Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: en Banc
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: en Banc
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: en Banc
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
This resolves the appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
January 30, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03252. The CA af rmed the judgments of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon, nding accused-appellant
Ireneo Jugueta y Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Double Murder in Criminal
Case No. 7698-G and Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, appellant was charged with Double Murder, de ned
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, allegedly committed as
follows:
That on or about the 6th day of June 2002, at about 9:00 o'clock in the
evening, at Barangay Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with a caliber .22 rearm, with intent to kill,
quali ed by treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with said rearm Mary
Grace Divina, a minor, 13 years old, who suffered the following:
"Gunshot wound —
Point of Entry — lower abdomen, right, 2 cm. from the
midline and 6 cm. from the level of the umbilicus, directed upward
toward the left upper abdomen."
and Claudine Divina, a minor, 3 1/2 years of age, who suffered the following:
"Gunshot wound —
Point of Entry — 9th ICS along the mid-axillary line, right, 1
cm. diameter SDHTEC
SO ORDERED. 11
On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment in Criminal
Case No. 7702-G, reads:
WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the Court nds accused
Ireneo Jugueta guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Multiple Attempted Murder
de ned and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised
Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS
and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as maximum for each of the offended
parties; Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina.
Further, accused is ordered to pay for the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED. 12
Aggrieved by the trial court's judgments, appellant appealed to the CA. On
January 30, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision af rming appellant's conviction for the
crimes charged. 13
Dissatis ed with the CA Decision, appellant elevated the case to this Court. On
July 30, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution 14 notifying the parties that they may
submit their respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties manifested that they will no
longer submit supplemental briefs since they had exhaustively discussed their
positions before the CA. 15
The main issue advanced in the Appellant's Brief deals with the inconsistencies in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Norberto's testimony, such as his failure to state from the beginning that all three
assailants had guns, and to categorically identify appellant as the one holding the gun
used to kill Norberto's children.
The appeal is unmeritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that factual ndings of the trial court, its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their
testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual ndings are to be given the
highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and re-examine evidence
that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. 16
The evidence on record fully supports the trial court's factual nding, as af rmed
by the CA, that appellant acted in concert with two other individuals, all three of them
carrying rearms and simultaneously ring at Norberto and his family, killing his two
young daughters. Norberto clearly saw all of the three assailants with their rearms as
there is illumination coming from a lamp inside their house that had been laid bare after
its walling was stripped off, to wit:
Q: When the wall of your house was stripped off by these three persons at the
same time, do you have light in your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What kind of light was there?
A: A gas lamp.
Q: Where was the gas lamp placed at that time?
A: In the middle of our house.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: when did they fire a shot?
A: On the same night, when they had stripped off the wallings.
Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
A: Only one.
Q: Do you know the sound of a gunshot? A firearm?
A: Yes, sir, it is loud? (sic)
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the first shot, was there any second shot?
A: After that, successive re shot (sic) followed and my youngest and eldest
daughters were hit.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How many of the three were holding guns at that time?
A: All of them.
Q: You mean to tell the honorable court that these three persons were having
one firearm each?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And they fired shots at the same time?
A: Yes, sir.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Q: To what direction these three persons red (sic) their rearms during that
night? AcICHD
Furthermore, the Court notes that both the trial court and the CA failed to take
into account dwelling as an ordinary, aggravating circumstance, despite the fact that
the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G contain suf cient
allegations to that effect, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 7698-G for Double Murder:
That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party who
had not given provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of
nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense. 37
Criminal Case No. 7702-G for Multiple Attempted Murder:
. . . the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, armed with short rearms of undetermined
calibres, with intent to kill, quali ed by treachery, with evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with the said rearms the house occupied
by the family of Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the commission of the
crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of
execution which would have produced it by reason of some cause or accident
other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused . . . 38
In People v. Agcanas , 39 the Court stressed that "[i]t has been held in a long line
of cases that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the law
accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong
is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." Dwelling aggravates a felony where
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has
not given provocation therefor. 40 The testimony of Norberto established the fact that
the group of appellant violated the victims' home by destroying the same and attacking
his entire family therein, without provocation on the part of the latter. Hence, the trial
court should have appreciated dwelling as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
In view of the attendant ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court must
modify the penalties imposed on appellant. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death, thus, with an ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable
penalty is death for each of two (2) counts of murder. 41 However, pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be
imposed on appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the two (2) counts of
murder without eligibility for parole. With regard to the four (4) counts of attempted
murder, the penalty prescribed for each count is prision mayor. With one ordinary
aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be from ten
(10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, while the minimum
shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, in any of
its periods, or anywhere from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. This Court
nds it apt to impose on appellant the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted
murder.
