SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
129895
April 30, 2003
-versus-
PO3 ARMANDO DALAG
Y CUSTODIO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is an appeal
from the 10 January 1997 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 42, in Criminal
Case
No. 17838, finding appellant PO3 Armando Dalag guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Parricide for killing his wife, Leah Nolido Dalag. The
trial
court imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered
him
to pay their children P50,000 as civil indemnity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The amended Information
against the appellant reads:
The
undersigned
Assistant City Prosecutor accuses PO3 Armando C. Dalag of the crime of
PARRICIDE (Under Art. 246 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659, committed
as follows:
That on
or
about the 15th day of August, 1996, in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused
Armando
C. Dalag, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with evident
premeditation,
that is having conceived and deliberated to kill his wife, Leah Nolido
Dalag, with whom he was united in lawful wedlock, did, then and there,
attack, assault, dragged (sic) and inflict serious multiple injuries
upon
his wife, Leah Nolido Dalag, in the different parts of her body, to
wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cranio-Cerebral
Trauma with probale (sic) severe diffuse Axonal injury r/o Intracranial
hematoma; r/o Multifocal Cerebral Contusions; Multiple
Abrasions-Contusions;
face, neck anterior chest extremities and such other injuries contained
in the post exhumation autopsy/examination report employing means,
manner
and form in the execution of the crime which tended directly and
specially
to insure its commission without danger to the person of the accused,
as
a result of which attack and injuries caused the death of said Leah N.
Dalag.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On his arraignment,
Armando,
with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.[3]
Trial ensued. The Antecedents
Armando Dalag, a member
of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Bacolod City police
station,
was lawfully married to Leah Nolido Dalag[4].
They had three children: Francis, Princess Joy and Ezra John. The
family resided in Barangay Handumanan, Bacolod City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The marriage of Armando
and Leah was far from idyllic. Their coverture was marred by
violent
quarrels, with Leah always at the losing end. Each time the
couple
had a quarrel, she sustained contusions, bruises and lumps on different
parts of her body. The situation came to a point when on one
occasion,
Leah’s father, Marcos Nolido, had to advise Armando to stop beating his
wife. Armando replied that he planned to sell the house and leave
Leah. Marcos was taken aback. He went to the kitchen and
after
a few minutes, heard Armando ordering his wife to get out of the
house.
He saw Armando poke his firearm at Leah. Marcos tried to pacify
Armando
to no avail. Marcos lost his temper and shouted at Armando: "What
kind of a policeman are you? You are committing police brutality
against your wife." Instead of being chastened, Armando poked his
gun on his father-in-law instead.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 15, 1996,
at around 8:00 p.m., Francis, then eleven years old, and his sister
Princess
Joy, then nine years old, were watching television in their
house.
Armando, who was drinking hard liquor, and Leah were in the yard
sitting
under the datiles tree. Momentarily, the children heard their
parents
quarreling. Leah was admonishing Armando not to drink
liquor.
The kids sensed that some object was being banged on the wall.
Thereafter,
they heard their mother cry. Francis and Princess Joy rushed
outside
the house to see what was happening. They were horrified when
from
a distance of three meters, they saw Armando pushing and kicking Leah
on
the left side of her body. She fell to the ground. Even as
Leah was already lying posthaste on the ground, Armando continued to
beat
her up, punching her on the different parts of the body. Francis
and Princess Joy pleaded to their father to stop maltreating their
mother.
Armando angrily told them not to interfere and that he will later beat
them up as well. He grabbed Leah’s hair and banged her head on
the
wall. Leah’s forehead directly hit the wall. In the
process,
Armando stepped on a nail. Even as she was being assaulted by her
husband, she told him "Toy, Toy, I will find some medicine for your
wound."
Leah then fled to the house of their neighbor, Felisa Horilla or "Tia
Feli."
Armando ran after Leah and pushed her to the house of Felisa.
Francis
went back to the house. Princess Joy looked for her parents but
could
not find them. She decided to go back to their house to
sleep.
In the meantime, Armando herded Leah back to the house. Princess
Joy was awakened when she heard her mother crying. When Princess
Joy went outside of the house, she saw her mother being pushed by her
father.
Leah fell to the ground and lost consciousness. Armando placed
the
head of Leah on a stone and ordered Princess Joy to get some
water.
She did. She poured water on the face of her mother but the
latter
did not move. Armando then tried to revive Leah by applying
mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation to no avail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Princess Joy went back
to the house to rouse Francis. When Francis came out to the yard,
he saw his mother lying on the ground still unconscious. Armando
was sitting near Leah, while nonchalantly smoking cigarette.
Francis
got a piece of carton from their store and placed it underneath his
mother’s
body. Francis then suggested to his father that they bring Leah
inside
the house. Armando nonchalantly remarked, "You really love your
mother."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Armando and Francis
carried Leah to the house. Francis noticed that there were lumps on his
mother’s face as well as bruises on both her arms, between her breasts
and on her thighs. There was likewise blood on Leah’s right
ear.
After laying down her head on the bed, Armando told Francis to get some
hot water. Armando then washed his wife’s face with lukewarm
water.
When Francis finally went to sleep, his mother was still unconscious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When they woke up the
following day, or on August 16, 1996, Francis and Princess Joy noticed
that their mother remained unconscious. Despite their mother’s
condition,
they decided to go to school. During lunchtime, Francis went home
and saw that Leah’s condition had not improved. When the children
came home in the afternoon after their classes, Armando told them that
their mother was brought to the hospital. Armando instructed
Francis
to inform his colleagues at the police headquarters that he would be
unable
to report for duty because his wife accidentally slipped and had to be
brought to the hospital.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Francis visited
his mother in the hospital, he saw her lying on the bed, her face badly
swollen. He saw the lumps and bruises on the different parts of
her
body. Leah never regained her consciousness. She died on
August
22, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When SPO3 Herman S.
Garcia, the station commander, was apprised of the death of Leah, he
ordered
Armando not to leave the police station. However, on August 23,
1996,
Armando left the police station without the knowledge and permission of
Garcia and could not be located.[5]
However, on August 28, 1996, Armando surrendered to SPO3 Garcia and to
PO3s Joel Stephen B. Casador and Filemon Roderos.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Jesse Rey T. Cruel,
the medico-legal officer of the Commission on Human Rights, conducted a
post exhumation autopsy on the cadaver of Leah. The autopsy
report
revealed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FINDINGS
ABRASIONS:
1.
2.0 cms. x 3.0 cms., xiphi-sternal area, chest;
2.
6.0 cms. x 8.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, knee
region,
left;
3.
5.0 cms. x 7.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, elbow
region,
left;
4.
6.0 cms. x. 10.0 cms. multiple, in various sizes and shapes, elbow
region,
right;
5.
4.0 cms. x 11.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, dorsal
aspect,
hand, right;
6.
1.5 cms. x 3.0 cms., shoulder, left.cralaw:red
CONTUSED ABRASIONS,
brownish:
1.
4.0 cms. x 7.5 cms., lateral aspect, malleolar area, left;
2.
6.0 cms. x 6.5 cms., lateral aspect, malleolar area, right;
3.
1.0 cm. X 2.5 cms., temporal area, head, left side.cralaw:red
CONTUSIONS, purplish-brown:
1.
1.0 cm x 3.0 cms., antero-lateral aspect, arm, middle third, right;
2.
2.0 cms. x 4.0 cm., anterior aspect, middle third, thigh, right;
3.
5.0 cms. x 6.5 cms., anterior aspect, middle third, thigh right;
4.
2.5 cms. x 4.0 cms., antero-lateral aspect, proximal third, leg, right;
5.
1.5 cms. in diameter, infra-mammary region, chest, right side;
6.
1.5 cms. in diameter, medial aspect, chest, right side;
7.
3.5 cms. x 6.5 cms., axillary region, right.cralaw:red
Scalp hematoma, parietal
region, head, right side, with shallow depression of the right,
temporal
bone along the pterion.cralaw:red
Blood, clotted, approximately
100 milliliters in volume, anterior fossa, right.cralaw:red
Brain and other visceral
organs, pale.cralaw:red
Pleural and peritoned
cavity, non-bloody.cralaw:red
Stomach, empty.cralaw:red
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt injury of the head.[7]
Dr. Cruel testified
that Leah suffered severe beatings and traumatic physical violence
resulting
in intracranial hemorrhage which caused her death.
The Defense of
Armando
Armando vigorously denied
killing his wife. He testified that he was a member of the
PNP.
