People v. Belonio : 148695 : May 27, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc :
[G.R. NO. 148695 : May 27, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RANDY BELONIO y
D E C I S I O N
For automatic review before this Court is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental (Branch 50 stationed in
Bacolod City) in Criminal Case No. 00-20595, dated February 26, 2001, finding
Randy Belonio y Landas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to death.
The Amended Information dated April 27, 2000, charged appellant
with Murder as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
That on or about the 6th day of January, 2000, in the
City of Talisay, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an
improvised knife, with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one RAMY TAMAYO, thus causing injuries in the vital parts of
the body of the latter which caused his instantaneous death.
That accused RANDY BELONIO y LANDAS is a recidivist for having
been convicted by final judgment of 4 years, two (2) months, one day to six
years in Crim. Case 94-16609 entitled: People of the Philippines v. Randy
Belonio y Landas for Homicide.2 cralawred
Upon his arraignment on May 24, 2000,3 appellant, assisted by his counsel de
oficio, pleaded not guilty.
In his Brief,4 the Solicitor General narrates the factual antecedents of the case, as
summarized by the trial court, as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Jennifer Carampatana testified that on January 6, 2000, her
grandmother was buried and there was a wake in their house at Brgy. Zone 14 in
Her first cousin, the late
Ramy Tamayo, also called Ramon Tamayo, arrived in their house at about 10:00
P.M. together with his wife.
Jennifer invited Ramy to talk outside of their house.
Before they could sit on a nearby bench,
Ramy decided to buy cigarettes from a store only a few meters away.
The store was furnished with a small opening
for the store-keeper to attend to the customers and Ramy was occupying that
space in front of the opening to pay when the accused Randy Belonio
Randy tried to force his way
in front of the opening and as a consequence, he bumped on Ramy.
Jennifer saw that Randy gave Ramy a long and
Jennifer said that he and Ramy sat and talked on the bench.
The accused came over and sat on the other
end of the bench.
Then the accused
asked Ramy for the latters cigarette lighter.
The accused asked Ramy from what place did he come from and why was he
Ramy answered the accused in a
The accused left but after a few minutes he returned, Jennifer,
who was facing the direction of the approaching accused, saw him and noticed
that he was wearing long sleeves.
Tamayo could not see the accused as he was facing sideways to Jennifer.
Without saying a word and without warning,
the accused delivered a stabbing blow with a dagger which was concealed in his
Ramy was hit on the right chest,
Jennifer stood up and ran towards her house shouting for help.
There at the gate of the fence of her house,
she heard another thudding sound of a stabbing blow.When Jennifer entered her house, she announced that Ramy was
Jennifer and her relatives rushed out of the house.
Jennifer saw the accused running away
towards the back of the barangay hall.
The Tanods who came over failed to find the accused.
Then when the Barangay Captain and the
policemen arrived, Jennifer informed them of the direction towards which the
The accused was arrested
from one (1) of the houses near the barangay hall where he took refuge.
Dr. Raul V. Pama, Jr. was the acting City Health Officer of
Talisay City on January 6, 2000.
conducted an autopsy on the remains of Ramy Tamayo and listed his findings in a
necropsy report which he prepared.
These findings are as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1.7 cm. in length, sutured sharp on one (1) and (inferior portion) and blunt on
the other end (superior portion) located at the 4th intercostal
Dr. Pama explained that the wound is just above the left nipple
and it penetrated downward hitting the left side on the heart;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.Stabbed wound at
The wound is situated just
above the site of the first wound.
The first wound was fatal as it damaged the heart.5 cralawred
In his Brief,6 Randy Belonio adopted the above findings of the trial court and the
However, he raises the
defense of insanity, an exempting circumstance, and for such purpose, depends
on the expert assessment of his witness, Dr. Antonio Gauzon, who certified
This is an individual who is suffering from (Schizophrenia),
Chronic Undifferentiated and probably triggered by (s) ubstance abuse of Shabu
Recommending treatment and rehabilitation in a mental institution
like the National Center for Mental (H) ealth in Mandaluyong City or treatment
in the psychiatric unit of the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Regional Hospital in
Bacolod City and later rehabilitation in the Negros (O) ccidental Mental Health
Center at Paglaum Village, Bacolod City.7 cralawred
The RTC was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was
guilty of Murder and that he had full control of his mental faculties.