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to address the matter in
detail as regards criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death. Generally, in these types of criminal cases, there are three kinds of damages
awarded by the Court; namely: civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. Likewise,
actual damages may be awarded or temperate damages in some instances.
First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for
the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart
from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory
damages in civil law. 42 This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which states,
"Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."
It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a ne; hence, it
can be increased by the Court when appropriate. 43 Article 2206 of the Civil Code
provides:
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or
quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have
been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid
to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
account of permanent physical disability not caused by the
defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not
an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person
causing the death, for a period not exceeding ve years, the exact
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
duration to be fixed by the court; ASEcHI
The reason is fairly obvious as to why the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 57
requires aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to be stated in the
complaint or information. It is in order not to trample on the constitutional right of an
accused to be informed of the nature of the alleged offense that he or she has
committed. A criminal complaint or information should basically contain the elements
of the crime, as well as its qualifying and ordinary aggravating circumstances, for the
court to effectively determine the proper penalty it should impose. This, however, is not
similar in the recovery of civil liability. In the civil aspect, the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, even if not alleged in the information but proven during trial would entitle
the victim to an award of exemplary damages.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
only due to the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when
exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the
very basis of the award. Thus, in People v. Matrimonio, 58 the Court imposed exemplary
damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior
from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal , 59 the Court
awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption, perversity and
wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman. In People
v. Cañada , 60 People v. Neverio 61 and People v. Layco, Sr. , 62 the Court awarded
exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse
and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
Existing jurisprudence pegs the award of exemplary damages at P30,000.00, 63
despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The Court nds it proper to increase
the amount to P50,000.00 in order to deter similar conduct.
If, however, the penalty for the crime committed is death, which cannot be
imposed because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346, prevailing jurisprudence 64 sets
the amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Before awarding any of the above mentioned damages, the Court, however, must
rst consider the penalty imposed by law. Under RA 7659 or An Act to Impose the
Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes, certain crimes under the RPC and special penal laws
were amended to impose the death penalty under certain circumstances. 65 Under the
same law, the following crimes are punishable by reclusion perpetua: piracy in general,
66 mutiny on the high seas, 67 and simple rape. 68 For the following crimes, RA 7659 has
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: qualified piracy; 69 quali ed bribery
under certain circumstances; 70 parricide; 71 murder; 72 infanticide, except when
committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor or
either of the maternal grandparents for the same purpose; 73 kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under certain circumstances; 74 robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons under certain circumstances; 75 destructive arson, except when
death results as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under
the article; 76 attempted or frustrated rape, when a homicide is committed by reason or
on occasion thereof; plunder; 77 and carnapping, when the driver or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof. 78 Finally, RA 7659 imposes the death penalty
on the following crimes:
(a) In quali ed bribery, when it is the public of cer who asks or demands the
gift or present.
b) In kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (i) when the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person; (ii) when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; (iii)
when the victim is raped, subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
(c) In destructive arson, when as a consequence of the commission of any of
the acts penalized under Article 320, death results.
(d) In rape: (i) when by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim becomes
insane or homicide is committed; (ii) when committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: (1) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
af nity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim; (2) when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities; (3)
when the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or
other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity; (4) when the victim is a
religious or a child below seven years old; (5) when the offender knows that he is
af icted with Acquired Immune De ciency Syndrome (AIDS) disease; (6) when
committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement agency; and (7) when by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.
From these heinous crimes, where the imposable penalties consist of two (2)
indivisible penalties or single indivisible penalty, all of them must be taken in relation to
Article 63 of the RPC, which provides:
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases
in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the deed. CHTAIc
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. when in the commission of the deed there is present only one
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.
4. when both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one
another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the
result of such compensation. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 63)
Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible
penalties, the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death, the court can impose either reclusion perpetua or death,
depending on the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present.
But with the enactment of RA 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. It provides
that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. 79
As a result, the death penalty can no longer be imposed. Instead, they have to
impose reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of
damages, following the ruling in People v. Salome 80 and People v. Quiachon , 81 is "the
penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not
the public penalty actually imposed on the offender." 82
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of
the death penalty were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
People v. Victor , 83 that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when
punishable by death should be P75,000.00. We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a
reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the nancial
uctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the
incidence of heinous crimes against chastity." 84 Such reasoning also applies to all
heinous crimes found in RA 7659. The amount was later increased to P100,000.00. 85
In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v.