However, before joining the police, he was unemployed. Thus,
during
the early part of his marriage to Leah, Marcos, his father-in-law,
disapproved
of him. He admitted that his relationship with his father-in-law
did not improve because every time he and his wife had a spat, Marcos
would
interfere. Moreover, Marcos resented him because he (Armando) was
a Catholic while Marcos and his family, including Leah, and their
children
belonged to the Mormon faith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Armando narrated that
on August 15, 1996, at around 6:00 p.m., he was watching TV Patrol on
television
with Leah and their children. When the program was over, he went
out to their yard and sat under the datiles tree. Leah followed
him.
They then decided to drink liquor. He stood up to get a cigarette
when he stepped on a four-inch nail. The nail punctured his foot,
causing it to bleed. Marcos ordered Leah to get medicine.
However,
she could not find any. She then proceeded to the house of Tia
Feli
to ask for medicine. When Leah failed to return after an hour, he
followed her to Tia Feli’s house and found her conversing with
friends.
She told Armando that she was not able to find any medicine for
him.
He then asked her why she was still there, and ordered her to go home
with
him because it was already late.chan
robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When they were near
their gate, Leah pushed Armando and ran towards their house. As
she
was running, Leah stumbled upon a pile of cut bamboos, causing her to
fall
to the ground. She then hit her head "in-between the two stones"
found in their yard. Leah’s left temple and nape ("back portion
of
her neck") hit the stones. She then rolled over. Armando
immediately
rushed to Leah’s aid and when she saw that she had lost consciousness,
applied mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on her. Leah regained
consciousness.
Armando called Francis and Princess Joy and told them that their mother
had an accident.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Armando and Francis
carried Leah and brought her inside the house. Upon his father’s
instructions, Francis wiped his mother’s face with towel soaked in
lukewarm
water. Armando asked her if she wanted to be brought to the
hospital,
but Leah refused. The following morning, Armando noticed that
Leah
had two lumps at the back of her neck and on her left temple.
Realizing
that his wife’s condition was getting worse, he had his mother fetched
and together, they brought Leah to the hospital.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During Leah’s confinement
in the hospital, Armando stayed away to avoid confrontation with his
father-in-law.
After his wife’s death, the children lived with Leah’s parents.
Armando
averred that the testimonies of his children were untrue. In
fact,
he insisted, when they visited him at the headquarters they told him
that
they did not want him to go to jail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Armando’s mother, Agueda
Dalag, testified that on August 16, 1996, Ada, her daughter, fetched
her
from the house upon the instruction of Armando. She and Ada went
to the house of Armando and saw Leah on bed unconscious. When she
asked Armando what happened to Leah, Armando replied that his wife
slipped
and fell, hitting her head on two stones. Armando, Agueda and Ada
brought Leah to the hospital. Agueda testified that her son loved
his wife and that she was not aware of any occasion where he maltreated
or manhandled Leah.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PO3 Joel Stephen B.
Casador testified that as far as he knew, Armando and Leah had a good
marital
relationship. Nenita Garcia, a neighbor of Armando and Leah,
testified
that early in the evening of August 15, 1996, she saw husband and wife
drinking under the "datiles" tree in their yard. At around 8:00
in
the evening, Leah passed by her house on the way to Tia Feli’s
house.
Thereafter, Armando followed Leah to Tia Feli’s house. Nenita observed
that Armando was limping. He and Leah went back to their house
together.
Nenita said that she did not see the couple quarrel, nor was there
anything
unusual in the behavior of the couple that night.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Verdict of
the
Trial Court
After due proceedings,
the trial court rendered judgment finding Armando guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of parricide for killing his wife and sentenced him to the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua. The trial court appreciated the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and "one analogous to passion and
obfuscation" in favor of Armando. The dispositive portion of the
trial court’s decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused, ARMANDO CUSTODIO
DALAG,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, appreciating
in his favor the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
one
analogous to "passion and obfuscation" and there being no aggravating
circumstance
in attendance in [the] commission of the crime, hereby sentences the
accused
to serve the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all its accessory
penalties
and to indemnify the children of the deceased, Leah Nolido-Dalag, the
sum
of FIFTY THOUSAND (P 50,000.00) PESOS. No costs.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[8]
In his appeal brief,
Armando,
now the appellant, contends that: I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED INFLICTED INJURIES TO THE DECEASED THAT CAUSED
HER DEATH.