It held that the testimony of Dr. Ester
Regina Servando was more weighty and credible than that of Dr. Gauzon.8 cralawred
The trial court convicted appellant, thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Randy Belonio y
Landas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the
Information, as Principal by Direct (Participation) with the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance
There are no other
aggravating circumstances nor is there any mitigating circumstance.
Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to
suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
The accused is held civilly liable to pay the heirs of Randy Tamayo
the following amounts:
P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
P3,629.70 as reimbursement for hospital expenses;
P940,716.00 as compensatory damages; andcralawlibrary
4.The sum of
P100,000.00 in favor of Mrs.
Jinky Tamayo as moral damages.9 cralawred
Hence this automatic review.
In his brief, appellant assigns this lone alleged error of the
court a quo for our consideration:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
The trial court seriously erred in not appreciating the exempting
circumstance of insanity pursuant to Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended favoring the accused-appellant.10 cralawred
In support of his appeal, appellant argues that he was not in his
right and normal frame of mind when the killing took place.
He avers that no normal person would ever
bump another person, give the latter a hard look and eventually stab him to
He adds that he and the victim
did not know each other at that time.11 cralawred
Appellant also asseverates that Dr. Gauzon is a reliable expert
witness and is more knowledgeable and experienced than Dr. Servando.12 He explains that Dr. Servando was once under the tutelage of Dr. Gauzon and
that at the time of their respective testimonies, the former was only 37 years
old, while the latter was 57 years old.13 Appellant also cites portions of the trial courts Decision where Dr. Gauzon
referred him to the Bacolod City Health Office for psychiatric
The trial court also
branded the accused as a homicidal maniac, which appellant says, is judicial
notice of his mental sickness.14 In sum, he concludes that all of these circumstances show that he was insane at
the time of the killing.
We find these arguments without merit.
The moral and legal presumption is that one acts with free will
and intelligence, and that a felonious or criminal act has been done with
deliberate intent, that is, with freedom and intelligence.15 Whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its
Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance, and as such must be adequately proved.16 The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that acts are done
In the case at bar, the defense utterly failed to discharge its
burden of proving that appellant was insane.
The testimony or proof of appellants insanity must relate to the time
preceding or the very moment of the commission of the offense charged.18 We find the evidence adduced by the defense sorely insufficient to establish
his claim that he was insane at the time he killed Tamayo.
The main circumstances presented by the defense that remotely
evinces that appellant was insane at that time was his act of bumping the
victim, without any apparent reason, giving him a long hard look, and then
eventually stabbing him.
sequence of events cannot overcome the legal presumption of sanity, let alone
prove appellants insanity.
In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the offender
was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence.19 As culled from the trial courts findings, Belonio, after giving the victim a
hard and resentful look, sat near the latter, lighted his cigarette and
conversed with him.20 Afterwards, he left and came back armed with a dagger with which he stabbed
Immediately thereafter, he
escaped and went into hiding.
to a finding of the existence of insanity, these acts tend to establish that
Belonio was well aware of what he had just committed, and was capable of
distinguishing right from wrong.
Otherwise, he would not have attempted to escape and go into hiding.
Aside from the bumping incident earlier discussed, the only
other evidence of insanity that appellant could relevantly point to is the
medical certificate prepared by Dr. Antonio Gauzon stating that Belonio was
suffering from schizophrenia.
was presented to refute the findings of the prosecutions expert witness Dr.
Ester Regina Servando which negated the existence of this mental condition.
A run-through of Dr. Gauzons testimony strengthens this Courts
resolve to affirm the lower courts findings.
Part of his testimony is reproduced as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
from this Medical Certificate, Doctor, there is specifically mentioned here
that the subject here was found to be incoherent and irrelevant and
disoriented as to time, person and place, and that there was plight of ideas
and adjustment, as well as insights.
Will you kindly explain this to this Honorable Court?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
meant there is that, when you talk to the individual, sometimes you get answers
right, sometimes it is wrong.
when you say that he is incoherent.
When you say irrelevant, that pertain to the question.
Now, as far as dates, he could not remember
As far (as) the place, he
could not recall the place when he was in my office.And some of the persons that were with him, he could not identify
Now, when I say that there was
plight of ideas, that (was) when he was talking.As a matter of fact, I gave an example, when I asked a question
when I asked him about the first killing incident and his answer was, face to
face kami, simbahan namon kag inagaw namon ang baril because of warship.
That is only one, because there were others
that you could not understand what he was talking about whether you have to
rely only on other things.
sometimes, he would talk on things which are not there. That means he was
hallucinating. Now, judgment is usually poor.
Because, when I asked him of what he will do regarding the case, he
would just say that, Ti, amo na ya.
And he said, Ano kamo da ya? kay ang warship.
So, I was asking him about the values of
what he was doing and he could not give me that answer.
And he does not know what he was doing.
That means that there was no reality
He does not know what is the
x x x x x x x x x
in your opinion as an expert in terms of Psychiatry, about how long has the
subject, Randy Belonio, been suffering from his mental disorder that you
mentioned in your Medical Certificate?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
If you would notice, I put
there in the history that his father was medically disabled when he was ten
(10) years old, and the mother was only a fish vendor and there were, I think,
eight (8) to ten (10) in the family and with a meager income and have to (fend)
And in a very young age
of ten (10),
the parents had the attitude of Bahala na ang kabata-an.
That means, they have to take care of
At age 13, he was brought
by the relative to Manila, and although he was incoherent, you can get from his
answer by mentioning so many places, (like) Manila, Pasay, Caloocan,
Novaliches, MRT, Cubao.
That means, at
age 13, he was already around these areas (f) ending for himself.
And the (s) treet (u) rchins, you know for a
fact, that they are influenced by drugs.
So, by that time, with that dysfunctional family, and without any family
to take care of himself, he was not doing what the society expects him to
So that they have dysfunctional
family and with dysfunctional relatives.
So, the value system was really poor.
So that the thinking process of this individual was not developed to
what the society expects him to be.
it started at that time.
So, when he
was taking shabu, it triggered every tissue that the symptoms came out.
Thats why, he became suspicious, (he)
became irritable and anybody who would try to not befriend him and tried to be
angry with him, he would immediately suspect that something would happen to him
in which he would react by defending himself, and probably by killing.
This individual had, actually, committed,
I would not say murder
because thats your term, but he had killed already three (3) persons in
So, he does not
already know what he was doing because he was psychotic, which in your parlance
Doctor, on January 6, 2000, and even prior to this date, what you are trying to
say is that, this subject, Randy Belonio, was already suffering from
Dr. Gauzon testified that based on his interview with Belonio on October
25, 2000 (around nine months after
the stabbing incident) the latter was suffering from schizophrenia.
However, the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the
offense may be accorded weight only if there is also proof of alleged abnormal
behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime.22 cralawred
The first set of facts narrated by the doctor relates to
Belonios condition during the interview, months after the incident.
His report was silent as regards the
incidents occurring prior to or during the circumstance for which Belonio
The second part of his
testimony dwelt on Belonios life history, which was offered to prove that he
had been suffering from his alleged condition since childhood.
However, perusing the story as narrated by the doctor, the same
was a mere statement of Belonios life and family history, explaining what
brought about his supposed mental condition.
There was no showing that he was actually suffering from schizophrenia
during his juvenile years.
demonstrate that he had been suffering from this condition, the doctor pointed
to the fact that he has already killed three (3) persons, including the present
However, such conclusion is non sequitur and, at best, a circuitous argument.
Further, the veracity of these findings is
belied by the fact that the accused did not raise this defense during his
prosecutions for the other killings. No other circumstances evincing its
existence were presented during trial.
Furthermore, Dr. Gauzons examination cannot surmount Dr.
Servandos punctilious and overwhelming analysis, which took two days to
She explained the history of
the accused, including his family and medical background, conducted a mental
status examination, which was based on her direct interviews with him, and gave
a series of other written psychological examinations.23 cralawred
The portion of Dr. Servandos testimony pertinent to her findings
regarding Belonios mental condition is quoted as follows:
you please read for the record this (r) esult which consist only of one (1)
Base(d) on history,
mental status examination, and psychological examination, patient was noted to
be evasive, suspicious, and manipulative but no psychotic features were
observed upon evaluation. x x x.
let us first, may I ask, what do you me(a) n by patient was noted to be
evasive, suspicious, and manipulative?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
during the psychological examination, we have to give series of questions.
And then the patient (does) not answer
directly to our question.
He would go
around the bush.
And then, after that,
we also found out during the result of the psychological examination that the
same pattern was noted.
this mean that he was totally capable of being manipulative or evasive?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
did it intentionally?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the knowledge that he knew the answer but does not want to give the answer?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
to say, that he has full control of his mental faculties that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
there was an intention to be manipulative and there was an intention to be
evasive because he was suspicious?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
you said that there was no psychotic features(,) x x x (w) hat does this mean?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
you say psychosis, those are compose[d] of symptoms such as delusion and
hallucination that are being extracted from the patient or being displayed by
However, during the
examination, the symptom or the patients answers are not enough to put him to
a criteria of psychosis because the delusion and the hallucination as well as
the thought process, the thought contents must be concretized enough in order
for us to determine to diagnose that this patient is actually suffering from
subjected to your examination, this patient did not come up to the level where
he could be diagnosed as having delusion and hallucinations?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
to psychotic features.
that is the meaning of not having psychotic features?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The insanity issue raised by appellant boils down to the
credibility of these two expert witnesses and their respective
The time-honored doctrine
is that the question of which witness to believe is one best addressed by the
The findings of fact of
the judges who heard the evidence are accorded great respect and are seldom
disturbed on appeal for they had the opportunity to directly observe the
witnesses, and to determine by their demeanor on the stand the probative value
of their testimonies.25 The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court which
found Dr. Servandos testimony more credible for the following reasons:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1.It could not be
gainsaid that Dr. Servando is a disinterested and unbiased witness.
She does not know the accused and she is not
known to the accused.
She will not be
benefited if the Court upholds her findings and she had no reason to testify
On the other hand, Dr. Gauzon
was admittedly paid for his services, hence, it could not be truly said that he
is an impartial and disinterested witness.
If his findings (are) upheld, the benefit to the practice of his
profession is enormous;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.As a government
official, Dr. Servando has the presumption of regularity in the performance of her
No such presumption arises in
favor of Dr. Gauzon;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.The findings of Dr.
Servando that the accused is evasive and manipulative is supported by the
Courts own observation. x x x.
x x x
4.The conclusion of Dr.
Gauzon is principally based on his interview with the accused and the members
of the accuseds family.
It was the
members of the accuseds family, the sister of the accused who informed Dr.
Gauzon that at the age of 13, the accused began to use drugs.
The information that the family of the
accused was impoverished; that the accused spent his adolescence in
Metro-Manila; that the accused was a neglected child were all supplied by the
kins of the accused who were not presented as witnesses.
There was no showing that Dr. Gauzon took
precautionary steps to validate the information.On the other hand, Dr. Servando also conducted interview of the
accused and his accompanying relatives including the BJMP guard who escorted
In addition, Dr. Servando
conducted a series of written tests which are tailored to determine the mental
capacity of a person.
The result of the
written tests confirms the observation of Dr. Servando in the interview that
the accused is evasive and manipulative.26 cralawred
Unlike in other jurisdictions, Philippine courts have established
a more stringent criterion for the acceptance of insanity as an exempting
In our jurisdiction, mere
abnormality of the mental faculties is not enough; there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
Every individual is presumed to have acted with complete grasp of
ones mental faculties.
past does not discredit the facts that (1) he did not act with complete absence
of the power to discern;
(2) he was not
deprived of reason; and (3) he was not totally deprived of his will.
As held in People v. Madarang,27 cralawred
An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not guilty by
He admits committing
the crime but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at the time of
Hence, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity
alone and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any
trial on the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing the crime.
x x x.28 cralawred
Inasmuch as Belonio failed to present convincing evidence to
establish his alleged insanity at the time he stabbed Tamayo, we are
constrained to affirm his conviction.
We must add that we have meticulously reviewed the records of
this case, especially the evidence of the prosecution.
We find no reason to modify, much less
reverse, the findings of the trial court that, indeed, appellants guilt for
murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We now look into the propriety of the penalty imposed by the
Under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659,
any person found guilty of murder shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death.
The same Code further instructs that when in the commission of the crime
there is present an aggravating circumstance which is not offset by any
mitigating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.29 cralawred
A review of the records supports the conclusion of the trial
court on the presence of treachery, which qualified the crime to murder.
For treachery to be appreciated, two
elements must concur: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.30 cralawred
In the present case, Jennifer Carampatana testified on how the
killing was executed, as follows:
did you do there?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
we were conversing at that bench, after a short while, or five (5) minutes,
Randy Belonio came and he asked to light his cigarette because Ramy was smoking
at that time.
He was allowed by Ramy to
light his cigarette.
Q.Was there any
conversation between Ramy Tamayo and Randy Belonio aside from asking lighting
A.While asking to light
the cigarette, Randy inquired from Ramy why he was there, Ramy told him that he
is attending the wake of his grandmother.
Further, Randy asked him where he came from?And Ramy answered that he is from Hda. Bubog.
Q.After that what did Randy
Belonio do if he did anything?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.He (sat) for a while, and a little while after that, he took a look at Ramy.
After some minutes, he went out.
Q.And after few minutes was
there any incident happened?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.After three (3) minutes
Randy went back.
He just walk normally, and when he was near Ramy he stabbed Ramy hitting on the chest and while the
weapon was still on the breast of Ramy I stood up and ran away.
Q.From what direction did
Randy came when he approach you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.He came from their house
because their house is near our house.
Q.In relation to you, where
is this house located?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.Witness indicating that
he came from her side, where the house is situated.
Q.And which side did you
sit, the side near the direction of the house of Randy Belonio or far from the
house of Belonio?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.The other side.
It was Ramy who was sitting near the
house of Ramy?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q.And what was the position
of Ramy Tamayo when he was suddenly stab.
A.He was sitting in this
Witness illustrating by
crossing her legs over the other legs and move slightly her body was in side
means that Ramy Tamayo did not see Randy Belonio who was coming from the house?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Let me interrupt.
He was facing you?Ramy was facing you while you were facing the direction where the
house of Randy Belonio, so that Ramy was facing on the other side?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q.When Randy Belonio
suddenly thrust the knife on the chest of Ramy Tamayo, did you see the reaction
of Ramy Tamayo?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.He was not able to
After that, I want to ran to the
Q.When for the first time
did you see the weapon used by Randy Belonio in taking the life of Ramy Tamayo?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.When he thrusted that
Before or after he delivered the stabbing blow?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.At the moment he
delivered the stabbing blow, that was the first time I saw that knife.
Q.When you saw Randy Belonio
approaching Ramy Tamayo x x x, you did not see the knife?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A.Because he was wearing
long sleeve to cover his hand.31 cralawred
Appellants acts of leaving, then returning after a few minutes
armed with a knife -- which he concealed while approaching the victim and which
he used in stabbing him -- while the latter was sitting, unaware and not
forewarned of any danger, manifest a deliberate employment of means to ensure
the killing without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism, which was alleged in
the Information was also duly proven.
A recidivist is one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in
the same title of this Code.32 The records33 show that appellant was previously convicted by final judgment of Homicide,
which like Murder, falls under the title of Crimes against Persons.
The award by the court a quo of
P50,000 as civil indemnity
is in accordance with jurisprudence.34 The amount of P25,000 as exemplary damages should also be given because
of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
However, the court erred in awarding the
P940,716 as loss of
In accordance with
the formula adopted by the Court in Villa
Rey Transit, Inc. v. CA (31 SCRA 511 ), and using the American
Expectancy Table of Mortality,35 the loss of Tamayos earning capacity is to be computed as follows:
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x
(Gross Annual Income Living
where: Life expectancy = 2/3 (80 the age of the deceased)
= 2/3 (80-24) x [(
The award for loss of earning capacity
should therefore be
There being testimonial evidence in support of moral damages, an
award for it is proper.
should be reduced to the more reasonable amount of
that it is not meant to enrich an injured party.
Actual damages for the
hospital expenses in the amount of
P3,627.70 were duly supported by
However instead of
awarding actual damages, we grant temperate damages in accordance with People v. Andres ,36 where the Court said:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
[W]e declared in the case of People v. Villanueva that:
when actual damages
proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
P25,000, as in
this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in
lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.
Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000,
then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the
receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.
The victims heirs
should, thus, be awarded temperate damages in the amount of
Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No.
7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty.
Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of
the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be
lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
assailed Decision in Criminal Case No. 00-20595 convicting the appellant of the
crime of murder and sentencing him to DEATH
The award for loss of earning capacity is INCREASED to
damages is REDUCED to P50,000;
actual damages is DELETED but
temperate damages of P25,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 are
In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. 7659 amending Section 23 of
the Revised Penal Code, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded,
upon finality of this decision, to the Office of the President for possible
exercise of the pardoning power.
Costs against appellant.
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., Azcuna, and TINGA, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., andPuno, J., on official leave.
1 Penned by Judge Roberto S. Chiongson.
2 Rollo, p. 12; records, p. 44; the original Information filed on January
27, 2000 was amended to include the additional aggravating circumstance of
3 See Certificate of Arraignment;
records, p. 41.
5 Appellees Brief, pp. 4-7; rollo, pp. 106-109. Citations omitted.
7 Appellants Brief, p. 5; rollo, p. 66.
See also Medical Certificate
dated October 25, 2000; records, p. 109.
8 RTC Decision, p. 15; rollo, p. 35.
9 RTC Decision, pp. 22-23; rollo, pp. 42-43.
10 Appellants Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 62.
15 People v. Aldemita, 145 SCRA 451
citing Art. 800, Civil Code; US v. Martinez, 34 Phil. 305, 308 (1916); People v. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288, 292 (1960); People v. Tagasa, 68 Phil. 147, 153 (1939); US v. Guevarra, 27 Phil. 547 (1914); People v. Renegado, 156 Phil. 260, 272 (1974); US v. Zamora, 32 Phil. 218 (1915); People v. Bascos, 44 Phil. 204 (1923).
16 People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325
(1980); People v. Dungo, 199 SCRA
17 Art. 800, Civil Code states: The law presumes that every person is of sound
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
18 People v. Madarang, 387 Phil 846,
citing People v. Aldemita,
19 People v. Ambal, supra; People v. Renegado, supra; People v. Cruz, supra; People v. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658, 661
quoting Guevara, Commentaries on
the Revised Penal Code, 4th ed.
20 RTC Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. 38.
21 TSN, November 8, 2000, pp. 7-12.
22 People v. Madarang, supra, p.
23 TSN, December 13, 2000, pp. 13-15.
25 People v. Villanueva,
265 SCRA 216 (1996); People v. Bantiling, 420 Phil. 849 (2001); People v. Matondo, 421 Phil. 944 (2001); People v. Yaoto, 421 Phil. 963 (2001); People v. Del Valle, 423 Phil. 541 (2001); People v. Ariola, 418 Phil. 808 (2001); People v. Dela Cruz, 412 Phil. 273 (2001).
26 RTC Decision, pp. 15-17; rollo, pp. 35-37.
28 Id., p. 862, citing William D. Raymond Jr. and Damiel E. Hall, California Criminal Law and Procedure,
1999 ed., p. 228.
Italics in the
31 TSN, July 19, 2000. pp. 11-15.
32 Art. 14, par. 9, Revised Penal Code.
33 Exhibit A, October 28, 1994 Order in Criminal Case No. 94-16609 for Homicide, sentencing
appellant after a plea of guilty.
Exhibit A-1, Certification to the effect that appellant applied for
probation, which was denied.
36 G.R. NOS. 135697-98, August 15, 2003.
Back to Home | Back to Main