THIRD DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140618
December 10, 2003
-versus-
BERNARDO SARA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
Appellant Bernardo
"Berning" Sara was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Iloilo
City with Murder in an information dated March 7, 1988 reading:[1]
The
undersigned
Provincial Fiscal accuses BERNARDO SARA, alias "BERNING," of the crime
of MURDER committed as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about
November
2, 1987, in the Municipality of Cabatuan, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused,
together
with an unidentified person, conspiring and helping one another, armed
with firearms of unknown caliber, with treachery and evident
premeditation
and deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, did then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously shoot and hit one Paterno Morcillo on his
chest
which caused his death. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Appellant was earlier
charged for the same offense, along with Efren Robles, in a November 6,
1987 Complaint.[2]
In a December 17, 1987 Order,[3]
however, Acting Municipal Circuit Trial Judge Simeonito A. Salarda of
Cabatuan,
Iloilo, who conducted the preliminary examination, found no probable
cause
to hale Robles into court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arraignment[4]
on July 6, 1988, appellant, assisted by his counsel, entered a plea of
not guilty. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the evidence for
the prosecution, the following version is established:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around
7:30
p.m. of November 2, 1987, while Paterno Morcillo (the victim) and his
wife-prosecution
witness Virginia Morcillo were sitting at their balcony situated at the
left side of their one storey house[5]
in Barangay Acao, Cabatuan, Iloilo, the victim revealed to her that on
account of his accusation against appellant and Efren Robles for
killing
his chicken,[6]
the two had threatened to kill him on November 1, 1987.[7]
Allaying any anxiety of the victim, his wife told him not to be
bothered
as it was already the second of November, and he should be thankful for
being alive.[8]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moments later,
hearing
the incessant barking of dogs, Virginia prodded the victim to transfer
their carabao from the back portion of the house to the front.[9]
Hearing that the victim, their father, was going to transfer the
carabao,
prosecution witnesses Felipe and Benjamin Morcillo curiously looked out
of the window situated at the side of their house[10]
to watch the transfer of the carabao.[11]
Unknown to the victim who proceeded to the back of the house, appellant
and one whom Felipe and Benjamin claim to be Efren Robles were squatting[12]
beside a nearby coconut tree.[13]
While the victim was at the right side of the house,[14]
before he could reach the carabao, he was shot by appellant.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Soon after hearing
the
sound of a gunshot, Virginia heard her husband - the victim moaning.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another shot was
soon
after fired by Efren Robles,[17]
prompting Virginia to run downstairs where she saw her husband lying on
the ground.[18]
She then lifted him and placed him in her arms,[19]
and as their children Felipe and Benjamin approached her, they told her
"Nay, it was Tay Berning who killed Tatay."[20]
When she turned her attention back to her husband, he was already dead.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The post-mortem
examination
conducted on the victim by Dr. Imelda P. Piz, resident physician at the
Ramon Tabiana Memorial District Hospital in Cabatuan, Iloilo, showed
that
the victim died of cardiac tamponade secondary to rupture of the right
ventricular heart and thoracic aorta due to multiple gunshot wounds on
the chest.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The examination
conducted
by Zenaida Sinfuego, a forensic chemist for the Integrated National
Police
in Camp Delgado, Iloilo City, showed that the left and right hands of
both
appellant and Efren Robles were positive for gunpowder residue
(nitrates)
as reflected in Chemistry Report No. C-045-87.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Denying the
accusation
and proferring alibi, appellant claimed that on November 2, 1987, at
around
7:00 p.m., he had dinner with his wife and children at their house in
Barangay
Acao, Cabatuan, Iloilo,[24]
following which or at around 8:00 p.m., he went to sleep.[25]
Appellant's wife,
Cleofas
Sara, corroborated him.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discrediting
appellant's
denial and alibi in favor of the positive and categorical testimony of
Felipe and Benjamin that they saw appellant squatting and holding a
short
firearm several meters away from the victim, Branch 27 of the Iloilo
City
RTC convicted appellant of Murder by decision[27]
of October 17, 1991 the dispositive portion of which is quoted verbatim:[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the court hereby sentences the accused
BERNARDO
SARA to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Seventeen (17) years,
Four
(4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to Twenty
Five
(25) years, Nine (9) months and Eleven (11) days to Reclusion Perpetua
as maximum; Directing said accused to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased
Paterno Morcillo the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos; To
pay
attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00; Coffin and burial and
actual
expenses in the amount of P11,000.00; And costs. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On appeal to the Court
of Appeals, appellant assailed the verdict of the trial court on four
(4)
grounds:[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the
trial
court erred in giving full faith and credence to the patently
incredible,
fabricated, unreliable, inconsistent if not contradictory testimonies
of
the prosecution witnesses;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the trial
court
erred in not disregarding the results of the paraffin test conducted on
the person of the accused-appellant as the same was not conclusive;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the trial
court
erred in not giving evidentiary and exculpatory weight to the evidence
adduced by the defenses; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) the trial
court
manifestly erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact
that the guilt of accused-appellant was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finding no reversible
error in the factual findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals,
by Decision of September 8, 1995,[30]
affirmed the conviction of appellant but modified the penalty imposed
to
reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's
decision
reads, quoted verbatim:[31]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with modifications as to penalty
and civil indemnity. Accused-appellant Bernardo Sara is hereby
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity
awarded
to the heirs of deceased Paterno Morcillo is hereby increased to
P50,000.00. (Emphasis,
underscoring and italics in the original.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In an August 30, 1999
Resolution,[32]
the appellate court certified the case to this Court for review in
accordance
with Section 13, Rule 124, par. 2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court afforded
appellant the opportunity to file an additional brief[33]
in which he assigns the following errors:[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT DISCARDING THE PATENTLY INCONSISTENT, NAY CONFLICTING
STATEMENTS
OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ANENT THE SUBJECT INCIDENT WHICH WERE
TOTALLY
IGNORED BY THE TRIAL COURT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
GRANTING FOR THE
SAKE
OF ARGUMENT THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, NONETHELESS, THE
TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER SINCE THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE
OF TREACHERY IS WANTING, HENCE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON HIM MUST BE
ACCORDINGLY
REDUCED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The resolution of the
case hinges on (1) whether the evidence for the prosecution established
the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) if in the
affirmative,
whether the proper penalty was correctly modified by the appellate
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In affirming the conviction
of appellant, the appellate court relied, as did the trial court,
mainly
on the testimony of Felipe and Benjamin, particularly their positive
identification
of appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant bewails, however,
the brushing aside of his defense of alibi despite the existence, so he
claims, of conflicting statements in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, he highlighting the following instances: Felipe's testimony
during cross-examination that he saw appellant and Efren Robles in the
balcony of the victim's house,[35]
whereas on further cross-examination, he declared that he saw appellant
and Robles at the tambi or back porch;[36]
Felipe's testimony that his sister Lianisa was inside the house during
the incident but he did not know what she was then doing,[37]
whereas in his sworn statement, Felipe stated that Lianisa was
urinating
at the tambi or back porch;[38]
Felipe's testimony that a short firearm was used in shooting his father,[39]
whereas in his sworn statement he stated that he did not know the kind
of firearm was used;[40]
Felipe's testimony that there was a grudge between appellant and his
father,[41]
whereas in his sworn statement he stated that he did not know of any
reason
or motive behind his father's murder;[42]
Benjamin's testimony during cross-examination that he was lying down,
preparing
to go to sleep when he heard the dogs barking,[43]
whereas on further cross-examination, he declared that he and Felipe
were
playing and teasing each other;[44]
Benjamin's testimony that he saw appellant at the side of a coconut
tree
when he shot the victim,[45]
whereas in Felipe's testimony, he declared that he saw appellant and
Efren
Robles in the balcony of their house;[46]
Benjamin's testimony that he did not know of any reason or motive for
the
killing of his father,[47]
whereas in Felipe's testimony, he stated that there was a grudge
between
appellant and his deceased father;[48]
Virginia's testimony that she and the victim were in the balcony
talking
with each other when the dogs started barking,[49]
whereas in Felipe's[50]
and Benjamin's[51]
testimonies they declared that she was inside the house; and Virginia's
testimony that Felipe and Benjamin told her that they saw another
person
aside from appellant but that they could not recognize him,[52]
whereas both Felipe[53]
and Benjamin[54]
stated that Efren Robles was with appellant during the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appeal is bereft
of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant was positively
identified as the assailant by two credible eyewitnesses. The victim's
son Felipe testified, thus:[55]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: But do
you
know how did your father die?
A: He was shot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Do you know who
shot
your father?
A: Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Can you inform
the
court who shot your father?
A: Bernardo
Sara.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: If this
Bernardo
Sara is inside the courtroom, can you point him out?
A: Yes, sir.
(Witness
pointing to a person inside the courtroom who, when asked, answered by
the name of Bernardo Sara.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Before your
father
died, how long have you known this Bernardo Sara?
A:
Everyday. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: In other words,
everyday,
you met this Bernardo Sara?
A: Yes, Sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: You said that
your
father was shot by Bernardo Sara. Can you inform the Court where were
you
when your father was shot by Bernardo Sara?
A: On the
window.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How far were
you
from the place where your father was at that time, when he was shot?
A: About three
arms
length.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Now, when
Bernardo
Sara shot your father, what happened to him?
A: He fell down.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How did you
happen
to recognize that time that it was Bernardo Sara who shot your father?
A: I saw
him. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How far were
you
from Bernardo when he shot your father?
A: About 9 arms
length.
(Emphasis and italics supplied) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And the victim's other
son, Benjamin, testified thus:[56]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: When
your
father went downstairs, what did you do if you did anything?
A: I looked out
of
the window.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: When you looked
out
of the window, can you see the place where your father was at that time?
A: Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: What happened
to
your father?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: He was shot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Were you able
to
recognize the person who shot your father?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Please tell us
who
that person was.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Bernardo
Sara.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: When you said
Bernardo
Sara, you are referring to the accused in this case?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes,
sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: If this
Bernardo
Sara is inside the courtroom, please point to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: (Witness
points
to a person inside the courtroom who when asked answered to the name of
Bernardo Sara.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Why do you know
this
Bernardo Sara?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Because we
are
neighbors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: For how long
have
you known this Bernardo Sara?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Since I
reached
the age of reason.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. CUADRAS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Why do you say
that
it was Bernardo Sara who shot your father that evening of November 2,
1987?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Because I
saw
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: In relation to
the
place where you were at that time, how far were you from the place
where
Bernardo Sara was at the time when he shot your
father? chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Around 12
arms
length away.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Considering
that
this incident happened in the evening of November 2, 1987, how did you
recognize or by what means did you identify that it was Bernardo Sara
who
shot your father?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Because the
moon
was bright. (Emphasis and italics supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both Felipe and
Benjamin
testified that there was ample illumination from the moon to enable
them
to see the face of their father's assailant. That the light from the
stars,[57]
or the moon,[58]
or flames from an oven,[59]
or a wick lamp or gasera[60]
can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize
another, this Court has had occasions to appreciate. There was thus no
possibility for both witnesses to be mistaken in identifying their
father's
assailant, especially considering that they have known appellant, their
neighbor, for a long time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There being no indication
that Felipe and Benjamin were actuated by any improper motive to
falsely
testify against appellant, their relationship with the victim
notwithstanding,
there is no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimonies.
Relationship
could in fact even strengthen the witnesses' credibility, it being
unnatural
for aggrieved relatives to falsely accuse someone other than the actual
culprit, for their natural interest in securing the conviction of the
guilty
would deter them from implicating any other.[61]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That appellant's hands
were found positive for gunpowder nitrates corroborates the evidence of
his guilt.[62]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
then 10-year old Felipe's inconsistent testimony on where appellant was
at the time of the incident, that could reasonably be attributed to his
tender age and his failure to understand the questions of defense
counsel.[63]
For to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would naturally be
gripped
with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before
a court, ample margin of error and understanding must be accorded.[64]
In any event, upon clarification by the trial court, it was
sufficiently
established that Felipe saw appellant and Robles outside of his house.[65]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While, admittedly, there
were contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies in
open
court and their sworn statements, discrepancies do not necessarily
impair
their credibility, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost
always
incomplete and often inaccurate[66]
for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer[67]
or due to partial suggestions,[68]
and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given
in open court.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Sinumpaang Salaysay
or a sworn statement is merely a short narrative subscribed to by the
complainant
in question and answer form. Thus, it is only to be expected that it is
not as exhaustive as one's testimony in open court. The contradictions,
if any, may be explained by the fact that an affidavit can not possibly
disclose the details in their entirety, and may inaccurately describe,
without deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. Being
taken ex parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete and often
inaccurate,
sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from the want of
suggestions
and inquiries. It has thus been held that affidavits are generally
subordinated
in importance to open court declarations because the former are often
executed
when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford
her a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has
transpired.
Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the
declarant
has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering
officer
and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her.[69]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the other alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they
refer
to minor and collateral matters, not to an essential element of the
crime,[70]
and do not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that
is,
the killing of the victim. Moreover, minor contradictions among several
witnesses of a particular incident and aspect thereof which do not
relate
to the gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of
their
differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related
factors.[71]
In fact, they bolster rather than weaken their credibility as they
erase
any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed.[72]
What is important is that both Felipe and Benjamin were consistent in
positively
identifying appellant as the person who shot their
father. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's alibi thus
fails vis-a-vis the positive and categorical assertion of the
prosecution
witnesses.[73]
Such defense is worthless, considered with suspicion and always
received
with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but
also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.[74]
Being negative in nature and self-serving, it cannot secure worthiness
more than that placed upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who
testify on clear and positive evidence.[75]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At all events, for the
defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to show that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must further
demonstrate
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
the crime at the time of the commission thereof.[76]
Appellant glaringly failed in this regard. For by his claim, he was at
the time the crime was perpetrated at his residence which was only
about
200 to 300 meters away from the locus criminis.[77]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the presence
of treachery in the killing, the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated
the same. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and
without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution,
affording
the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[78]
In the case at bar, the victim was caught defenseless when appellant,
who
was squatting beside a tree, suddenly shot him as he was on his way to
the back portion of his house to transfer a carabao. The attack being
swift
and unexpected, the victim who was unarmed could not have resisted.
Whereas,
on the other hand, appellant was not thereby exposed to any
danger. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Doubtless, appellant
is guilty of murder. The crime was committed before the effectivity of
Republic
Act
No. 7659.[79]
At the time, Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code penalized murder with reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance,
reclusion perpetua, the medium period of the penalty, was correctly
imposed
by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 64 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code.[80]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the civil aspect
of the case, the Court of Appeals correctly too increased the award of
indemnity to the heirs of the victim from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in
line
with prevailing jurisprudence, which award needs no proof other than
the
fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim
and
that the accused was responsible therefor.[81]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the award of
P11,000.00 representing "coffin and burial and actual expenses," the
same
appears to have been based on the testimonial claim of the victim's
wife
that the family incurred funeral expenses in the amount of P20,000.00.[82]
No official receipts were, however, presented to substantiate the
claim.
Her testimony cannot thus be considered as competent proof and cannot
replace
the probative value of official receipts to justify the award of actual
damages, for jurisprudence instructs that the same must be duly
substantiated
by receipts.[83]
Moreover, Article 2199 of the Civil
Code explicitly requires that, except as provided by law or
stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. In other words, only
substantiated
and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely
incurred
in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be
recognized
in court.[84]
Nonetheless, where
no sufficient proof of actual damages is presented in the trial court
(or
when the actual damages proven is less than P25,000.00), this Court
generally
awards the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[85]
it being reasonable to presume that when death occurs, the family of
the
victim necessarily incurs expenses for the wake and funeral.[86]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
however, the victim's wife testified, as earlier noted, that the amount
of P20,000.00 was incurred for funeral expenses. This Court thus awards
temperate damages in the said amount.[87]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 2206 of
the Civil
Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of
earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the
purpose. By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the
victim
was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that
in
the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2)
employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage
under
current labor laws.[88]
In the case at bar, however, while the victim's wife testified that the
victim earned P200.00 every market day[89]
as well as 120 sacks a year from cultivating a 2-hectare piece of land,[90]
she did not indicate the number of market days in a year nor identify
the
crops which her husband harvested or give the value thereof.
Indemnification
for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages
which
must be duly proven[91]
by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[92]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, in accordance
with Article 2230 of the Civil
Code, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present,
exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be awarded.[93]
It is on account of the award of exemplary damages that the award of
award
attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 is affirmed.[94]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals, finding appellant BERNARDO SARA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED. The civil aspect of the case is
MODIFIED to read as follows: Appellant is hereby ORDERED to pay the
heirs
of Paterno Morcillo the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for
his
death, P20,000.00 as temperate damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages,
and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Corona, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 1, 5 and 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 18; TSN, April 20, 1989 at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 4 and 7; TSN, April 20, 1989 at 2, 6, and 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 7; TSN, April 20, 1989 at 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exhibit "A," Records at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Exhibit "D," Records at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, June 8, 1990 at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Records at 166–171.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[28]
Id. at 171.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
CA Rollo at 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 86–93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 97–99.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Rollo at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Exhibit "1-B," Records at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Exhibit "1-C," Records at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 20–21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Exhibit "B," Records at 13.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[43]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 20–21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 12–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
TSN, April 20, 1989 at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
People v. Vacal, 27 SCRA 24, 28 (1969).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
People v. Pueblas, 127 SCRA 746, 754 (1984).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
People v. Dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359, 376–377 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
People v. Aboga, 147 SCRA 404, 412 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
People v. Ave, G.R. Nos. 137274-75, October 18, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
People v. Paracale, G.R No. 141800, December 9, 2002; People v.
Manijas,
G.R. No. 148699, November 15, 2002; Maandal v. People, 360 SCRA 209,
228
(2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
People v. Lawa, G.R. Nos. 126147 & 143925-26, January 28, 2003;
People
v. De la Cruz, 276 SCRA 352, 357 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
TSN, February 8, 1989 at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[66]
People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 133237, July 11, 2003; People v. Montemayor,
G.R. No. 125305, June 18, 2003; People v. Pagalasan, G.R. Nos. 131926
&
138991, June 18, 2003; People v. Corial, G.R. No. 143125, June 10,
2003;
People v. Avergonzado, G.R. No. 127152, February 12, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
People v. Balleno, G.R. No. 149075, August 7, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
People v. Cueto, G.R. No. 147764, January 16, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 145505, March 14, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
People v. Cañete, G.R. No. 138366, September 11, 2003; People v.
Melendres, Jr., G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003; People v. Appegu, 379
SCRA 703, 711 (2002); People v. Parba, 364 SCRA 488, 497 (2001); People
v. Monieva, 333 SCRA 244, 252 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[71]
People v. Castillano, Sr., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
People v. Melendres, Jr., supra; People v. Bustamante, G.R. Nos.
140724-26,
February 12, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[73]
People v. Liwanag, 363 SCRA 62, 83 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[74]
People v. Castillo, 273 SCRA 22, 32–33 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[75]
People v. Alib, 322 SCRA 93, 100 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[76]
People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 133267, August 8, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[77]
TSN, June 8, 1990 at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[78]
People v. Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003; People v.
Caballero,
G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April 2, 2003; People v. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121,
March 6, 2003.
[79]
Republic Act No. 7659 was approved on December 13, 1993, whereas the
crime
was committed on November 2, 1987. With the enactment of Republic Act
No.
7659, the penalty for murder was amended from reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death to reclusion perpetua to death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[80]
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
periods.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods,
whether
it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties,
each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of
articles
76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty
the following rules, according to whether there are or are no
mitigating
or aggravating circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1.
When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they
shall
impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[81]
People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 128378, April 30, 2003; People v. Astudillo,
G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003; People v. Aliben, G.R. No. 140404,
February
27, 2003; People v. Acosta, Sr., G.R. No. 140402, January 28, 2003;
People
v. Diaz, G.R. No. 133737, January 13, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[83]
Hugo v. Court of Appeals and People, G.R No. 126752, September 6, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[84]
People v. Bonifacio, 376 SCRA 134, 142 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[85]
People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 136299, August 29, 2003; People v.
Villanueva,
G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003; People v. Lee, G.R. No. 116326, April
30, 2003; People v. Astudillo, supra; People v. Sube, G.R. No. 146034,
April 9, 2003; People v. Buayaban, G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003;
People
v. Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003; People v. Manguera, G.R. No.
139906, March 5, 2003; People v. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February
7,
2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[86]
People v. Caritativo, supra; People v. Buayaban, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[87]
Vide People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 131915, September 3, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[88]
People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003; People v. Caraig,
G.R.
Nos. 116224-27, March 28, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[89]
TSN, September 13, 1989 at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[90]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[91]
People v. Panabang, 373 SCRA 560, 575 (2002); People v. De Vera, 312
SCRA
640, 670 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[92]
Chan v. Maceda, Jr., G.R. No. 142591, April 30, 2003; Citytrust Banking
Corporation v. Villanueva, 361 SCRA 446, 456 (2001); Manufacturers
Building,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 354 SCRA 521, 532-533 (2001); Development
Bank
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 14, 29-30 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[93]
People v. Montemayor, G.R. Nos. 124474 & 139972-78, January 28,
2003;
People v. Hamton, G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003; People v.
Catubig,
363 SCRA 621, 635 (2001).
[94]
CIVIL CODE, art. 2208 (1); People v. Langit, 337 SCRA 323, 346 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |
