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-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 130378   March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 130378. March 8, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL MATARO y ELIZAGA and NICK PERUCHO y SINGSON, Accused-Appellants.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    On appeal is the decision 1 dated January 29, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 88, finding appellants herein Arnel Mataro and Nick Perucho guilty of murder, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Enrique Castillo, P725,000.00 as actual damages and P1,000,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Two separate informations were filed against appellants, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q-93-41704 against accused Arnel Mataro

    That on or about the 23rd day of October 1992 in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with other persons whose true identities, whereabouts and other personal circumstances of which have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, superior strength and evident premeditation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one SPO1 ENRIQUE CASTILLO, JR. Y BALBIN, by then and there shooting the latter with the use of firearms thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said SPO1 ENRIQUE CASTILLO, JR., Y BALBIN.

    Contrary to law.

    Q-93-48440 against accused Nick Perucho

    That on or about the 23rd day of October, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with and mutually helping with his co-accused/ARNEL MATARO, who was then charged with the same offense in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, this City docketed as Crim. Case No. Q-93-41704, with intent to kill, with treachery, superior strength and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of SPO1 ENRIQUE CASTILLO, JR. Y BALBIN, by means then and there shooting the latter with the use of firearms, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said SPO1 ENRIQUE CASTILLO, JR. Y BALBIN.

    Contrary to law. 2

    Initially, the information against Nick Perucho was filed in RTC, Branch 87, but upon motions of complainant Evangeline Castillo and Asst. City Prosecutor Ralph S. Lee, the two cases were consolidated. Both accused pleaded "Not Guilty" during their respective arraignment. Trial thereafter on the merits ensued.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Victor Nilo Fernandez and Reden Guzman.

    Fernandez, a jeepney driver whose Cubao-Divisoria route passed along Magsaysay Blvd., declared that on October 23, 1992, at around 4:00 P.M., he saw SPO1 Enrique Castillo, Jr., stop a light brown Toyota Corona. Mataro and Perucho disembarked and talked to Castillo. After a while, Mataro and Perucho went to their car and returned with an armalite and a .45 cal. firearm. Castillo raised his hands and motioned the two accused to move along and forget their citation. The two accused shot him instead. 3

    Guzman testified that on October 23, 1992 at around 4:15 P.M., the passenger jeepney he was riding stopped in front of SM Centerpoint. At the same time, he saw the two accused shoot SPO1 Castillo. 4

    Dr. Juan Zaldariaga, the NBI medico-legal officer, testified that three gunshot wounds were inflicted upon the victim, one on the left side of the chest and two on the left side of the back. He said one of the wounds could have been inflicted while the victim was standing up, facing his assailant who was about three feet away. Another wound could have been inflicted while the victim was already in a supine position facing up with the assailant on top of the head of the victim. The third wound could have been inflicted when the victim was already lying face down. 5

    SPO3 Jaime Santos testified that he was the one who handled the investigation of the case. He said that after the case was assigned to him, he immediately contacted Victor Nilo Fernandez and asked him whether he could still identify the two persons he saw shooting SPO1 Enrique Castillo. When Fernandez confirmed that he could, SPO3 Jaime Santos accompanied him first to the PNP jail in Camp Crame where Fernandez identified Mataro. They then proceeded to the Muntinlupa jail where Fernandez identified Perucho. Both identification were made in line-ups. 6

    The widow of the victim, Evangeline Castillo, testified on the expenses she incurred as a result of her husband’s death. 7

    The appellants interposed alibi and denial in their defense. They presented Morieto Bello who testified that he was with accused Mataro at around 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on October 23, 1992. They were at the Villamor Vulcanizing Shop located between V.V. Soliven and SSS Village in Marikina where Mataro was having his jeep fixed. 8

    Another witness for the defense, Amy Pangilinan, testified that she was with Mataro in the afternoon of October 23, 1992 with a certain Gemma Sunga. They went to Antipolo to buy a pig for her birthday. On their way home they had engine trouble. They went to a vulcanizing shop for at least one hour waiting for the jeepney to be fixed. 9

    Appellant Mataro testified that on October 23, 1992, he went to Antipolo with Gemma Sunga and Amy Pangilinan to buy a pig for the latter’s birthday. They left Fairview at past 12:00 noon. They reached Antipolo at around 3:00 P.M. and they left at around 5:00 P.M. The jeepney had engine trouble so they stopped at Villamor Vulcanizing Shop in Cupang, Antipolo for about an hour. He said that he was arrested by operatives of the PACC on December 21, 1992 on suspicion that he was a member of a kidnap for ransom gang. He admitted knowing Perucho since they were both bodyguards of Atty. Leonardo Laurente. He denied shooting SPO1 Castillo. During cross-examination, he testified that as a former military man he was given a machine gun but had returned it to their supply officer. He only met Perucho when he arrived in Cagayan. 10

    Defense witness Arturo dela Cruz testified that he was with Perucho in Aklan on October 23, 1992 and that Perucho left Aklan only sometime in November of 1992. 11

    Appellant Perucho testified that he was in Aklan from June 1992 until November of the same year. He said he worked for one Atty. Laurente as a bodyguard for the elections after the latter helped in his release from detention. He denied the accusation against him. 12

    On January 29, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, Accused Arnel Mataro and Nick Perucho are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder, both to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Enrique Castillo the following: 1) P725,000.00 as actual damages; 2) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; and 3) to pay the cost.