II
THAT THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONIES OF FRANCIS AND PRINCESS JOY DALAG
WHICH WERE FABRICATED AND COACHED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
THAT THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CRE[C]ENCE (SIC) TO THE UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF MARCOS
NOLIDO, JR. WHO HAS AN AXED (SIC) TO GRIND AGAINST THE ACCUSED.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issues raised by
appellant involve the credibility of witnesses and their testimony and
the probative weight thereof. He, in effect, assails the
credibility
of the prosecution witnesses and the probative weight accorded by the
trial
court to their respective testimonies.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Verdict of
this
Court
It is axiomatic in criminal
jurisprudence that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses,
an
appellate court will normally not disturb the factual findings of the
trial
unless the lower court has reached conclusions that are clearly
unsupported
by evidence, or unless it has overlooked some facts or circumstances of
weight and influence which, if considered, would affect the result of
the
case.[10]
The rationale for this rule is that trial courts have superior
advantages
in ascertaining the truth and in detecting falsehood as they have the
opportunity
to observe at close range the manner and demeanor of witnesses while
testifying.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the trial
court declared that the children, Francis and Princess Joy, the
principal
prosecution witnesses, testified "in a logical, candid, and
straight-forward
manner, describing in detail what they saw and heard in a manner
characteristic
of witnesses who are telling the truth."[12]
The Court finds no reason to deviate from these findings as the records
fully support the same. The children recalled the sordid events
that
happened in the evening of August 15, 1996 involving their parents
without
any trace of bias, impelled by no other motive than to bring justice to
their mother’s senseless death. Francis for one graphically
testified
in this manner:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
How about your mother and father at that time? Do you know where
they were?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Where?
A
They were outside of our house near the datiles tree.cralaw:red
Q
Do you know what were they doing there?
A
My father was drinking.cralaw:red
Q
How about your mother?
A
My mother was admonishing my father to stop drinking.cralaw:red
Q
Why do you know that?
A
Because I went out of our house.cralaw:red
Q
Why did you go out from you[r] house?
WITNESS:
A
Because I heard my mother crying.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Aside from hearing your mother crying, did you hear anything else?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
What was that?
A
I heard something banged against our wall.cralaw:red
Q
So, when you went out from your house, did you see your father and
mother
there?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you see?
A
My father and mother were quarreling.cralaw:red
Q
Was your mother fighting with your father or you[r] father fighting
with
your mother?
A
I saw my father fighting with my mother.cralaw:red
Q
What was your father doing to your mother?
A
He was castigating or maltreating my mother.cralaw:red
Q
Can you specifically tell the court how was your father maltreated
(sic)
or "castigo" your mother?
WITNESS:
A
He punched and at the same time kicked my mother.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
How about your mother? What was she doing?
A
She was crying.cralaw:red
Q
Was she fighting back?
A
No, she was not fighting back.cralaw:red
Q
Now, when your mother was kicked and punched by your father, what
happened
to her?
A
While my father was physically abusing my mother, my mother was crying
while she was sitting on the ground.cralaw:red
Q
When your father kicked your mother, where was she hit?
A
She was hit on her stomach.cralaw:red
Q
How about the boxing?
WITNESS:
A
The punches of my father landed all over the body of my mother.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
How many times did your father punch and kick your mother that night?
A
Many times.
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
During this physical abuse inflicted by your father to your mother,
what
happened to your mother that evening while you were still there?
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
Objection, your honor.
It was already answered by the child. He said his mother was
crying,
your honor, while she was physically abused by the accused.cralaw:red
COURT:
Overruled, may answer.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
A
She was sitting on the ground.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
While she was sitting on the ground, did your father continue
maltreating
her?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
And when you went out, what did you see again?
WITNESS:
A
When I went out again while my parents were still quarreling, me and my
younger sister told my father, "Tatay, that’s enough." And my
Tatay
told her, "Do not interfere or else, I will beat you by and by."
Q
And when you heard this, what did you do?
A
When our father told us not to interfere, and ordered us to go back
inside
our house, we complied with his order while he was still continuing
beating
our mother. So, I went out again.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
When you went out again, did you see anything?
A
They were no longer there.cralaw:red
Q
Later, did you see them? I withdraw that question.cralaw:red
So, when you saw that they were not there, what did you do?
WITNESS:
A
I went out of the road in front of our house to look for my parents but
they were not there.cralaw:red
Q
So, what did you do?
A
I went back inside.cralaw:red
Q
When you went back inside, what did you do?
A
After I went back inside of our house, I was so terrified and I sat
down
for awhile and went to sleep.cralaw:red
Q
Later, did you wake up?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
And when you woke up, what did you do?
A
When I woke up, I saw my mother already unconscious.cralaw:red
Q
Where was your mother then while she was unconscious?
A
She was lying on the ground near the datiles tree.cralaw:red
Q
And did you see the physical condition of your mother when you brought
her inside the house?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Will you please tell the court how did you see or observed the physical
condition of your mother that night?
A
After we brought our mother inside our house I observed that on her
face,
there were several lumps and at the same time, she also had bruises on
both of her arms, and also somewhere in the middle of her breast.cralaw:red
Q
How about the legs? Did you see your mother’s legs or thighs?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
What did you see?
A
My mother’s legs had also bruises.cralaw:red
Q
Did you see any blood on your mother’s body or face?
A
I saw my mother was bleeding on her right ear.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
After that, what did you do after your mother was brought in to your
house?
WITNESS:
A
My father ordered me to get some hot water.cralaw:red
Q
Where you the one who got the hot water?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
And what happened then when you brought that hot water?
A
After I brought some hot water, my father used it to wipe of (sic) wash
my mother.cralaw:red
Q
After that, what happened? What did you do?
A
While my father was washing my mother with lukewarm water, I noticed
that
my mother never regained consciousness and she had several cuts and
bruises
on her body.cralaw:red
Q
Later that evening, what happened?
A
I went back to sleep.cralaw:red
Q
Now, this incident on August 15, 1996, was this the first time that you
saw your father beat your mother?
A
No, ma’am. That was not the first time. Actually, there
were
several occasions where my father beat my mother.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Later, you said your mother was brought to the hospital. Were you
able to visit your mother at the hospital the following day?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Did you see your mother?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Can you tell us how your mother looked at the hospital?
A
When I visited my mother at the hospital, I noticed that her face was
swo[l]len
and [s]he had several lumps on her face and I also noticed that she
still
had so many bruises in both arms and body.cralaw:red
Q
At the hospital, was your mother able to regain consciousness or talked
to you?
A
No, ma’am. My mother never regained consciousness.cralaw:red
Q
Ultimately, do you know what happened to your mother at the hospital?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
What happened to her?
WITNESS:
A
She died.cralaw:red
Q
Do you know when your mother died?
A
My mother died on August 22, 1996.[13]
Princess Joy substantially
corroborated her brother’s testimony on its material points. She
narrated how the appellant assaulted Leah:
PROSECUTOR PELAYO:
And what did you see that evening? What happened between your
father
and your mother?
WITNESS:
They had a quarrel.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR PELAYO:
And what was your father doing then while he was quarreling with your
mother?
WITNESS:
My father physically abused my mother.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR PELAYO:
Can you tell the Court how did your father physically abused or beat or
"castigo" your mother that evening of October 15, 1996?
WITNESS:
My father first choked my mother’s neck, he banged her head against
something
and lastly, he kicked her under her left armpit.cralaw:red
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
My we suggest that the phrase "banged her head on something" be changed
to "banged her head on a wall."
COURT:
On something. Let that interpretation stay and we will clarify
from
the witness as we go along.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
You said your father banged your mother on something. Can you
tell
us how did your father banged her head on something?
WITNESS:
My father held my mother on the head and banged my mother’s head
against
the wall.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
And what part of your mother’s head that hit the wall?
WITNESS:
My mother’s forehead hit the wall.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your mother’s head hit the wall, what happened to her?
WITNESS:
About the same time, my mother’s head was against the wall, my father
stepped
on a nail.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
You said your father kicked your mother. What was the position of
your mother when your father kicked her?
WITNESS:
My mother was lying prone on the ground.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
How did your father kicked your mother this time? Please describe.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
He just kept on kicking my mother while she was lying prone on the
ground.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
Did you see where your mother was hit?
WITNESS:
She was hit on the left side portion of her stomach.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
Did you see how your father was able to hit your mother here at her
side,
under her left side.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
My father kicked my mother and he hit the left portion of her body
under
her left side which caused my mother to roll on the ground.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
About your mother, what was she doing, was she fighting back?
WITNESS:
No, ma’am.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What was she doing?
WITNESS:
She was just merely crying.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
You said later your father stepped on a nail. So, what happened
when
he stepped on a nail.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
After my father stepped on a nail my mother told him "Toy, Toy, I will
find some medicine for your wound" and my mother went out and went to
the
house of Tia Feli.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
After your mother ran away from your father, what happened after that?
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
We object, Your Honor, the witness did not say that her mother ran away.cralaw:red
COURT:
Reform.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
After your mother ran away, as you said.cralaw:red
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
Same objection, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Same ruling.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your mother told your father that she was going to get medicine to
apply on the wound of your father, did she ran (sic) or did she walk
(sic)
from your father?
WITNESS:
She ran.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
So, when your mother left, running away, what did you do?
WITNESS:
I went out to look for my mother and my father but in doing so I no
longer
found them on our yard.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your mother ran away, what did your father do?
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
Objection, Your Honor, her mother did not run away to get medicine.cralaw:red
COURT:
Sustained.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your mother ran, what did your father do?
WITNESS:
When my mother get (sic) out and ran, my father chased my mother.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
You said you went out of the house and looked for your father and your
mother and you found out that they were not there anymore. Since
you found out that your father and mother were not there anymore in
your
yard, what did you do?
WITNESS:
I went back to our house.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What did you do inside your house?
WITNESS:
I slept for a while.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
Later, were you able to wake up that same evening?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What made you wake up again?
WITNESS:
I overheard my mother crying.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
Meaning, you heard your mother crying I withdraw. So, when you
heard
your mother crying, what did you do because you have already woke up?
WITNESS:
I went out.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When you went out from your house after waking up and hearing the cry
of
your mother, did you see your father and mother outside your house?
WITNESS:
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What did you see?
WITNESS:
I saw my father pushed my mother.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your father pushed your mother, what happened to your mother?
WITNESS:
My mother, after being pushed by my father, fell to the ground and lost
her consciousness.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
When your mother lost consciousness, what did your father do?
WITNESS:
When my mother lost consciousness, my father laid her on some stone on
the ground.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What else did your father do aside from lying your mother on the stone?
WITNESS:
After my mother was laid down on some stone (sic), my father on a
sitting
position, ordered me to get some water and when I came back I poured
the
water on my mother.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
After you poured water on your mother, did your mother came to
consciousness?
WITNESS:
No, ma’am.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
What else did your father do?
WITNESS:
My father tried to resuscitate her by supplying air into her mouth.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CHUA:
Did your mother recover?
WITNESS:
No, ma’am.[14]
The testimonies of Francis
and Princess Joy, who are of tender age, innocent and guileless,
pointing
to their father as the person responsible for the death of their mother
deserve full faith and credence considering that they would not impute
a heinous crime against him for which he could be meted reclusion
perpetua
or even the death penalty if such were not the truth. A witness’
testimony against a blood relative is given great weight, if it is not
found to have been motivated by ill will.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the version
of Francis and Princess Joy as to what actually transpired on that
night
of August 15, 1996 is more credible than that proffered by the
appellant.
The children’s testimonies are buttressed by the findings of Dr. Canto,
the neurological surgeon who attended to Leah when she was confined in
the hospital, and Dr. Cruel of the Commission on Human Rights, who
conducted
the post-mortem examination on Leah’s body. Indeed, the
appellant’s
claim that the death of resulted from accident, i.e., she slipped and
hit
her head on two stones, flies in the face of incriminating medical
findings.
As opined by Dr. Canto, he found it difficult to believe that the
injuries
sustained by Leah resulted from a bad fall. The testimony of the
doctor is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Doctor, you saw the patient Leah N. Dalag, of course?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
You examined her personally?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
You examined the extent of her injuries when she was brought in to the
hospital and you saw her for the first time?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, and in fact, I have to add. In this particular case, I was
interested
specifically because I was suspecting some foul play because the
history,
it was told by the Resident Physician that she fell but I saw a lot of
discrepancies - injuries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
So, will you please describe the injuries that you have observed when
you
examined this particular patient and such injuries that are now
reflected
in this diagram which have been made under your direction which you
have
testified earlier?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
She had peri-orbital hematomas.cralaw:red
Q
Can you explain that in the layman’s language?
A
Okey. She had a blackeye. She had also evidence of
contusion,
hematoma also on the right mastoid area.cralaw:red
Q
Where is that, Doctor?
A
Behind the ear. Those two (2) signs indicate usually basal
fracture
and hemorrhage on the base of the brain.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
What else have you noticed on the face of the patient, Doctor?
WITNESS:
A
The one which really struck me and I was suspicious then, were the
apparent
fingermarks.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
Where?
WITNESS:
Q
In the neck.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
And what does that indicate - these clawmarks on the neck which arose
your
suspicion?
A
They were located on the anterior part of the neck.cralaw:red
Q
And what does this indicate? How does this mark came into the
neck
of the patient?
A
Well, to be honest, it was my own opinion then because there was a
discrepancy
from the injuries I have seen and the alleged accident which was told
by
the informer that time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
And Doctor, in your opinion, what could have caused this injury on the
neck?
WITNESS:
A
I was suspecting that she was strangled.cralaw:red
Q
Now, Doctor, there is also a mark on this diagram here. Can you
tell
us what is this on the chest?
A
That is another contusion abrasion which I noted.cralaw:red
Q
Where?
A
On the anterior part of the chest at the level of the syphoid
process.
This is the most interior part of the sternum.cralaw:red
Q
In layman’s language Doctor, what part of the body is that?
A
Well, it is just midline just below the level of her breast.cralaw:red
Q
Now, Doctor, there are also here some marks on the ear of the patient
as
drawn here. Can you tell or explain this to us?
WITNESS:
A
This was explained earlier. These are hematomas,
contusions.
Hematomas at the mastoid area. It is usually a sign of basal
skull
fracture.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Now, Doctor, was this contusion and hematoma found on both ears of the
patient Leah Dalag?
A
I cannot recall but based on this drawing, it is bilateral - on both
sides
of the ears.cralaw:red
Q
Doctor, have you noticed upon examination of the patient whether or not
blood was coming out from any part of her body?
A
I cannot recall.cralaw:red
Q
What else have you noticed, Doctor, aside from hematomas and contusions?
A
I cannot recall everything but I note some abrasions on the extermities
(sic) - in the elbows.cralaw:red
Q
How about on the temple? On the head? Aside from
those
that you have described on the two (2) ears, how about the portion on
the
head?
WITNESS:
A
None.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Now, Doctor, is it possible that a human brain can sustain internal
injuries
without outward manifestation which may be visible to the naked eyes?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Can you give specific instance, Doctor? Can you explain further?
A
The brain floats inside the skull. Imagine the brain contained in
a glass jar with fluid. The brain floats there and any movement
of
the jar will cause also an acceleration-deceleration movement. If
you translate it into a force applied to the skull, for example a
vehicular
accident - the brain can bust to and fro or even rotated around the
skull
and cause the internal injuries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:
Q
Just like the effect of boxing?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
Whether professional or amateur boxing?
A
Yes, your honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
How about Doctor, when you choke a person? Shake him or her - can
it sustain brain damage?
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
We object to the question, your honor. That already assumes that
this witness, your honor, is being presented as an expert witness, your
honor. The purpose of presenting this witness is to testify on
his
findings on the injuries sustained by the deceased, your honor.
He
was not presented as an expert witness, your honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL CHUA:
He was.cralaw:red
COURT:
Pañero, I have been keeping track of the qualification of the
physician.
He is not an ordinary physician. But he has specialized in
Neurology.
That is why he is considered as a specialist.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
But he was offered to testify on his findings on the deceased,
your
honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
That is why the findings here are contusions. He is explaining
now
why he arrived at this conclusion. He is going into the
details.
That is how I understand. Overruled. May answer. The
court would like also to know about that.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:
A
Choking with a finger or even whatever means, an assailant can inflict
causing several injuries; not only the shaking of the head. At
the
same time, he also decrease oxygenation of the brain. Because
there
are several factors involved here. First, the patient can’t
breath,
therefore, she will have asphyxia. Choking can also compress the
carotid arteries which supply the main supply of blood to the
brain.
This also causes hypoxemia which decrease oxygenation of the
blood.
So, aside from the injuries being sustained by the brain by the force
acted
upon by the shaking, it causes swelling of the brain because of the
other
factors that I mentioned –hypoxemia and asphyxia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL CHUA:
Q
Now, Doctor, assuming the facts as already established by the
testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses as well as what you have testified, can
you
state with reasonable certainty whether in your opinion, the injuries
suffered
by the deceased was the direct result of the violence and batterings
from
the hands of the accused Armando Dalag on August 15, 1996?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. GRIJALDO:
Objection, your honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Sustained. Do not point to the accused. Reform
FISCAL CHUA:
I reform, your honor.cralaw:red
Q
Assuming the facts as already established by the testimonies of the
prosecution
witnesses and the injuries that you have described just right now, can
you state in your own opinion with reasonable certainty that the
injuries
suffered by the deceased was the direct result of the violence and the
batterings she received on August 15, 1996 or before she was brought to
the hospital?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Now, further assuming the facts established by other witnesses in this
case, can you state with reasonable certainty whether in your opinion,
the injuries sustained by the deceased Leah N. Dalag could have caused
her death on August 22, 1996?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes, ma’am.[16]
The foregoing testimony
of Dr. Canto as to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by
Leah
not only confirms the testimonies of the children but likewise exposes
as utterly preposterous the appellant’s claim that she suffered from a
bad fall. Notably, Dr. Canto’s findings were corroborated by the
findings of Dr. Cruel, who conducted the post-mortem examination on
Leah’s
corpse. As the trial court aptly observed:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The denials of the accused
that he authored the injuries sustained by his wife and his claim that
she was injured because she hit her head on two big stones when she
accidentally
fell, appear illogical and a poor concoction of facts, so hard to
believe
in the light of undisputed findings and conclusions by medical experts
declaring otherwise, and the recollection of facts by the eye-witnesses.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court thus
correctly concluded that the injuries sustained by Leah that caused her
death were the consequence of the appellant’s deliberate and
intentional
acts. The appellant is criminally liable for the death of Leah
pursuant
to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Crime
Committed
by the Appellant
The crime of parricide
is defined by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code thus:
ART.
246.
Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child,
whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants,
or
his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death. (Restored by Sec. 5, RA No.
7659.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution is
mandated
to prove the following essential elements: (1) a person is killed; (2)
the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the
father,
mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.[18]
The prescribed penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death.[19]
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with
the
victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of
the
relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage
certificate.[20]
In this case, the prosecution proved all the essential elements of
parricide.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor
of the appellant. He surrendered to SPO3 Herman S. Garcia, PO3
Joel
Stephen Casador and Felimon Roderos on August 28, 1996 at 12:45 p.m.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court erred
in applying in favor of the appellant Article 13, paragraph 6 in
relation
to Article 13, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code which read:
6.
That
of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced
passion or obfuscation.
x
x
x
10. And,
finally,
any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
The trial court
declared
that the appellant was "agitated and angered" when Leah failed to
return
immediately from Tia Feli’s house where she was supposed to get
medicine
for his wounded foot. The attitude of Leah was, as found by the
trial
court, "obviously unjust and improper to a husband who was suffering
and
bleeding."[22]
This conclusion of the trial court is without factual basis. This
Court agrees with the finding of the trial court that Leah did not
bother
getting medicine for the injury on the foot of the appellant when he
stepped
on a nail as he martyred Leah. However, this Court believes that
Leah told the appellant that she was going to the house of Felisa to
get
medicine for his injured foot merely as a ploy to enable her to escape
from him and avoid further physical abuse. Leah cannot be faulted
for preferring to escape from the clutches of the appellant rather than
get medicine for the injured foot of the latter. She was being
assaulted
by the appellant relentlessly and without mercy. Unless she
escaped
from the clutches of the appellant, she would be killed by him.
Leah
could not be expected to first get medicine, return to the house and
treat
the injured foot of the appellant only to be assaulted again by her
husband.
For the trial court to blame Leah for preferring to escape and survive
rather than treat the injured foot of the appellant, and reward the
appellant
by mitigating his criminal liability is a travesty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There being one mitigating
circumstance in favor of the appellant and no aggravating circumstance
against him, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
on
him in consonance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court to the heirs
of
the victim is in order.[23]
The children of Leah Nolido are entitled to moral damages in the amount
of P50,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Decision,
dated January 10, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City,
Branch
42, in Criminal Case No. 17838 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide defined
in and penalized by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. He is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the
Revised
Penal Code, there being a mitigating circumstance without any
aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime. The appellant is
ordered
to pay to the children of the victim Leah Nolido the amount of P50,000
as civil indemnity and the amount of P50,000 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J.,
on official leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Bernardo T. Ponferrada.
[2]
Records, p. 41 (underscoring in the original).
[3]
Id. at 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibit "B."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "E-3."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records, pp. 131-132.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[9]
Rollo, pp. 82-83.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. Agliday, 367 SCRA 273 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Nasayao, G.R. No. 141237, September 17, 2002.
[12]
RTC Decision, p. 15; Records, p. 123.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 32-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, October 24, 1996, pp. 10-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Garchitorena, 330 SCRA 613 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, October 31, 1996, pp. 12-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
RTC Decision, p. 20, Records, p. 128.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Velasco, 351 SCRA 539 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Article 246, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
[20]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Exhibit "B."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
RTC Decision, p. 22, Records, p. 130.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Velasco, supra, p. 548.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |