thereof only from Batata and
COURT Jarmin.50 However, the thrust of Mendi's testimony was only for the purpose of proving the
actual damages he sustained, consisting of the value of his house and his other personal
Proceed. belongings which were burned. Likewise of minimal significance is the seeming discrepancy
between the testimony of Jarmin, that petitioners burned the houses of private respondents,
and the testimony of Batata, that only one of petitioners whose face he did not actually see
ATTY. MELLIZA:
burned the houses.
Q And what was the reason why you returned there on September 2, 1996?
Considering the entirety of the testimonies of Batata and Jarmin, they declared that all the
petitioners were responsible for the burning because of their collective acts, including those
A To get my carabao and to harvest some vegetables. that transpired on September 1 and 2, 1996. By their collective acts, petitioners (except
petitioner Leyson) conspired to burn the houses of private respondents. It is elementary that
Q As a matter of fact, you were not able to enter the area? when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, anda conspirator
may be held as a principal even if he did not participate in the actual commission of every act

58 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
constituting the offense. In conspiracy, all those who in one way or another helped and Q And then?
cooperated in the consummation of the crime are considered co-principals since the degree
or character of the individual participation of each conspirator in the commission of the crime A They again went upwards and set fire the house of Pedro Bagon and Alicia
becomes immaterial. Thus, liability exists notwithstanding appellant's non-participation in Gilon, as well the house of Eddie Bagon.
every detail in the execution of the crime.51
Q Did you see the persons who set the fire on the houses?
Thus, Batata testified that petitioners, who were in the company of petitioner Leyson, burned
private respondents' houses. From the canal where he and Jarmin hid, they saw one of them A The same persons who burned the house of Mamer.
burn the houses after firing their guns:
Q Are they in court today?
Q Did you see the persons who fired their guns?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please point to them.
Q Will you still be able to recognize them if you see them again?
A The same persons seated in the accused bench.
A I only knew them through their faces but not their names.
Q And after witnessing the persons setting fire on the houses of the complaining
Q Are they in court today? witnesses in this case, what happened next?

A Yes, sir, they are here. A They proceeded going towards the upper direction.

Q Please point at them. Q How many houses were burned?

A These persons (pointing to all the persons seated at the accused bench). A From the house starting down going upward were burned.

Q So what did you do Mister Witness when you heard the persons firing their Q Can you estimate how many houses were burned?
guns?
A About 14 houses.
A We jumped towards the canal near the cogonal place and hid ourselves.
Q Do you know the owners of the houses Mister Witness?
Q And then what happened thereafter?
A Mamer, Eddie, Pedro, Alicia, Romeo Jarmin, the house of Ronnie, Lawa while
A After firing their guns, they set the houses on fire. the others I do not know the owners' names but which were also burned.

Q Whose house Mister Witness? Q Do you still remember at what time were the houses burned by the accused?

A The first house was the house of Mamer Bagon. A About 10 o'clock in the morning.52

59 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
xxxx Q You have generally pointed to all the persons sitting now on the accused bench.
What weapon was being held by this man?
ATTY. MELLIZA:
A M-16 armalite.
Q You said the persons whom you saw set fire on the houses. Do you mean that
all those persons whom you saw actually set fire on the houses? Q What [w]as he doing with the M-16 armalite?

A Yes, sir, although only one person set fire on the houses. A While he was setting fire on the houses, the other accused were standing by as
if they are guarding.
Q Who was that person when you said only one person set fire on the houses,
who was that person? Q How many garand rifles did you see at that time?

A I did not see him when he set fire on the houses because his back was towards A If I am not wrong, two of them were carrying a garand.
me.
Q And how many of them did you see carrying M-16 rifles?
Q So it is now clear Mister Batata that the person whom you actually saw setting
fire on the houses could not be one of the persons now sitting on the accused A One.
bench?
Q So what else were the weapons you saw at that time?
A No, sir, because his back was towards me.
A Carbine.
Q But you are very much certain that only one of the six (6) armed men set fire
on the houses? Q How many carbine rifles did you see?

A Yes, sir. A Two.

Q What weapons if you could remember were used by the six (6) armed men who Q So one armalite, two garands and two carbines, is that what you mean?
fired the gunshots?
A Yes, sir.
A Garand, carbine and M-16 armalite.
COURT:
Q So you are very sure of that, that it is or the only weapons used?
Q Five?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, Your Honor.53
Q What weapon was being held by that person who was setting fire on the
houses?
xxxx

A Garand.

60 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Q Mister Batata, you said you were in Nopol Hills on September 7, 1996 when you A I also saw him.
witnessed the burning by the accused in this case and you pointed to these persons
in the accused bench. Why, please tell us, did you point at these persons in the Q And the third person by the name of Dominador Bantolo, you saw him also?
accused bench?
A Yes, sir.
A Because they are the ones whom I saw setting fire on the houses and fire their
guns. Q What about the fourth person Bernardo Bantolo, you saw him?

Q You saw them on September 7, 1996? A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir. Q What about the fifth person Padayao?

Q You see the first person? A Yes, sir, I saw him.54

COURT: It bears stressing that Batata saw petitioners before the latter burned the houses, when they
fired their guns to scare off anybody who could be in the houses:
Q At a distance of 40 meters?
COURT:
A Yes, Your Honor, but only through their faces but not their names.
Q So actually you were only going there from time to time to harvest palay or
COURT: corn in the farm of your friends?

Continue. A Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. GACAL: Q Because you have no farm there of your own?

Q Did you see the first person and I am pointing to Mister Leyson? A No, Your Honor.

A Yes and I know him. Q So during the gun firing or the burning you were only looking at these persons?

ATTY. MELLIZA: A Yes, Your Honor.

May we request Your Honor that the statement "I know him because he is Q For how many minutes did you look at them?
an ex-kagawad" be included.
A I can not estimate Your Honor.
ATTY. GACAL:
Q For a long time or a short time.
Q About the second person in the person of Eduardo Padayag?
A For quite a time.

61 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Q About one hour? Jarmin's view was likewise not obstructed by the cogon grass:

A No, Your Honor. Q Were the cogons then thick Mister Witness?

Q About half an hour? A Not so thick.

A About 10 minutes only.55 Q Were there obstructions from your vision to the 40 meters distance where you
said you saw the accused?
While it is true that Jarmin and Batata fled, jumped into a canal and hid there while
petitioners burned private respondents' houses, the foliage or the surface of the canal did not A None, if you will look down, you can see the place.
obstruct their view. Batata is five feet and four inches tall, and the canal was only three feet
deep: Q Were you on a high plain or lower plain?

ATTY. GACAL: A We are on the higher plain.

Q Mister Batata, you mentioned that while you were in the canal or where cogon Q So the cogon grass were never an obstruction to your vision?
grasses on the surface of the canal, will you tell us how tall are the cogon grasses?
A No, sir.57
A The height of the cogon is that when you will stand up, your head will be
exposed. Thus, petitioners' denials and alibi cannot prevail over the collective positive testimonies of
Jarmin and Batata, who positively and spontaneously pointed to them as the perpetrators at
COURT: the trial. Denial and alibi are weak defenses in criminal prosecution: alibi is easy to concoct
and difficult to disprove, while denial is mere self-serving evidence which cannot prevail over
So that must be about two (2) feet tall from the ground? the positive testimonies of witnesses who identified the perpetrators. To merit approbation,
clear and convincing evidence must be adduced to show that petitioners were in a place
A About this tall (demonstrating a height of about 2 to 3 feet). other than the situs of the crime when it was committed, such that it was physically
impossible for them to have committed the crime.58 In this case, it was not impossible for
Q How tall are you? petitioners to rush to the ranch of petitioner Leyson from his farm which was only 5 to 6 kms
away on horseback, arrive there at 10:00 a.m., fire their guns and burn the houses of private
respondents.
A 5'4".

The trial court acquitted petitioner Leyson of arson but ruled that he is civilly liable to private
Q How tall is the canal?
respondents. The CA affirmed the ruling of the court a quo. We quote with approval the
ruling of the appellate court:
A Up to my breast (about 3 feet deep).
Finally, the rule is that a person's acquittal of a crime on the ground that his guilt has
COURT: not been proven beyond reasonable doubt does not bar a civil action for damages
founded on the same acts involved in the offense. Rule 111, Section 2(b) of the
3 feet cogon above the canal about 6 feet. 56 Revised Rules of Court provides: "Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a

62 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist." compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members,
It is also an established rule that the acquittal of an accused on reasonable doubt is are not disclosed in this decision.
not generally an impediment to the imposition, in the same criminal action, of civil
liability for damages on said accused. In the case at bar, there is no finding by the The facts of the case, as established by the prosecution, are as follows:
court a quo that the houses of the complainants were not burned which is the basis
of the civil liability of appellant Leyson. Leyson was acquitted for lack of evidence to Around 9 o'clock in the evening of February 22, 1994, AAA was inside their house located at
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.59 Marilao, Bulacan.4With her were her father, herein appellant, her two older brothers and her
sister BBB.5 She was then staying in one of the rooms because she was suffering from
Besides, petitioner Leyson obliged himself to pay for the damages sustained by private asthma and was taking medicine through the help of her sister, BBB. 6 On the other hand, her
respondents. brothers were already asleep in another room.7 After AAA took her medicine, appellant told
BBB to sleep outside the room where AAA was staying.8 When BBB went outside, appellant
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of turned off the light and proceeded to their kitchen.9 Thereafter, appellant returned to the
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23756 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. room where AAA was staying.10He then took off AAA's clothes and also removed his. 11 He
went on top of AAA and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. 12 AAA resisted but appellant
SO ORDERED. held her hands and boxed her left thigh twice.13 She was then rendered weak enabling
appellant to successfully insert his organ inside her vagina.14 AAA felt pain, after which her
G.R. No. 167955 September 30, 2009 vagina bled.15 While appellant's penis was inside her vagina, he made push and pull
(Formerly G.R. No. 151275) movements.16 She pleaded with appellant to stop but to no avail. 17 It was in the course of
her struggle against appellant's advances that she called on her sister for help.18 Thereafter,
she felt something come out of his penis.19 Appellant withdrew his penis from her vagina but
10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
remained on top of her and even began touching her breast. 20 It was during that
vs.
compromising position that BBB entered the room and saw them. 21 Appellant immediately
ARMANDO PADILLA y NICOLAS, Appellant.
gathered his clothes and went to the comfort room.22 Thereafter, AAA cried while BBB
handed her clothes to her.23 They then slept beside each other.24
DECISION
AAA did not complain nor tell her brothers about her ordeal because she was afraid as she
PERALTA, J.: was threatened by appellant that he will hurt them and burn their house if she relates the
incident to them.25 It was only in October 1995 that she was able to tell her aunt about her
For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 23, 2005 in CA-G.R. experience in the hands of appellant.26 Subsequently, her aunt accompanied her to the office
CR-H.C. No. 00571 which affirmed, with modification, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where they filed a complaint against
(RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. 166-M-96,2 finding appellant appellant.27
Armando Padilla y Nicolas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Death. The CA found appellant guilty of Qualified On February 1, 1996, an Information28 was filed against appellant charging him before the
Rape and likewise imposed on him the penalty of Death. It reduced the awards for civil RTC of Malolos, Bulacan with the crime of statutory rape, the accusatory portion of which
indemnity from 100,000.00 to 75,000.00 and exemplary damages from 50,000.00 to reads:
25,000.00. In addition, the CA awarded moral damages in the amount of 50,000.00.
That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1994 in the Municipality of Marilao, province of
Consistent with the Court's decision in People v. Cabalquinto,3 the real name of the rape Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
victim in this case is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs have
the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or carnal knowledge of said AAA, a minor who is 11 years old, against her will.

63 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
All contrary to law with an aggravating circumstance that the accused is the legitimate father WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment dated November 5, 2001 of the
of AAA.29 Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15 in Criminal Case No. 166-M-96 finding
Armando Padilla y Nicolas guilty of Qualified Rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.30 Pre-trial conference followed.31 Thereafter, penalty of DEATH is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay the
trial ensued. victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On November 5, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision, 32 the dispositive portion of which is as
follows: In accordance with A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC which took effect on October 15, 2004, amending
Section 13, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, let the entire records of this
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Armando Padilla y Nicolas GUILTY beyond case be elevated to the Supreme Court for review.
reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape described and penalized under Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 7659 otherwise referred to as the Death Penalty Costs against the accused-appellant.
Law, and hereby sentences him the capital penalty of DEATH.
SO ORDERED.37
The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the offended party AAA damages in the amount
of 100,000.00 and to pay exemplary damages in the amount of 50,000.00 to deter other The case was then elevated to this Court for review.
sex perverts from sexually assaulting hapless and innocent girls especially their kin.
In a Resolution38 dated July 19, 2005, the parties were required to simultaneously submit
In passing, Justice Vicente Abad Santos once remarked there should be a special place in their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire. However, both parties manifested that
hell for child molesters. The accused deserves a deeper pit because the child he molested they are not filing their supplemental briefs as their positions in the present case had been
was his own daughter. More than anyone else, it was he to whom the child would have thoroughly expounded in their respective appeal briefs which were forwarded to the CA.
looked up for Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for deliberation.

the protection of her chastity. He cynically betrayed that faith with his unnatural lechery. Appellant assigned the following assignment of errors in his Brief:

SO ORDERED.33 APPLYING THE PRUNA GUIDELINES, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE
DEATH PENALTY ON ACCUSED-APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE
In an Order34 dated November 6, 2001, the RTC directed the transmittal of the entire records TO SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THE MINORITY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HER RELATIONSHIP
of the case to this Court and likewise ordered the commitment of the accused to the National WITH THE ACCUSED.
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD PROVEN
35
Pursuant to the Court's pronouncement in People v. Mateo, which modified the provisions BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILT FOR QUALIFIED RAPE.
of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in
cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO THE PRIVATE
imprisonment, the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition. 36 COMPLAINANT.39

After a review of the case, the CA affirmed, with modification, the decision of the RTC As to the first assigned error, appellant avers that the death penalty may not be imposed
convicting the appellant. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads, thus: because the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were not properly alleged
and proved by the prosecution.

64 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
The Court agrees in part. However, with respect to AAA's minority, the settled rule is that there must be independent
evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution
The first issue is whether or not the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship witnesses and the absence of denial by appellant.48 The victim's original or duly certified birth
were properly alleged by the prosecution. certificate, baptismal certificate or school records would suffice as competent evidence of her
age.49 In the instant case, aside from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, coupled with
It is clear from the Information that AAA was alleged to be a minor who was aged eleven appellant's absence of denial, no independent substantial evidence was presented to prove
(11) at the time of the commission of the crime and that the accused is her father. Contrary the age of AAA. Neither was it shown by the prosecution that the said documents had been
to the prosecution's asseveration, it does not matter that the private complainant's lost, destroyed, unavailable or were otherwise totally absent.
relationship with the accused was denominated as an "aggravating circumstance" and not as
a "special qualifying circumstance." Anent appellants failure to object to the testimony of AAA, regarding her age, the Court has
held that the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the rape
The Court has repeatedly held, even after the amendments to the Rules of Criminal victims age shall not be taken against him. 50Even the appellant's implied admission of the
Procedure took effect,40 that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive victim's age, in the absence of any supporting independent evidence, may not be considered
words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense.41 The Court has sufficient to prove her age. In People v. Biong,51 the appellant testified as to the exact date
repeatedly qualified cases of rape where the twin circumstances of minority and relationship when her daughter, the complainant, was born. However, the Court held that appellant's
have been specifically alleged in the Information even without the use of the descriptive testimony falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish her age. As the qualifying
words "qualifying" or "qualified by."42 In the instant case, the fact that AAA's relationship with circumstance of minority alters the nature of the crime of rape and increases the penalty
appellant was described as "aggravating" instead of "qualifying" does not take the thereof, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. 52 In the
Information out of the purview of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC ), as amended present case, the Court agrees with appellant that the prosecution failed to discharge this
by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 (RA 7659), 43 which was the prevailing law at the time burden.
of the commission of the offense. Article 335 does not use the words "qualifying" or
"aggravating" in enumerating the circumstances that qualify rape so as to make it a heinous Coming to the second assigned error, appellant questions the credibility of the victim, AAA,
crime punishable by death. It merely refers to the enumerated circumstances as "attendant arguing that his constitutional right to be presumed innocent should take precedence over
circumstances." The specific allegation of the attendant circumstances in the Information, the unfounded claim of AAA that he raped her.
coupled with the designation of the offense and a statement of the acts constituting the
offense as required in Sections 844 and 945 of Rule 110, are sufficient to warn appellant that It is settled that to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts
the crime charged is qualified rape punishable by death. are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with
facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused,
In the present case, the attendant circumstances of minority and relationship were though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons
specifically alleged in the Information. These allegations are sufficient to qualify the offense are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
of rape. scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
The next question to be resolved is whether the prosecution was able to prove appellant's for the defense.53
relationship with AAA as well as the latter's minority.
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the
As to AAAs relationship with appellant, the Court agrees that the prosecution was able to victim's testimony.54The settled rule is that the trial courts conclusions on the credibility of
prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The Information alleged that appellant is the father of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even
AAA. Appellant, in turn, admitted during trial that AAA is her daughter. 46 Under prevailing finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value
jurisprudence, admission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would
hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim. 47 alter the result of the case.55

65 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of
testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of denial.62 In the present case, there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the
credibility.56 Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the victim to testify falsely against the appellant or to implicate him falsely in the commission of
appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been the crime; hence, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the
overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.57 No such facts or circumstances exist in the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. Accordingly, appellant's weak defense of
present case. denial cannot prosper.

In this case, both the RTC and the CA are in agreement that AAAs account of her ordeal in The prevailing law at the time the crime was committed in 1994 was still Article 335 of the
the hands of her father was categorical and straightforward. RPC as amended by Section 11 of RA 7659, the first paragraph of which provides as follows:

Appellant contends that AAA had a grudge against him and, aside from that, she was When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
influenced and even instigated by her aunt, Elena Manahan, to file the complaint against woman under any of the following circumstances:
appellant because of the bitterness that Elena feels towards him. According to the appellant,
this bitterness was brought about by a misunderstanding between him and Elena involving 1. By using force or intimidation;
money entrusted to the latter by his wife which was supposed to be used for the construction
of apartments.58 However, appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
incredible for private complainant to trump up a charge of rape against appellant on the
simple reason that she has a grudge against the latter or that she was influenced by her aunt
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
who harbors resentment against him. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint
her good name if her claim were not true.59
xxxx
Thus, the unfounded claim of evil motive on the part of the victim would not destroy the
credibility reposed upon her by the RTC and the CA because, as the Court has held, a rape Paragraph 7(1) of the same Article further provides that:
victims testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having
raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.601avvphi1 The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
Moreover, appellant's rape of private complainant was corroborated by no less than the
latter's sister who is also a daughter of appellant. The rule is that where there is no evidence 1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
that the witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence. 61 degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

In addition, AAAs subsequent acts of disclosing and complaining about her molestation to xxxx
her aunt and the authorities and taking immediate steps to subject herself to medical
examination represent conduct consistent with her straightforward, logical and probable The elements of statutory rape, of which appellant was charged are: (1) that the accused
testimony that she was in fact raped by appellant. They represent strong and compelling had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.63
factors that enhance complainants credibility as a witness.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the age of AAA, much less the allegation
Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellant merely interposed the that she was under the age of twelve when she was raped. Thus, the Court cannot hold
defense of denial. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill- appellant liable for statutory rape. However, since the prosecution was able to establish,
66 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A
without any objection from the defense, that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA with the
use of force, he can be convicted of simple rape the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.
Appellant may not be convicted of rape in its qualified form, as to impose upon him the
penalty of death, considering that, while the aggravating circumstance of relationship was
proven, the prosecution failed to establish AAA's minority by independent proof.

With respect to the last assigned error, the Court agrees with the CA in awarding civil
indemnity as well as moral and exemplary damages to AAA. However, since the penalty is
reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity must be reduced from 75,000.00 to 50,000.00 in
line with prevailing jurisprudence.64 Moreover, when a crime is committed with an
aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of 30,000.00 as exemplary
damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.65

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 23, 2005 in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00571 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Armando Padilla is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Simple Rape under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and ordered to pay the private complainant AAA the reduced amount of
50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 50,000.00 as moral damages and the increased amount of
30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

67 | P a g e A D A M A E D . A B E L L E R A

Anda mungkin juga menyukai