Arizapa, 86 P50,000.00 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading or
proving them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant
with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award
of moral damages. 87 Subsequently, the amount was increased to P75,000.00 in
People v. Soriano 88 and P100,000.00 in People v. Gambao. 89
Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed because
of RA 9346, the imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those
found in RA 7569, must be used as the basis for awarding damages and not the actual
penalty imposed.
Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view of the attendance
of an ordinary aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the death
penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence 90
pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,0000.00 n as moral
damages. For the qualifying aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating
circumstances present, the amount of P100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages
aside from civil indemnity and moral damages. Regardless of the attendance of
qualifying aggravating circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be xed at
P100,000.00. "[T]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the
penal law and the nancial uctuation over time, but also an expression of the
displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes . . . ." 91
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of
reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court
rules that the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the number of
qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
When it comes to compound and complex crimes, although the single act done
by the offender caused several crimes, the fact that those were the result of a single
design, the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages will depend on the penalty
and the number of victims. For each of the victims, the heirs should be properly
compensated. If it is multiple murder without any ordinary aggravating circumstance
but merely a qualifying aggravating circumstance, but the penalty imposed is death
because of Art. 48 of the RPC wherein the maximum penalty shall be imposed, 92 then,
for every victim who dies, the heirs shall be indemni ed with P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In case of a special complex crime, which is different from a complex crime
under Article 48 of the RPC, the following doctrines are noteworthy:
I n People of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog , 93 this Court ruled that
special complex crime, or more properly, a composite crime, has its own
de nition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Justice
Regalado, in his Separate Opinion in the case of People v. Barros , 94 explained
that composite crimes are "neither of the same legal basis as nor subject to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
rules on complex crimes in Article 48 [of the Revised Penal Code], since they do
not consist of a single act giving rise to two or more grave or less grave felonies
[compound crimes] nor do they involve an offense being a necessary means to
commit another [complex crime proper]. However, just like the regular complex
crimes and the present case of aggravated illegal possession of rearms, only a
single penalty is imposed for each of such composite crimes although
composed of two or more offenses." 95 EATCcI
In other crimes that resulted in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of
divisible penalties, like homicide, death under tumultuous affray, reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim shall be
P50,000.00 and P50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary damages being
awarded. However, an award of P50,000.00 exemplary damages in a crime of homicide
shall be added if there is an aggravating circumstance present that has been proven but
not alleged in the information.
Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards temperate damages in
certain cases. The award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder
cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the
trial court. 104 Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be
recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss
although the exact amount was not proved. 105 In this case, the Court now increases
the amount to be awarded as temperate damages to P50,000.00.
In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders
committed were further made atrocious by the fact of that the victims are innocent,
defenseless minors — one is a mere 3 1/2-year-old toddler, and the other a 13-year-old
girl. The increase in the amount of awards for damages is be tting to show not only the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Court's, but all of society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives.
In summary:
I. For those crimes 106 like, Murder, 107 Parricide, 108 Serious Intentional
Mutilation, 109 Infanticide, 110 and other crimes involving death of a victim where the
penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
ii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-
mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity — P25,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P25,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages — P25,000.00
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
c. Exemplary damages 111 — P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely
attempted: 112
a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00 IAETDc
Lastly, this Court echoes the concern of the trial court regarding the dismissal of
the charges against Gilberto Estores and Roger San Miguel who had been identi ed by
Norberto Divina as the companions of appellant on the night the shooting occurred.
Norberto had been very straightforward and unwavering in his identi cation of Estores
and San Miguel as the two other people who red the gunshots at his family. More
signi cantly, as noted by the prosecutor, the testimonies of Estores and San Miguel,
who insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to con ict with the sworn
statement of Danilo Fajarillo, which was the basis for the Provincial Prosecutor's ruling
that he nds no probable cause against the two. Danilo Fajarillo's sworn statement said
that on June 6, 2002, he saw appellant with a certain "Hapon" and Gilbert Estores at the
crime scene, but it was only appellant who was carrying a rearm and the two other
people with him had no participation in the shooting incident. Said circumstances
bolster the credibility of Norberto Divina's testimony that Estores and San Miguel may
have been involved in the killing of his two young daughters.
After all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to
double jeopardy because the same only attaches if the following requisites are present:
(1) a rst jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the rst jeopardy has been
validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the rst. In
turn, a rst jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent
court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent. 133 In this case, the case against Estores and
San Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can be no double
jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by reinvestigating the real participation,
if any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of Mary Grace and Claudine Divina.
WHEREFORE , the instant appeal is DISMISSED . The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 30, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03252 is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, the Court nds accused-appellant Ireneo
Jugueta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of murder
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
de ned under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, and hereby sentences him to suffer two (2) terms of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under R.A. 9346. He is ORDERED to
PAY the heirs of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina the following amounts for each
of the two victims: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral
damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate
damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, the Court nds accused-appellant Ireneo
Jugueta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of
attempted murder de ned and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of
the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as maximum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted murder. He is
ORDERED to PAY moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, civil indemnity of
P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 to each of the four victims, namely,
Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. cHECAS
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora T. Lantion, with Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-21.
2. Record, Vol. 1, pp. 2-3.
3. Record, Vol. II., p. 2.
22. 468 Phil. 816, 840 (2004), citing People v. Bustamante ; 445 Phil. 345, 363-364 (2003);
People v. Magno, 379 Phil. 531, 554 (2000).
23. 607 Phil. 480, 505 (2009).
24. "Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon."
41. Revised Penal Code, Art. 63, par. (1), provides, in part, that when the penalty consists of
two (2) indivisible penalties and is attended by one or more aggravating
circumstances, the greater penalty shall be applied, and in this case, the death
penalty shall be imposed.
42. People v. Combate , 653 Phil. 487, 504 (2010), citing People v. Victor , 354 Phil. 195, 209
(1998).
43. Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014, 724 SCRA 1, 57.
44. Id. at 58-59.
45. G.R. No. 104576, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA 348, 356-357.
46. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brother and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
47. Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if
the court should nd that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due.
The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
48. Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court , No. L-66274, September 30, 1984, 132
SCRA 441, 446.
53. People v. Dalisay , 620 Phil. 831, 844 (2009), citing People v. Catubig , 416 Phil. 102, 119
(2001), citing American Cent. Corp. v. Stevens Van Lines, Inc. , 103 Mich App 507, 303
NW2d 234; Morris v. Duncan , 126 Ga 467, 54 SE 1045; Faircloth v. Greiner , 174 Ga
app 845, 332 SE 2d 905; §731, 22 Am Jur 2d, p. 784; American Surety Co. v. Gold ,
375 F 2d 523, 20 ALR 3d 335; Erwin v. Michigan, 188 Ark 658, 67 SW 2d 592.
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances . If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated
in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms suf cient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
58. G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 613, 634.
59. 322 Phil. 551 (1996).
66. Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. — The
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be in icted upon any person who, on the high
seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of
its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said
vessel, its equipment or passengers. The same penalty shall be in icted in case of
mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
67. Id.
68. Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves or;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
70. Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. — If any public of cer is entrusted with law enforcement and
he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. .
..
71. 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.
72. Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
73. Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in
Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three
days of age.
74. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
75. Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties. — Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person shall suffer:
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where
people usually gather or congregate for a de nite purpose such as, but not limited to,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
of cial governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade,
workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a de nite purpose such
as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops
or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are
persons in said building or edi ce at the time it is set on re and regardless also of
whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or
conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which
are devoted to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying
evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of
law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who
shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or reworks factory,
ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of in ammable or explosive
materials.
92. ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
100. People v. Macabales , supra, at 1236-1237, citing People v. Vivas , G.R. No. 100914, May
6, 1994, 232 SCRA 238, 242.
101. Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. — Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been in icted; Provided, however, that when
the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (As
amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any
of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next
preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the
robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission
of the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have in icted
upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries
covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. (As amended by R.A. 18)
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases. (As amended by R.A. 18).
102. People v. De Leon, supra note 96; People v. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181 (2010).
103. Revised Penal Code, Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of
robbery.
104. People v. Tagudar , 600 Phil. 565, 590 (2009), citing People v. Dacillo , 471 Phil. 497, 510
(2004).
105. Id., citing People v. Surongon, 554 Phil. 448, 458 (2007).
106. Article 255, RTC.
120. Id.
121. P.D. 532.
122. Art. 123, RPC.
127. If the crime of infanticide in Art. 255 of the RPC was committed by the mother of the
child or by the maternal grandparent/s in order to conceal her dishonor, the penalties
against them are divisible, i.e., prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods,
and reclusion temporal, respectively.
132. See Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr. , G.R. No. 189871, August 13,
2013, 703 SCRA 439, 459.
133. Quiambao v. People, G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 345, 356-357.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.