ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 112445   March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 112445. March 7, 1996.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS PATROLLA, JR. y VEGA, Accused-Appellant.

    The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    Emilio M. Lumontad for Accused-Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY; WHEN PRESENT. — Treachery is present "when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party may make."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MANIFEST BY THE SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED ATTACK BY APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER WHO STOOD ON EACH SIDE OF THE VICTIM. — The treacherous manner by which the appellant and his brother perpetrated the crie is shown not only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting Nido but also by the deliberate manner in which the attack was for perpetrated. Appellant and his brother stood on each side of Nido, so that Nido could in no way defend himself and so that there could be no escape from the blows directed at him.

    3. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; MANIFEST WHERE THERE WERE TWO ARMED MALEFACTORS. — The commission of the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength on account of the fact that appellant and his brother, both armed, purposedly used force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSORBED IN TREACHERY. — This circumstance is absorbed in treachery.

    5. ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; NEGATED BY ABSENCE OF PROOF AS TO HOW AND WHEN THE PLAN TO KILL WAS HATCHED. — Evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, has not been proven by the prosecution. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent any proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time lapsed before it was carried out.

    6. ID.; COMPLEX CRIME; ONE SINGLE BLOW RESULTS IN TWO OR MORE FELONIES; CASE AT BAR. — Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, . . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period." As proven by the prosecution, appellant’s initial blow hit Nido on the forehead and Belinda on her left palm. Less serious physical injuries is a less grave felony, as it is punishable by arresto mayor, a correctional penalty.

    7. ID.; ID.; MURDER WITH LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. — Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is penalized by reclusion temporal maximum to death. Following Article 48, the penalty imposable is death, which is the maximum of the penalty for murder. However, at the time the crime was committed, the imposition of the death penalty was proscribed by the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua.

    8. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES; FACTUAL BASIS OF AWARD REQUIRED. — Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, but there must be a factual basis for the award. We have studied the records and find no factual basis for the award of moral damages.

    9. ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; AWARDED IN CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THERE IS ONE OR MORE THAN ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases where the crime was commited with one or more aggravating circumstances. No aggravating circumstance is present, other than treachery which qualified the killing to murder and abuse of superior strength which was however absorbed in treachery, to warrant the award of exemplary damages.

    10. ID.; ID.; P50,000.00 CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH AWARDED. — Accused-appellant Carlos Patrolla, Jr. is hearby sentenced to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Nido Panogalinog.


    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    Appellant Carlos Patrolla, Jr. and his brother Alex were charged with murder with less serious physical injuries in the following amended information:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That on or about 5:40 in the afternoon of September 28, 1991 at Burgos Street, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one another, armed with bolos, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with use of superior strength, did and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of said weapons, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the persons of the spouses NIDO PANOGALINOG and BELINDA PANOGALINOG by striking and stabbing the former and the latter, thereby inflicting upon them physical injuries, described as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    UPON THE PERSON OF NIDO PANOGALINOG

    — 1 inch incised wound (R) pariental;

    — 3 inches incised wound (L) pariental;

    — 4 inches wound (L) lower jaw;

    — 5 inches incised wound (R) lower jaw;

    — 1 inch wound mid-anterior neck;

    — 2 inches incised wound (L) hand palm;

    — 1/2 inch stab wound 1 inch depth (L) chest areola;

    — 1 inch stab wound 1 inch depth (R) upper chest anterior;

    — 1 inch stab wound 1 inches depth (L) lower chest anterior;

    — 2 inches stab wound (R) lower chest medial;

    — 3 inches stab wound (R) lower chest medial;

    — 2 inches stab wound (R) epigastric abdomen;

    — 2 inches stab wound (R)upper abdomen;

    — 2 inches stab wound (R)upper abdomen;

    — 3 inches stab wound (R)upper abdomen;

    — 1 inch stab wound (L) back chest lower medial;

    — 1/2 inch stab wound (L) back chest lower lateral;

    — 6 inches stab wound linear abrasion (R) back,

    which injuries caused shock secondary to severe hemorrhage which resulted in the death of said NIDO PANOGALINOG

    — 2 inches incised wound (L) hand dorsum,

    and which injury requires a period of from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days, more or less of treatment and healing barring complication. 1

    Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. 2

    At the pre-trial of the case on November 26, 1991, however, Alex Patrolla, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to homicide. Accordingly, the trial court rendered a decision finding Alex guilty of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentencing him to an indeterminate sentence of twelve years and one day to fourteen years, to indemnify the heirs of Nido Panogalinog in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay costs. 3

    Trial proceeded against Appellant.