    SO ORDERED. 13

    The accused filed this appeal. Appellants alleged that the trial court erred in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS AND IN NOT ACQUITTING THEM:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (A) ON GROUNDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT; AND

    (B) BY APPLYING THE "EQUIPOISE RULE." 14

    The appellants question the credibility of Fernandez and Guzman. They aver that during the investigation, a certain Ebalde gave his statements to the police that the car used by the assailants was a gray Kia Pride. They also point out that the witnesses of the prosecution did not agree on the number of persons riding the car which was stopped by Castillo. They likewise raise that during the initial investigation, the eyewitnesses described Mataro as a man between 35 to 40 years old. Mataro was only 24 years old at the time of the incident. Finally, they invoke the "equipoise" rule 15 because their guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 16

    The Office of the Solicitor General, for its part, asserts that the testimonies of the witnesses were positive, straightforward and unerring. The appellants were identified by Fernandez in two separate line-ups and during trial. Witness Guzman likewise identified them during the trial.

    That Mataro was described as 35 years old is explained by Mataro’s face which did not look a young 25.

    On the "equipoise" rule, the OSG asserts that positive and unerring identification made by the witnesses rule out any erroneous identification, thus the "equipoise" rule need not be applied. 17

    In People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995), we enumerated the requisite for credible identification as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;

    2) witness’ degree of attention at that time;

    3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;

    4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;

    5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and

    6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 18

    In our view, these requirements were met. We agree with the trial court when it said:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In the instant case, there is no question that both witnesses had the opportunity to view the incident as it unfolded before them with a degree of attention that allowed them to take in the important details and recall them clearly. The incident occurred in broad daylight (approximately 4:00 P.M.) in an intersection where witness Coronel, driving his passenger jeep which was temporarily on a standstill, waiting for the go signal from the traffic officer. Being a bare 3 meters away from the three men, it was expected that Co[r]onel had his attention focused on the traffic officer, alert and ready to move as soon as the signal is given. It was no coincidence for him to have watched with keenness the meeting that ended in a shooting. The same is true with witness De Guzman, a passenger riding in a jeepney about 9 to 10 meters from the scene. Passengers are wont to (sic) get curious when their vehicles are stalled not necessarily to see what is happening but to check when their vehicles would be moving. The case of a traffic officer confronted by two (2) motorists is bound to attract attention of passersby particularly passengers like De Guzman interested in the uninterrupted flow of traffic. 19

    Moreover, as repeatedly stressed, appellate court should accord to the factual findings of trial courts and their evaluation great weight and respect concerning the credibility of witnesses. 20 The conditions of visibility being favorable and these witnesses not appearing to be biased, the conclusion of trial courts regarding the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. 21

    Fernandez and Guzman had no stake whatsoever in this case. The defense had not been able to impute any ill motive on their part which would prompt them to falsely accuse appellants. Where there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by any improper motive, the presumption is that they are not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 22

    Appellants claim that the car used by the killers was a gray Kia Pride as averred by Ebalde in his sworn statement and not a Toyota as testified to by Fernandez and Guzman. But Ebalde was never presented in court. His alleged statements are hearsay, without any probative value. 23

    The alleged inconsistency in the number of passengers inside the Toyota Corona is a minor detail which only serves to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of Fernandez and Guzman. The same holds true with respect to the witnesses’ erroneous estimate of the age of appellants. Such minor inconsistencies are actually indicative of honest and unrehearsed declarations and responses of witnesses and thereby even enhance their credibility. 24 The fact remains that there were eyewitnesses who positively, categorically and firmly testified that they saw the actual killing. While Fernandez did categorically state that there were three persons inside the vehicle, no such categorical declaration came out from Reden Guzman. His testimony reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: How far were you while you were riding in a jeep from the policeman who was shot?

    A: Nine (9) to ten (10) meters, Sir.

    Q: And was your jeep in a stop position or was it moving, Mr. Witness?

    A: Stop position, Sir.

    Q: How many persons shot this policeman?

    A: Two (2) persons.

    Q: And will you please tell the Court how did these two (2) persons shoot the policeman?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A: The policeman stopped the car and the two (2) persons alighted and then after that they went . . .there was a conversation which I did not hear but later on they returned to their vehicle and got their firearms and shot the policeman.

    x       x       x25cralaw:red

    Nothing therein refers to the number of passengers inside the Toyota Corona.

    Appellants interposed alibi and denial in their defense. However, in light of the positive, categorical, and unerring identification of appellants, the defense’s plea of alibi and denial must necessarily fail. Alibi cannot stand against strong and positive identification. 26

    The trial court did not err in qualifying the killing as murder. There was treachery in this case since, as testified to by prosecution witness Fernandez, the victim had already dismissed the appellants after they talked to him. The victim was deliberately allowed to enjoy a false sense of security. They shot the victim when the latter had his hands raised. In People v. Castro, 20 SCRA 543 (1967), this Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Where the victim was shot, when his hands were raised, to show that he would not fight, or because of fright, or to try to ward off the shots that were to come, he was clearly in a defenseless position. This circumstance constitutes treachery. 27

    In People v. Tobias, 267 SCRA 229 (1997), we held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That the attack was preceded by a scuffle, as pointed out by the accused, is of no moment, since treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. 28

    In our view, the amount of damages awarded must be modified. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties. 29 The trial court awarded P725,000.00 as actual damages and P1,000,000.00 as moral damages. In arriving at P725,000.00 as actual damages, the trial court added the loss of earning capacity of the victim which it computed to be P660,000.00 and the other expenses incurred by the heirs of the victim as a result of his death.

    We agree that the life expectancy formula should be applied. However, the loss of earning capacity should not be based on the net monthly income of the deceased. The proper computation should be based on the gross annual income of the victim minus the necessary and incidental living expenses which the victim would have incurred if he were alive, estimated at 50% 30 of the gross annual income. The prosecution proved through the Certification of Employment and Compensation 31 that the gross annual income (including 13th month pay and bonus) of the deceased is P65,906.00. Deducting from this the estimated necessary and incidental living expenses, the net annual income is P32,953.00. Multiplying this by the computed life expectancy of the victim which is 22 years, the amount of loss of earning capacity should be P724,966.00.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    With respect to actual damages, we have consistently ruled that the recovery of actual damages must be premised upon competent proof and best evidence obtainable by the injured party showing the actual expenses incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim. Courts cannot simply assume that damages are sustained by the injured party, nor can it rely on speculation or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. 32 In this case, of the expenses summarized by the injured party, only the one incurred for funeral services amounting to P25,000.00 is duly evidenced by a receipt. 33 The trial court’s award of P1,200.00 for hospital bills, P43,800.00 for funeral services and P20,000.00 for transportation and representation expenses lacks sufficient basis and should be deleted.

    In line with People v. Suplito, 314 SCRA 493 (1999), however, temperate damages may be awarded, it appearing that the victim’s heirs had suffered pecuniary losses other than the actual damage but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. Taking into consideration the medical and burial services for the victim, an award of P30,000.00 by way of temperate damages should suffice in this regard.

    The award of P1,000,000.00 as moral damages should be reduced, bearing in mind that the purpose for making such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them however inexact for injuries to their feelings. In line with current jurisprudence on moral damages, an award of P50,000.00 is in order. 34 Likewise, based on prevailing case laws P50,000.00 is awarded as indemnity for wrongful death. Attorney’s fees of P24,000.00 is also proper. 35

    WHEREFORE above premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 of Quezon City is hereby AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the total sum of P903,966.00, consisting of P50,000 as death indemnity; P724,966 for loss of earning capacity; P25,000 as actual damages; P30,000 as temperate damages; P50,000 as moral damages; and P24,000 for attorney’s fees.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Costs against appellants.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 24-38.

    2. Id., at 7-10.

    3. TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 5-17.

    4. TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 5-9.

    5. TSN, December 16, 1993, pp. 6-12.

    6. TSN, January 21, 1994, pp. 12-26.

    7. TSN, August 18, 1994, pp. 8-26.

    8. TSN, February 10, 1995, pp. 5-7.

    9. TSN, July 31, 1995, pp. 3-7.

    10. TSN, August 4, 1995, pp. 7-29.

    11. TSN, October 2, 1995, p. 5.

    12. TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 3-13.

    13. Rollo, p. 38.

    14. Id. at 65.

    15. This rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. People v. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677, 690 (1996), citing Federico B. Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary (1991-1992 supplement), 30.

    16. Id. at 58-80.

    17. Id. at 134.

    18. People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54, 95 (1995).

    19. Rollo, p. 29.

    20. People v. Zamora, 278 SCRA 60, 73 (1997); People v. Jagolingay, 280 SCRA 768, 774 (1997).

    21. People v. Montero, Jr., 277 SCRA 194, 206 (1997).

    22. People v. Piandiong, 268 SCRA 555, 564 (1997).

    23. Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 735, 745 (1997).

    24. People v. Andal, 279 SCRA 474, 491 (1997).

    25. Appellants Brief, citing TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 6-7, Rollo, p. 74.

    26. People v. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26, 43 (1997).

    27. People v. Castro, 20 SCRA 543, 547 (1967).

    28. People v. Tobias, 267 SCRA 229, 255 (1997).

    29. People v. Villaruel, 261 SCRA 386, 397 (1996).

    30. See People v. Nullan, 305 SCRA 679, 706-707 (1999).

    31. Exhibit "Q" .

    32. People v. Nullan, 305 SCRA 679, 705 (1999) citing People v. Degoma, 209 SCRA 266 (1992) and People v. Fabrigas, Jr., 261 SCRA 436 (1996).

    33. Exhibit "P-3" .

    34. People v. Gutierrez, Jr., 302 SCRA 643, 668 (1999); People v. Verde, 302 SCRA 690, 706 (1999).

    35. People v. Verde, 302 SCRA 690, 707 (1999).

    G.R. No. 130378   March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.




    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