    In a decision dated August 26, 1993, the trial court convicted appellant, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the accused CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR., is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in regard to his participation on the murder of the late Nido Panogalinog and suffer the penalty of ONE MONTH AND ONE (1) DAY OF ARRESTO MAYOR in its minimum period of said penalty for the Less Serious Physical Injuries he has inflicted upon the person of Mrs. Belinda Panogalinog. Said accused is likewise hereby sentenced and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Nido Panogalinog in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for the life of the victim, THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS by way of moral damages and TWENTY THOUSAND (20,000.00) PESOS by way of exemplary damages. 4

    The facts as found by the trial court may be summarized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    At around 5:40 in the afternoon of September 28, 1991, spouses Nido and Belinda Panogalinog were tending their barbecue stand along Burgos Street in San Carlos City. Coming from Burgos Street Interior, appellant and his brother Alex approached the spouses. Each brother was armed with a sharp-pointed instrument locally known as "pinuti." 5

    Reaching the spouses, appellant stabbed Nido, and with the same blow, hit Belinda’s palm. 6

    Nido shouted to Belinda to run, and she ran to the store of Angging Flores. From there she watched as the brothers continued to assault Nido. 7

    The brothers positioned themselves on each side of Nido, so that when Nido would run to either side, appellant or his brother would meet him with stabs. Nido fell to the ground and the brothers continued to stab him. 8

    Through with stabbing Nido, appellant loudly challenged anyone to defend the victim, stating: "Kinsa and isog nga mulaban kang Nido." 9 The brothers then stayed at the scene to smoke.

    After the appellants left, Belinda rushed to Nido and found him bloodied and lying on the ground still alive. Moments later, Nido died. A neighbor then took Belinda to the hospital where she was treated by Dr. Larry Yap. 10

    Dr. Yap later conducted a postmortem examination on Nido. He concluded that Nido died of "shock secondary to severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds." 11

    In this appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it: 1) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and less physical injuries; 2) held him guilty notwithstanding the assertion of Alex Patrolla, appellant’s brother, that he alone killed Nido; and 3) failed to appreciate his defense of alibi. 12

    We first consider the effect on the culpability of appellant of Alex Patrolla’s plea of guilt to and conviction of the crime of homicide. Appellant posits that Alex’s plea was an admission that he alone committed the crime and that there was no conspiracy between him and appellant, and by such plea, appellant’s criminal liability was extinguished. Corollarily, appellant argues that Alex Patrolla’s conviction of homicide had the effect of "extinguishing" the qualifying circumstances of treachery.

    We disagree. The plea was the result of bargaining, which involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offenses or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge. 13

    Alex’s plea of guilty to homicide did not carry with it an admission of sole authorship of the crime, so as to exonerate appellant from criminal liability. "To uphold the argument of appellant would leave at the hands of the one accused, who elects to plead guilty, the automatic exemption of his co-accused from all criminal responsibility. Plainly, this should not be allowed." 14

    In the instant case, the evidence for the prosecution clearly established that appellant and his brother conspired to commit the crime. Each brother performed specific acts — stabbing Nido and blocking his path to ensure no escape from their blows — with such closeness and coordination as to indicate beyond doubt a common purpose or design. 15 Both were thus principles in committing the crime charged.

    Nor did Ale’s plea of guilty to homicide mean that the killing of the victim was not attended by the circumstance of treachery. Treachery was not appreciated against Alex obviously as a result of plea bargaining, and not because the same was not proven to have attended the killing of the victim. This circumstance, alleged in the information as qualifying the killing to murder, as shall be discussed later, was duly proven by the prosecution in the trial against Appellant.

    We now consider appellant’s defense of alibi. Appellant alleges that on the entire afternoon of September 28, 1991, he and his brother were at home with their parents. Appellant’s alibi was corroborated by his father Carlos Patrolla, Sr.

    We have consistently held that alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. 16 The victim’s widow positively identified appellant and Alex Patrolla as her and her husband’s assailants.

    Appellant was also positively identified by Charlie Segovia. Segovia testified that he was playing mahjong in the store of Sansing Gabison some 25 meters from the Panogalinog’s barbecue stand, when he heard shouts. He rushed out of the store and saw Alex and appellant stabbing Nido. He also heard appellant challenge anyone to defend Nido. 17

    On the other hand, appellant’s father could not strongly affirm that appellant was at home at the time the crime was committed. He admitted that while he knew appellant was sleeping in his room, he did not and could not actually see him. 18

    We now consider the modifying circumstances.

    The trial court appreciated treachery to qualify the killing to murder. Treachery is present "when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party may make." 19

    The treacherous manner by which the appellant and his brother perpetrated the crime is shown not only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting Nido but also by the deliberate manner in which the attack was perpetrated. Appellant and his brother stood on each side of Nido, so that Nido could in no way defend himself and so that there could be no escape from the blows directed at him.

    The commission of the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength on account of the fact that appellant and his brother, both arm, purposely used force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked. However, this circumstance is absorbed in treachery. 20

    Evident premeditation, which as alleged in the information, has not been proven by the prosecution. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent any proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. 21

    We agree with the observation of the solicitor General that the trial court erred when it convicted appellant of two separate crimes, namely, murder and less serious physical injuries, and imposed two separate penalties. The Solicitor General stated thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It is observed that the killing of Nido Panogalinog and the wounding of his wife Belinda Panogalinog, arose from appellant’s single act of hacking Nido Panogalinog (TSN, August 18, 1992, pp. 5-8). As such, not two (2) but one (1) complex crime of Murder with Less Serious Physical Injuries was committed. Verily, the penalty for Murder, the most serious crime, shall be imposed upon appellant, the same to be applied in its maximum period. 22

    Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, . . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period." As proven by the prosecution, appellant’s initial blow hit Nido on the forehead and Belinda on her left palm. 23 Less serious physical injuries is a less grave felony, as it is punishable by arresto mayor, 24 a correctional penalty.25cralaw:red

    Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is penalized by reclusion temporal maximum to death. Following Article 48, the penalty imposable is death, which is the maximum of the penalty to murder. However, at the time the crime was committed, the imposition of the death penalty was proscribed by the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the penalty imposable reclusion perpetua.

    Anent the trial court’s award of moral and exemplary damages to the heirs Nido Panogalinog, we find the same to be unwarranted.

    Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, 26 but there must be a factual basis for the award. We have studied the records and find no factual basis for the award of moral damages.

    Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases where the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance. 27 No aggravating circumstance is present, other than treachery which qualified the killing to murder and abuse of superior strength which was however absorbed in treachery, to warrant the award of exemplary damages.

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed judgment modified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Accused-appellant Carlos Patrolla, Jr. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with Less Serious Physical Injuries, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Nido Panogalinog.

    SO ORDERED

    Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Records, pp. 1-2.

    2. Id., at 25.

    3. Id., at 26.

    4. Id., at 132.

    5. TSN, August 18, 1992, p. 5-6.

    6. Id., at 7.

    7. Id., at 8.

    8. Id., at 10.

    9. See note 1, supra., p. 8.

    10. See note 5., supra, pp. 11-12.

    11. See note 1, supra., p. 12.

    12. Rollo, p. 74.

    13. People v. Villarama, Jr., 210 SCRA 246 [1992], citing Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, p. 1037.

    14. People v. Dela Merced, 7 SCRA 291 (1963); See also People v. Armada, Jr., 225 SCRA 644 (1993).

    15. People v. Campa, 230 SCRA 431(1994).

    16. People v. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426 (1994).

    17. TSN, September 2, 1992, pp. 2-4.

    18. TSN, November 18, 1992, p. 19.

    19. Article 14, par. 16 Revised Penal Code.

    20. People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 990587, October 25, 1995; People v. Pangan, 231 SCRA 682 (1994).

    21. People v. Penones, 200 SCRA 624 (1991).

    22. See note 12 supra., p. 142.

    23. See for example People v. Balotol, 84 Phil. 289.

    24. Art. 265, Revised Penal Code.

    25. Art. 9, Id.

    26. Article 2219[1], Civil Code of the Philippines; See Article 2217, Civil Code of the Philippines; See People v. Adviado, G.R. No. 113782-84, August 14, 1995.

    27. Article 2230, Civil Code of the Philippines; People v. Maguikay, 237 SCRA 587 [1994]; People v. Rabanes, 208 SCRA 768 (1992).

    G.R. No. 112445   March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED